Cybergoth Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Hi there! Now, remember that a trademark is not the same as a copyright. The copyright for the gameplay (the art) of LadyBug has either passed into public domain or is being quietly and perhaps unknowingly owned by someone out there. If the trademark (the logo and identifying fonts) is indeed up for grabs, that doesn't necessarily mean that the game is. Of course, I'm no lawyer, but as far as my understanding goes you can only copyright Sourcecode and maybe Artwork but not Gameplay. (Not sure about music) Since the VCS can't fully reproduce the Artwork and since it is written from scratch, I don't think it is really violating those copyrights. A bit borderline maybe, but consider all C&D incidents that have happened so far, they were all about companies defending their trademarks, not copyright infringement. Greetings, Manuel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Student Driver Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Of course, I'm no lawyer, but as far as my understanding goes you can only copyright Sourcecode and maybe Artwork but not Gameplay. (Not sure about music) Since the VCS can't fully reproduce the Artwork and since it is written from scratch, I don't think it is really violating those copyrights. A bit borderline maybe, but consider all C&D incidents that have happened so far, they were all about companies defending their trademarks, not copyright infringement. Greetings, Manuel 1007131[/snapback] I think the main thing NovaXpress was saying was that the "art" for Lady Bug is copyrighted still (even though we don't know who owns them currently). I took that to mean that the art that's being used on the mock labels could be problem; as you pointed out, the name's free to use, and look-and-feel gameplay's pretty safe... but using side-cabinet/flyer art for a sommercial AA release might be problematic. It's a shame, since all of the mock labels so far look good. I really liked the red-label Atari one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cybergoth Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Hi there! Well, in the case of Lady Bug, there's a German saying we have that may (or may not, as I'm relying on Babelfish ) translate to: "where's no plaintiff, there's no accused" Greetings, Manuel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Random Terrain Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I like Vic George's label a lot. Nice work.1006936[/snapback] I hope it's not used though. Lady Bug is a cute little red Lady Bug, not a stripper with wings: http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?letter=L&game_id=8374 If this game is sold in cartridge form, there is a good chance that I will buy it. If you can get me to buy something, you know most everyone else will. They better make a ton of cartridges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vdub_bobby Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Hi there! Well, in the case of Lady Bug, there's a German saying we have that may (or may not, as I'm relying on Babelfish ) translate to: "where's no plaintiff, there's no accused" Greetings, Manuel 1007190[/snapback] What's the original German saying? /curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cybergoth Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Well, in the case of Lady Bug, there's a German saying we have that may (or may not, as I'm relying on Babelfish ) translate to: "where's no plaintiff, there's no accused" What's the original German saying? /curious There's a few variants , the one I tried translating was "Wo kein Kläger da kein Angeklagter" But it seems this variant is actually used a lot more often: "Wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter" Basically it says without someone being there to sue you, nothing will happen Greetings, Manuel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vdub_bobby Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Well, in the case of Lady Bug, there's a German saying we have that may (or may not, as I'm relying on Babelfish ) translate to: "where's no plaintiff, there's no accused" What's the original German saying? /curious There's a few variants , the one I tried translating was "Wo kein Kläger da kein Angeklagter" But it seems this variant is actually used a lot more often: "Wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter" Basically it says without someone being there to sue you, nothing will happen 1007271[/snapback] Your original translation, though a little clunky, was clear and understandable. I was just curious. And thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaXpress Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Lady Bug is a cute little red Lady Bug, not a stripper with wings: http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?letter=L&game_id=8374 1007231[/snapback] Look again. LadyBug Bevel Image Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Random Terrain Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Lady Bug is a cute little red Lady Bug, not a stripper with wings: http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?letter=L&game_id=8374 1007231[/snapback] Look again. LadyBug Bevel Image 1007390[/snapback] Nooooooooo! I don't remember that being on there. I want my quarters back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaXpress Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I think the main thing NovaXpress was saying was that the "art" for Lady Bug is copyrighted still (even though we don't know who owns them currently). I took that to mean that the art that's being used on the mock labels could be problem; as you pointed out, the name's free to use, and look-and-feel gameplay's pretty safe... but using side-cabinet/flyer art for a sommercial AA release might be problematic. It's a shame, since all of the mock labels so far look good. I really liked the red-label Atari one. I'm thinking more like this: by using these apparently defunct trademarks it becomes impossible to deny that you are indeed attempting to profit off of the Ladybug copyrights. It doesn't matter that the 2600 can't reproduce the same graphics, what matters is that the attempt is made. If a game features a ladybug that eats dots in a maze with revolving doors plus letters and skulls then that game is indeed "borrowing" the copyrights of Ladybug. There is no possible way to deny the intent. Change it to an amoeba eating numbers and sushi and it would be all good. In a nutshell: the graphics and cabinet art of Ladybug is a copyright (art) the use of said graphics as an identifier for one certain game is a trademark (business) For you retro programmers, forget about trademarks. You're dealing with copyright issues here. By the way, your original games are copyrighted even if you never register for a trademark. Two entirely separate issues that are always confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cybergoth Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Hi there! For you retro programmers, forget about trademarks. You're dealing with copyright issues here. Atari didn't ask to remove their pterry sprite from JoustPong or to change the gamplay to some different gameplay mechanic distinguishing it from Pong, but they where on Kirks tail for using Pong to sell a videogame. Greetings, Manuel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaXpress Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Pong is a trademark, so that makes sense. Remove that word and you're just left with a really good game. When it comes to copyrights, we're talking about the body of the work. Does the violating work attempt to mimic the original to such an extent that it fools people into believing that it is a substitute for the original? KC Munchkin lost the case because too many of the Pac-Man elelments were copied. The judge felt that KC Munchkin was actively attempting to take money that would otherwise have been spent on Pac-Man. Universal's Ladybug was in the clear because it was so obviously different from Pac-Man that no reasonable person could confuse the two. Joust Pong: the game itself was not easily confused with existing copyrights. The only problem was the trademarked name. Now let's say you make a home version of Liberator and call it Planet Blast. Now you're not violating any trademarks but you would be violating Atari's copyright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vdub_bobby Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 The judge felt that KC Munchkin was actively attempting to take money that would otherwise have been spent on Pac-Man. I'm guessing that you just worded this awkwardly, perhaps, but every business in the world is trying to take money that would otherwise be spent on something else. And is the KC Munchkin case the precedent anymore? I mean, Alien (2600) is far closer to Pac-Man, in game mechanics, than KC Munchkin. Of course, that is somewhat subjective, but still. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaXpress Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 (edited) Yes, quite awkwardly. Let me try again. Let's say you want to purchase Pac-Man. If you buy UFO instead, well that was a simple consumer decision. But the judge ruled that KC was so similar to Pac-Man that it was attempting to defraud the consumer. It was ruled that Magnavox was trying to trick consumers into believing that their game was in fact the equivalent to Pac-Man. Thefore Magnavox was essentially stealing money from Atari. Atari never sued over Alien and would have lost anyway. There is no copyright on the dot-eating mechanic. The player and enemies in Alien look significantly different from Pac-Man. Instead of a power pellet you get a flamethrower. Plus Alien has a second level. No reasonable consumer would have confused the two. KC had it's own flair, but it was too similar to Pac-Man in too many ways. Edited January 26, 2006 by NovaXpress Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cybergoth Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Hi there! Now let's say you make a home version of Liberator and call it Planet Blast. Now you're not violating any trademarks but you would be violating Atari's copyright. See, and here we finally have it why I think Trademarks mean a lot more to companies than you think. Copyrights - They just have them in hands for 75 years or longer! Trademarks - You have to actively use/guard/defend them, or they're gone! That's why you will easily get away with a pixel perfect Burger-Time clone calling it "Beef Drop". Now if you sell the same game as "Burger Time" - all hell may break lose, if someone fears they may lose their products trademark! Greetings, Manuel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaXpress Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I assumed that everyone knows they can't steal a trademark. You wouldn't try to call your homebrewed beer Budweiser would you? So don't call your homebrewed game Galaxian. Copyrights will be handled differently by different owners. If I own Burger Time then I would be very much pleased by the existence of Beef Drop. It's not like I'm selling games for the Atari 800. A project like Beef Drop only promotes awareness of Burger Time, which might mean sales on modern systems or merchandising opportunities in the future. At the very least, no harm done. But I could lay the smackdown on Beef Drop if I really wanted to. So in the case of LadyBug, if the trademarks are indeed expired, then the use of them would be proof of copyright violation when combined with this particular game program. Call a new game "Ladybug" and that's okay. Release this game as "Bugmunch" and that's okay. But combining the two could make it possible for a copyright owner to raise a fit. Doesn't mean they would, just that it's possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cybergoth Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Hi there! I assumed that everyone knows they can't steal a trademark. You wouldn't try to call your homebrewed beer Budweiser would you? So don't call your homebrewed game Galaxian. You have to read more carefully, I said "You have to actively use/guard/defend them, or they're gone!" Budweiser is in use, no? Galaxian is in use, no? Look up "Beach Head". Access owned that trademark until 1991. In 2001 Infogrames registered it. Obviously they had no problems taking it over, after Access no longer actively used it for a decade. If you go and register the abandoned "Lady Bug" today, using it to bring a random video game called "Lady Bug" to the market, you probably could sue the hell out of some potential "Lady Bug" in-a-joystick producer if you wanted to, even if they officially licensed the "original" game. Greetings, Manuel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic George 2K3 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I like Vic George's label a lot. Nice work.1006936[/snapback] I hope it's not used though. Lady Bug is a cute little red Lady Bug, not a stripper with wings: http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?letter=L&game_id=8374 If this game is sold in cartridge form, there is a good chance that I will buy it. If you can get me to buy something, you know most everyone else will. They better make a ton of cartridges. 1007231[/snapback] Actually, the lady is a redrawn version of the same that appeared in the Ladybug arcade game flyer. My label design is NOT intended to be used for a submission for any contest related to the forthcoming 2600 version's release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaXpress Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 That could be true, what a court case that would make. Titles of common nouns such as ladybug or beach head lend themselves to this possibility. Could be a financial opportunity? Time to call in a copyright lawyer. Let me point out again that according to the same database, Mr. Do is expired as well. Yet we know that it's being used to this day. So we're not getting the whole story from that website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cybergoth Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Hi there! Hehe... first thing I'd check is wether "owning" a trademark costs money... I have a feeling that it does and that "cancelled" means that someone quit paying the bill Greetings, Manuel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaXpress Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Oh yes, it costs money. And yes, that's exactly what "cancelled" means. I've been dealing with these issues lately. I have a production company and we're paying a laywer to handle our trademarks (name and logo). We're not doing anything special to protect the copyrights (content of our shows) because it's so much easier to sue over. Trademark violation is more serious, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Graphics Man Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Cool, I didn't even know that Ladybug was coming out for Atari 2600 interesting; I have the Colecovision ver and I enjoy it very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandmountainslim Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Cool, I didn't even know that Ladybug was coming out for Atari 2600 interesting; I have the Colecovision ver and I enjoy it very much. 1007571[/snapback] Ladybug is indeed a cool game I believe I am looking forward to the release of Ladybug on cart more than I have looked forward to any game since Vice City (barring the eminent release of Fonz of course) . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercat Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 KC Munchkin lost the case because too many of the Pac-Man elelments were copied. The judge felt that KC Munchkin was actively attempting to take money that would otherwise have been spent on Pac-Man.1007432[/snapback] "Alien Invaders Plus!" and "Space Armada" were no less obviously trying to make money off the Space Invaders craze. I think what did KC Munchkin in, though, was the fact that--while moving--KC Munchkin has a large mouth that opens 45 degrees and closes in a manner very much like the trademarked Pac Man character. Ironically, if the sprite designs in KC Munchkin and 2600 Pac Man had been reversed, KC Munchkin might have been more likely to survive in court (since the 2600's sprite design looks less like Pac Man than does KC Munchkin). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brasky Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 It might be cool to add the dinosaur to the 2600 version. If you check out the different sprite graphics in MAME there's a dinosaur in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.