Re: The Silver Lining Cease and Desist
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:26 pm
It was in a comment AGD2 made further up.Where does iD enter into the discussion, MI? I think I missed something.
Discuss AGDI's King's Quest and Quest for Glory remakes, and other Sierra On-line games.
http://www.agdinteractive.com/forum/
It was in a comment AGD2 made further up.Where does iD enter into the discussion, MI? I think I missed something.
YAY!Brainiac wrote:Woo-hoo! Debate time!
oberonqa wrote:I'll close with this one last thought. You cannot copyright an idea. You can only copyright an implementation. A person can copyright a schematic for a toaster. A person cannot copyright the idea for a toaster. Think on that and then apply that reasoning to indie game development and see where it leads you.
You guys have this totally backwards -- Trademarks exist only for logos, titles, product names....and a trademark only lasts for three years after it stops being used (meaning that when it was being called KQ9, the trademark had lapsed -- the reason they wanted POS to change the name was because they were re-registering the trademark to release the new collection in 2006, but there actually was not a violation.) TSL does not use the name King's Quest, except for in its disclaimer which it has to do, and has its own logo, so it is actually not in violation of the trademark. At all.Brainiac wrote: No, but you can trademark it. Using your toaster example, if I make an improved version of a Oster toaster and market it as a "sequel" to that brand's toasters, I AM IN THE WRONG. Legally speaking, no matter how cool my toaster is, no matter how much the public loves my toaster, I'm breaking the law. Now had I made this toaster, gone to Oster, presented it and asked for support, they could have granted it but insisted I not call it an Oster. That's closer to the potential relationship Bobby Kotick claimed to want at DICE. The whole idea of Intellectual Property and Artistic Rights is that the profit from ideas belongs to someone in the realm of fiction. Stories are different beasts than toasters, after all.
For some *true* hair-splitting (:P).... it's technically not a violation because TSL admits (and has a disclaimer) that they don't own anything of King's Quest.Lambonius wrote:@crayauchtin: I think you're splitting hairs here--perhaps Brainiac misspoke when he used the term trademark, but you said it yourself that TSL is violating copyright law with their use of the characters, names, world, and backstory of the King's Quest universe. I think what Brainiac is trying to say is that it is completely understandable that Activision would step up to protect their IP here, whereas many have been acting as though Activision was horribly out of line in doing so. Since when is it out of line to attempt to protect one's rights and property?
*Of course, just because Activision's actions were understandable, doesn't mean we have to like it.
Right, I know that, but what I'm saying is because the TSL related material was still a public discussion, I don't think (although I don't know for sure) that Activision can actually make that request.Lambonius wrote:Another thing to point out: Activision didn't actually ask them to shut down all the forums; they just asked all TSL related material be removed. POS chose to shut everything down because filtering out all the TSL related material while leaving everything else would have been a gargantuan and horribly tedious task.
I agree. I'm wondering if maybe the TSL group just thought it would be best to make a clean break and that's why they took it all down. Oh well.crayauchtin wrote:Right, I know that, but what I'm saying is because the TSL related material was still a public discussion, I don't think (although I don't know for sure) that Activision can actually make that request.Lambonius wrote:Another thing to point out: Activision didn't actually ask them to shut down all the forums; they just asked all TSL related material be removed. POS chose to shut everything down because filtering out all the TSL related material while leaving everything else would have been a gargantuan and horribly tedious task.
I don't think so, Neil and Cat are going through the archives (which are just hidden, not gone) to find everything that isn't TSL related. If they were just trying to make a clean break, I don't think they'd bother.Lambonius wrote:I agree. I'm wondering if maybe the TSL group just thought it would be best to make a clean break and that's why they took it all down. Oh well.crayauchtin wrote:Right, I know that, but what I'm saying is because the TSL related material was still a public discussion, I don't think (although I don't know for sure) that Activision can actually make that request.Lambonius wrote:Another thing to point out: Activision didn't actually ask them to shut down all the forums; they just asked all TSL related material be removed. POS chose to shut everything down because filtering out all the TSL related material while leaving everything else would have been a gargantuan and horribly tedious task.
I, too, would have preferred that, but I don't think that was ever really a possibility. The presence of KQ elements in TSL was so pervasive that if removed, the thing would fall to pieces. (not to mention the fact that if Activision want to be pricks, they can still demand the project to close if all KQ elements were removed)I would still like them to make a few subtle changes and release the game.
We're not telling them. They don't even know we exist. We'd like to keep it that way.rugged wrote:I would still like them to make a few subtle changes and release the game. I wonder how this may impact upon sq2 by IA?
Yeah--the whole nature of the agreement with Vivendi was that ALL elements of TSL, including any original art, music, etc., became Vivendi's property as soon as it was created. Essentially, if the team put out any bit of TSL--immediately recognizable KQ stuff or not--they would be violating the terms of the agreement and thus would be subject to legal reprisal. So it's really a moot point.Erpy wrote:I, too, would have preferred that, but I don't think that was ever really a possibility. The presence of KQ elements in TSL was so pervasive that if removed, the thing would fall to pieces. (not to mention the fact that if Activision want to be pricks, they can still demand the project to close if all KQ elements were removed)I would still like them to make a few subtle changes and release the game.
And when you think about it, SQ is on weaker legal grounds to begin with, what with the licensing necessary for the name "Space Quest" (and Roger Wilco, to a lesser extent).MusicallyInspired wrote:We're not telling them. They don't even know we exist. We'd like to keep it that way.
If that's true, that is low.DrJones wrote:I just read that the developers of Call of Duty have sued Activision-Blizzard for firing them just before the sales of the latest title, so that they don't have to pay them the royalties they deserve.
It's true. It's been a real low week for Activision. (Scroll down to "The Terrible Tales of Infinity Ward".) That doesn't even cover the fact that it was two days after the cease & desist on POS.Lady Pyro wrote:If that's true, that is low.DrJones wrote:I just read that the developers of Call of Duty have sued Activision-Blizzard for firing them just before the sales of the latest title, so that they don't have to pay them the royalties they deserve.
It's terrible when the ones you're working for screw you like that.
Erpy wrote:Josh Mandel was a rather vocal critic of some of the team's views, so his reaction may not be what you expect it to be.