Kickass Star Fox fangame: Lessee how long it takes before a C&D(/nerdrage)!

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Krylo

Hey, Blues? Do you like music?

Like any music at all that has been produced since 1969?

Maybe you should check this out. If modern copyright laws had been in place then, or if the owners of this six second drum beat had decided to enforce their copyright most of that music wouldn't exist.

EVERYTHING is a derivative work, and copyright laws do not HELP creativity. They stifle it, choke it to death, beat it into the ground, then gussy up the corpse in cheap make-up and put it out on the corner.

I can agree with this in that it's a very distinctive beat that's been used everywhere. On the other hand, there's a difference between taking a small portion of something, an IDEA, and making something different from it, like an entirely new song, compared to taking the entire song, adding different lyrics, and then complaining when you get sued. The IDEA these fans are taking is making a space fighter. However, they're also taking the name, designs, and assumedly the characters. That's where a matter of degree deprives them the right of doing it if the company protests. That's what copyright law is meant to protect, is that matter of degree. Yes, it stifles creativity in that if you take too much, you end up in hot water, but that's less creativity and more just copying, or at best, remixing. On the other hand, REAL creativity is coming up with a product that's maybe made of a few borrowed ideas, but is differentiated from the sources of those ideas by the execution and differences.

You... you are going to school for computers, right? You... do know this isn't how it works?

This is more like someone taking a picture of a painting on your wall, bringing the picture home, and then using that picture as inspiration to make their own painting. Which, well, any sane person would have no problem with.

Okay, so yeah, you're right. Theft is not a good comparison in this case since they're building from the ground up, rather than modding, but I disagree in the "inspiration" front. To change the comparison, it's less of stealing the painting and more of copying it, only with the added stipulation that the painting is already famous in this case. There's a difference between saying, "WOW! I'm so inspired by this to make my own product!" and "WOW! I'mma copy this!" If they were inspired to make their own product, they'd make their own product. They're not making their own product, though. They're copying one that they like directly. If they were making their own product, they'd be releasing an original IP that contains everything they loved about Starfox, rather than making a "Starfox" game. The worst slap in the face is that the indication is that they're doing it better than the company that owns it, which is like making a copy of a painting and improving parts you don't like, then taking the painting to the original artist and saying, "Hey, didn't like your work well enough, so I copied it and made it better before handing out prints. You may now thank me."

I frankly DO have some idea how this works, because I, myself, am in the market of making games. If I were to actually manage to release any of them, I can honestly say I'd be royally pissed if some idiots had the gall to not be satisfied with me making more to their standards and then steal all of my characters for their own purposes. Maybe a bit flattered that people cared enough for the work of a small-time schmuck like me to want more, but still pissed that they felt they deserved it regardless of my wishes or feelings, especially if I found out about it in the news, rather than them having the decency to at least ask.

Originally Posted by Wyndon

This is so ironic. All of it.

I'm so for these guys doing whatever they want (so long as they don't make money off of it). I feel like if they do most of the legwork, and come up with some cool new ideas, Nintendo might just take up a half-started Starfox project, finish it with their professional team, and then pay these guys some royalties for starting it/coming up with the ideas (assuming there's going to be some innovation).

It's what Valve did for portal - they bought it off a bunch of college game developers.

Anyway, what's with all the ill-intentions here? I mean, I read the Video Games threads here, and a lot of people bitch about what they don't like in the games that are being put out. So these guys went ahead and fixed what they didn't like - you don't have to buy in to the idea. But you can be sure that many other people will buy into it because they want innovation on an old idea.

You have to remember, though, that Nintendo has a VERY different business model. Frankly, pretty much everyone one does. Valve is like this crazy, wonderful lone island full of young guys just insane enough to do everything absolutely right.

It's also not so much that anyone hates innovation as I'm voicing my dislike for the fact that they're not innovating on their own IP. If they wanted to make an awesome game, power to them, but they could have done it without the legal issues.

Also, blues, you can't really be serious. Come on, you should know better. If they had made this game based upon original idea and plot and characters, no one would give it a second glance. Not even you. This thread probably wouldn't even exist. The fact that it's Starfox is what's giving it whatever publicity it's been getting. That's what the developers want - they probably want jobs at Nintendo, and this seems like a pretty decent way to do it, if they do it well and Nintendo likes their idea.

It's not harming anyone, and if they don't profit off of it, I don't see why not. It's a free game, no? It could be good, who knows.

Okay, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Ignoring the patronizing tone, this sums it up completely. If they made their own awesome game, maybe it wouldn't draw as much public attention, but it also wouldn't draw any LEGAL attention. Nintendo is not Valve. I personally would not be driven to hire people if they started messing with one of my titles, but that's mostly because I'm the lead designer, writer, programmer, and producer of all my own work at the moment. It's my personal stuff, and if I ever manage to get into the games industry (which I probably won't since my education is more business-oriented), I'll probably have more time to be flattered at that kind of thing, rather than upset, just by merit of having a stable position and knowing my work has made many people happy. Nintendo takes a position more matching my current stance. They dislike people messing with their stuff. This is unlikely to get people hired and the project picked up so much as it is to get the thing C&Ded. If it were Valve, it would be different. Heck, even Microsoft, because for all its flaws, Microsoft has the good trait of hiring people who do good work.

No, it's not directly harming anyone, since Nintendo has been leaving the series lie for a while, so loss of sales are going to be minimal. On the other hand, that STILL doesn't give these people the rights to the property, and Nintendo has every right to ask them to stop, C&D them, and/or sue them all into oblivion at their option, without warning, for making a game under the Starfox title. That's the issue here. Fuck if a guy like me is going to say people shouldn't be able to make a game. I'm just saying that I find it hard to sympathize with people who get their game C&Ded by the company they're using the IP of, when it all could be easily avoided by simply calling it something else.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

I can agree with this in that it's a very distinctive beat that's been used everywhere. On the other hand, there's a difference between taking a small portion of something, an IDEA, and making something different from it, like an entirely new song, compared to taking the entire song, adding different lyrics, and then complaining when you get sued. The IDEA these fans are taking is making a space fighter. However, they're also taking the name, designs, and assumedly the characters. That's where a matter of degree deprives them the right of doing it if the company protests. That's what copyright law is meant to protect, is that matter of degree. Yes, it stifles creativity in that if you take too much, you end up in hot water, but that's less creativity and more just copying, or at best, remixing. On the other hand, REAL creativity is coming up with a product that's maybe made of a few borrowed ideas, but is differentiated from the sources of those ideas by the execution and differences.

Do both of us a favor and look up copyright law changes since 1966.

That little tiny bit? That was copyrighted, AFTER the original song came out, by multiple companies and sold for use in remixing.

To change the comparison, it's less of stealing the painting and more of copying it, only with the added stipulation that the painting is already famous in this case. There's a difference between saying, "WOW! I'm so inspired by this to make my own product!" and "WOW! I'mma copy this!" If they were inspired to make their own product, they'd make their own product. They're not making their own product, though. They're copying one that they like directly. If they were making their own product, they'd be releasing an original IP that contains everything they loved about Starfox, rather than making a "Starfox" game. The worst slap in the face is that the indication is that they're doing it better than the company that owns it, which is like making a copy of a painting and improving parts you don't like, then taking the painting to the original artist and saying, "Hey, didn't like your work well enough, so I copied it and made it better before handing out prints. You may now thank me."

Except they didn't copy it.

Watch--Color the Arwings black, change the name to Star Weasel, and call the main character John.

Bam, copyright infringement gone.

They didn't download 64 off a cartridge put it onto a computer and say, "Hey, we made this." They built an entirely new game, that happens to have the same graphical overtones as the original Star Fox game.

But wait, no, they didn't even steal the graphics. The modeling and textures all would have to have been recreated from scratch.

All they took, the ONLY thing they took, was the setting and characters.

Again, you are going to school for programming--how much of a game is setting and characters? How much of what they did is actually completely new, compared to what is stolen. Give me a percent.

I'd be royally pissed if some idiots had the gall to not be satisfied with me making more to their standards and then steal all of my characters for their own purposes. Maybe a bit flattered that people cared enough for the work of a small-time schmuck like me to want more, but still pissed that they felt they deserved it regardless of my wishes or feelings, especially if I found out about it in the news, rather than them having the decency to at least ask.

Which is 110% of the problem with copyright law.

No one cares if you're pissed. You being pissed has absolutely no effect on the consumer. The consumer is not hurt if you are pissed. The consumer does not feel better if you are not pissed.

You know what is good for the consumer? Choices.

Choices are good for the consumer.

Back in the day in about 1965, copyright law was there for the consumer. It was meant to be JUST strong enough that people would want to continue to produce new things. That's it.

Now it's morphed into this gargantuan monster that no longer protects the consumer or the arts by producing diversity.

The only thing it protects are the feelings of company executives and programmers.

God forbid they be 'pissed'.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Can you explain more the law changes in 1966? I remember I read something on copyright laws once but I can't remember any of it and I'm interested but not really know anything about it.

[Krylo]

Basically in 1966 Walt Disney died, and Disney spearheaded a legal machine that removed many, if not all, of the protections for the arts so that they could hold onto Mickey Mouse instead of letting it fall into common use after the death of its creator. This has snowballed since then, as more companies follow on Disney's footsteps to increase their ability to copyright more things for longer.

This has, naturally, lead to a stifling of creativity as nothing falls into common use, anymore, and thus can no longer be used to create derivative works.

[CelesJessa]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Okay, so yeah, you're right. Theft is not a good comparison in this case since they're building from the ground up, rather than modding, but I disagree in the "inspiration" front. To change the comparison, it's less of stealing the painting and more of copying it, only with the added stipulation that the painting is already famous in this case. There's a difference between saying, "WOW! I'm so inspired by this to make my own product!" and "WOW! I'mma copy this!"

Yeah, thank god art classes in no way shape or form ever base projects around "replicate this famous art as closely as possible down to the most minute brush stroke". Oh wait...

I personally think more power to the people who want to make fan games and fan fiction and fan art and whatever else. I'm moreso into fan-art, and I have seen some absolutely stunning work done by fans, and I imagine it's not much different for the other kinds of fanworks. Yeah, they COULD use their energies/talents/whatnot toward something completely original, but that might not be the story they want to tell. Sometimes it's fun to play in the world someone else has already made. If people solely made everything out of their own original ideas and such, and we didn't have fan-made works at all anymore, we'd lose so much great stuff.

But this is coming from someone who doesn't really care that much about protecting my own intellectual property. I draw every day at school, knowing that everything I produce using their facilities belongs to them, and if they so desire, they can do whatever the hell with it they want to, and I'm not a fancy artist or anything, but I've had my art copied, altered, or just found it reproduced elsewhere without my permission. I don't get mad, I'm honored that someone thought it was good enough that they would want to use it in whatever way they did. Especially if they're not making money off of it.

But that's just me.

In summary: I say go for it fans!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Krylo

Basically in 1966 Walt Disney died, and Disney spearheaded a legal machine that removed many, if not all, of the protections for the arts so that they could hold onto Mickey Mouse instead of letting it fall into common use after the death of its creator. This has snowballed since then, as more companies follow on Disney's footsteps to increase their ability to copyright more things for longer.

This has, naturally, lead to a stifling of creativity as nothing falls into common use, anymore, and thus can no longer be used to create derivative works.

Ah yes, that sounds familiar. Thanks.

[Jagos]

Blues, no disrespect but dojinshi of Japan falls into far greater ranges than porn and hentai.

It thrives because companies can't lock up their copyright on anything close to what is a unique character into a different situation. You put your blood, sweat, and tears into a work. But seriously, how many people do you think are going to "rip you off?" How many would appreciate your works and endorse it? There's a risk involved.

Yes, Square looks bad when they destroy a fan work with a C&D. Maybe they could be like Valve and allow a work to continue and MAKE it better rather than fall by the wayside and be gutted. If a company wants a monopoly for a certain period of time, that would be great. But nothing should be for infinity +1 years (which is US copyright right now)

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Krylo

Do both of us a favor and look up copyright law changes since 1966.

That little tiny bit? That was copyrighted, AFTER the original song came out, by multiple companies and sold for use in remixing.

I was unaware of this, but then, to answer your question, no, I'm not into music per se. There are a few things that suit my eclectic tastes, but I simply don't follow the industry. I must comment that that situation is incredibly unfortunate.

Except they didn't copy it.

Watch--Color the Arwings black, change the name to Star Weasel, and call the main character John.

Bam, copyright infringement gone.

I realize you're trying to make a point with this, but it honestly strikes me as being the smarter idea in this situation.

They didn't download 64 off a cartridge put it onto a computer and say, "Hey, we made this." They built an entirely new game, that happens to have the same graphical overtones as the original Star Fox game.

But wait, no, they didn't even steal the graphics. The modeling and textures all would have to have been recreated from scratch.

All they took, the ONLY thing they took, was the setting and characters.

Again, you are going to school for programming--how much of a game is setting and characters? How much of what they did is actually completely new, compared to what is stolen. Give me a percent.

Okay, I have to say this. No, they didn't steal the resources. They DID steal all the designs for use in re-creating them.

Now, as I said, my education is more business-oriented, but in my own efforts, I'm just going to have to ask what you mean by "how much." In terms of importance, genre is a factor. In terms of time spent designing, it's more uniform. So to break it down, based entirely on my own work:

In terms of planning time (excluding implementation):
Systems (based on having a good initial idea): 45%. This is the meat of the game and requires the most thought.
Character and Object Visuals: 20%. It probably takes a lot more when you have a committee, but I'm a very visual person and the refining of the designs takes a lot of time depending on your level of detail.
Character Personalities: 20%. You need to have a basic idea of who these people are, but this honestly continues throughout development is it gets refined and added to.
Story Setting: 5%. It's the vaguest of these, and thus is easy to get vaguely.
World Design: 10%. All things depending, this can be easy or hard as you decide how things look. Still can be pretty generic.

Now, looking at what they have, they're trying to emulate a game through a pre-made engine, meaning the systems are already done for them. The character and object visuals are also already designed for them, as are the character personalities, and setting and world design (which boil down to "in space").

In terms of implementation, just a guess from using Blender, but they don't exactly have what looks like high-poly models so I'll take a shot in the dark for:
Systems (based on having a good initial idea): 40%. Again, this is the meat of the game and requires the most thought.
Character and Object Visuals: 30%. You need to make the meshes, do the skins, and add armature, and create animations for EVERY object. This can take a lot of time.
Character Personalities: 10%. You can get away with a lot here, honestly, given that most of the gameplay hours of an average run will be system-based hours with little writing.
Story Setting: 0%. It's a writing thing, handled elsewhere.
World Design: 20%. You've got your objects. Now you have to plunk them all down and make them all fit and work. This can also be time-consuming.


In terms of planning versus implementation, planning continues throughout the entire project and can comprise 50% or more of a business application, or less, depending, but it's still a very large chunk.

Which is 110% of the problem with copyright law.

No one cares if you're pissed. You being pissed has absolutely no effect on the consumer. The consumer is not hurt if you are pissed. The consumer does not feel better if you are not pissed.

You know what is good for the consumer? Choices.

Choices are good for the consumer.

Back in the day in about 1965, copyright law was there for the consumer. It was meant to be JUST strong enough that people would want to continue to produce new things. That's it.

Now it's morphed into this gargantuan monster that no longer protects the consumer or the arts by producing diversity.

The only thing it protects are the feelings of company executives and programmers.

God forbid they be 'pissed'.

Choices ARE good for the consumer, but in the event that loss of sales due to competition hurts a company to the point they can't justify producing more, that's one less option, isn't it? Corporations are out to make money, and games are INCREDIBLY expensive and time-consuming. You can make much more money off a small indie title than a main-line title because of differing expectations of quality. Now, I'm not saying there's a chance in Hell of this happening, but economics says there will be loss of profits wherever there's competition. Companies want to minimize this. In the highly unlikely event that a fan work severely damages the profits of a title due to competition, it's no good to the company to try to stop it after the damage is done.

See, this is 110% a problem with the legal system as a whole, that to be fair, things need to be handled in fairly black and white terms for equality under the law. I'm not saying that I begrudge these people making a game. Far from it. I'm just saying it's stupid to be infringing on an IP when that legal system is in place and that I fail to sympathize when these things are ended by the IP owners, because it's the owners' legal right to protect their property. If it were as simple as saying, "Oh, this one sucks. Ruling to the plaintiff," or "Hey, this one is okay and the IP owners are coming out with a new one. Ruling to the prosecution," that would be different. But in a legal system based on precedent, you need to SET that precedent and keep it. In terms of IP law, this means protecting IPs to avoid damage to them, regardless of how silly it might seem.

If you would recall the case of Polar Cola once. Polar was a small cola company that used polar bears as its mascots. When Coke came out with their first polar bear commercial, Polar Cola did nothing about it. When Polar came out with THEIR next commercial, Coke sued them for IP infringement and won. Polar was then forever after deprived of their own mascots, for which their very company was named.

If you don't protect your IP, you can lose it, or take damage, or whatever. That's why companies guard it so fiercely, because after the damage is done, it might not be reversible.



I'm not saying treating a fan game like a real threat is a serious consideration in most cases, but it sets precedent for when a real issue DOES come along.











Edit: You know, I know all the problems with the law right now. I'm not saying I totally agree with them. Mickey Mouse Clauses really do hurt things in the long run, but even THAT is justified because the company is still using him. See, I have no problem with old stuff going into the public forum, but that's what abandonware is. Games that have been officially abandoned or which have no one left to speak for them. And that's legal. On the other hand, you have oldwarez, which are games which are simply old, but are still owned by the same company, which has every right to protect them. If Nintendo went out of business, I'd say power to these people for using stuff that nobody else is using or owns specifically, but that's simply not the case. Nintendo is still in business and it's their property to do with as they wish. Once they die off, people can divvy up their stuff all they want.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

I realize you're trying to make a point with this, but it honestly strikes me as being the smarter idea in this situation.

Me too.

I actually said they should have done that in my first post.

The point here, though, is that they have a 99% original game. All they have to do is change some names and colors, maybe knock some pieces from some models, and it would be legally considered 100% copyright free.

Choices ARE good for the consumer, but in the event that loss of sales due to competition hurts a company to the point they can't justify producing more, that's one less option, isn't it? Corporations are out to make money, and games are INCREDIBLY expensive and time-consuming. You can make much more money off a small indie title than a main-line title because of differing expectations of quality. Now, I'm not saying there's a chance in Hell of this happening, but economics says there will be loss of profits wherever there's competition. Companies want to minimize this. In the highly unlikely event that a fan work severely damages the profits of a title due to competition, it's no good to the company to try to stop it after the damage is done.

See, here's the the thing.

If somehow a fan made game manages to successfully compete with a game made by a corporation on a monetary level to the point of severely damaging their profits?

Well then the fan-made game was, ostensibly, better. If a fan-made game is better than what the multi-billion dollar corporation can produce, then the consumers have BENEFITED by having that game made. They have, further, not benefited by the continued attempts at said corporation to make games which are of such a low quality that a bunch of kids with too much time can do better.

Your argument here really boils down to the reason these games should be legally protected--there's a chance of a damn fine piece of work being created, and just because they're borrowing a setting that shouldn't invalidate it. Crushing a game that could be good enough to reasonably compete with mainstream titles is BAD for the consumers.

If you would recall the case of Polar Cola once. Polar was a small cola company that used polar bears as its mascots. When Coke came out with their first polar bear commercial, Polar Cola did nothing about it. When Polar came out with THEIR next commercial, Coke sued them for IP infringement and won. Polar was then forever after deprived of their own mascots, for which their very company was named.

I'm honestly too lazy to look this up, though I'm about 90% sure there's more to this story, as there is always more to these stories, BUT even taken at face value, what you fail to realize here is that if these ridiculous copyright laws were not in existence, then there would have been no problem with both companies using polar bears, and Polar Cola would still be around.

Mickey Mouse Clauses really do hurt things in the long run, but even THAT is justified because the company is still using him.

To sell other shit.

And, if it was in the public forum, Disney could still use him. It's just that other people could, too. There's nothing wrong with more than one person benefiting from art.

But then, on the other hand, maybe if they COULDN'T keep using Mickey Mouse, they'd come up with something new.

That's part of the reason shit is supposed to fall into public forum, too.

See, I have no problem with old stuff going into the public forum, but that's what abandonware is. Games that have been officially abandoned or which have no one left to speak for them. And that's legal.

Except nothing becomes Abandonware anymore, until the company that originally created it goes under, because, until that time, holding onto a copyright is trivial. Even if your company is around for thousands of years.

[Kerensky287]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

If you would recall the case of Polar Cola once. Polar was a small cola company that used polar bears as its mascots. When Coke came out with their first polar bear commercial, Polar Cola did nothing about it. When Polar came out with THEIR next commercial, Coke sued them for IP infringement and won. Polar was then forever after deprived of their own mascots, for which their very company was named.

If you don't protect your IP, you can lose it, or take damage, or whatever. That's why companies guard it so fiercely, because after the damage is done, it might not be reversible.

You seem to be implying that Nintendo or Nintendo's profits would be in some way in danger as a result of the production of this fangame. This FREE fangame.

In the case of Coke and Polar Cola, they were companies competing for revenue, which would explain why this (underhanded bastard of a) maneuver would happen in the first place. However, when a group of fans makes a game based on a company's IP, there is NO reason whatsoever for the game to be shut down unless the fans involved are trying to make money off it... from a moneymaking perspective, at least.

If you bring up the "hard work stolen" part, then that's also moot in this case. The game is designed to be a TRIBUTE to Star Fox, and the people making the game are creating all of their own graphics that are simply based on existing visual designs. I'm the lead coder for a huge RA3 mod, and I know that if I saw someone taking some of my units and passing them off as theirs, I'd be really pissed. But if someone took the look and feel of the units, made their own versions and then said they were based on ours on top of that, I'd be flattered. Why? Because in that case, it's a tribute. Someone cares enough about what we did to imitate it, and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

In the end, I honestly don't see what support there is for a company to shut down a free fangame. It doesn't harm them in any way and it hurts people who like them. It's like kicking a puppy that follows you home.