LGJ: Fan sequel? Still not legal.
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:

Lots of news has been popping up lately about fan-made sequels to some of the most beloved games of bygone days, Chrono Trigger and Star Fox being just two of the more notable examples. As most of you have likely noticed, these games follow a pretty predictable pattern: a bunch of fans put in a ton of work on a sequel to their favorite game, those fans tell other fans until that project ends up getting noticed by the blog-o-sphere, and then the lawyers of the original game maker eventually squash the project to an often loud outcry from the fan community. It's the 21st century re-telling of the fan fiction legal drama, and when it comes to copyright law, the story really hasn't changed.
This all relates back to those rights that make up copyright, which we've discussed on a number of occasions in this very column. In fact, the primary right is the control over derivative works, the very same right that is often cited in the machinima realm. In short, the holder of a copyright has the right to control works based on the work protected by copyright, such as sequels and prequels. That would seemingly address all fan sequels, correct? If the issue were that cut and dry, I likely wouldn't be taking the time to write a column on it.
No, it's never quite that simple. Not only are there other potential legal implications, but there have been some longstanding arguments in favor of fan fiction from a legal standpoint. Let's start with other potential issues beyond the copyright issue. In many instances, a fan work may also infringe on the trademark rights of the original work.
So what are some of the arguments from the other side? Well, ignoring the completely non-legal arguments (I'm not making money; I help you attract more fans; etc.), there is really only one and that's fan fiction constitutes a fair use. What is a fair use? It's a list of certain circumstances where it's alright to reproduce part of a copyrighted work without permission. The list, generally, includes "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research," but has also been imputed to include parody and possibly satire. So if you're doing one of those things with the work, then you're essentially safe (though fair use is a defense, and you would still have to go to trial to assert the defense). When the court is considering fair use, there are four factors:
Stepping further into the possible questions, it's been pointed out more frequently that activities like cosplay and fan art could face the same legal issues. Again, it faces the same factors as the above, and would vary on a case by case basis. Of course, you have to remember that something being inspired by a game doesn't automatically mean that selling it would be infringement. For example, I can't imagine that the contents of i am 8-bit would be viewed as infringement, nor could I imagine a pair of prints I own (landscapes inspired by Halo maps) would be.
Of course, if you have permission from the rights holder, then none of these concerns matter, which brings me to an interesting point. Microsoft's content usage rules, in theory, apply to all of this. In fact, many different companies have some sort of policy on fan work, and to the extent those rules are followed, then the fans can feel free to produce whatever they wish within those confines. And many copyright holders have been receptive to allowing certain kinds of fan content, and that's ultimately their decision.
As a final point, I've seen many comments suggesting that Nintendo, Square and others adopt the fan work and sell it as their own. While I can certainly appreciate the hunger for additional content and understand people not wanting to see work go to waste, I also have a pretty good working idea of what exactly prevents this very thing from happening. In short, beyond the desire for creative control, it's a general fear of lawsuits. Even if you want to consider all of this non-canon entries in the series and ignore the creative control and storytelling aspects, there's a serious lawsuit risk. With all of these fan projects, there are a ton of people involved. Many of these ideas for plotlines get hatched in forums over a genesis of posts for months. Beyond the simple issue of dividing payment for the work, there's a major risk that someone will sue based on their claim to a contribution that may or may not be legitimate, and ultimately, these projects likely won't bring in enough revenue to cover the cost of acquisition, the cost of a lawsuit, and still make any money for the publisher. After all, this is still a business.
So, does this mean I think everyone should abandon all of their fan projects? No, I just think those participating need to have realistic expectations with regard to their work and be doing it for the fun of it. When it comes right down to it, no one may ever actually get to play the game before you're served with a cease and desist or a lawsuit. On the other hand, you may be able to build your entire project within the pre-defined constraints of, say, the Microsoft Content Usage Rules, and allow others to enjoy your work. Ultimately, if you want to produce something for profit, you're going to have to create your own universe or work with someone who has. But in terms of simply honing your skills as a designer or programmer, working on a fan project is as valid as any other exercise, just not entirely legal.
Mark Methenitis is the Editor in Chief of the Law of the Game blog, which discusses legal issues in video games. Mr. Methenitis is also a licensed attorney in the state of Texas with Munck Carter, LLP, and a member of the Texas Bar Assoc., American Bar Assoc., and the International Game Developers Assoc., where he is a board member of the Dallas chapter. Opinions expressed in this column are his own. Reach him at: lawofthegame [AAT] gmail [DAWT] com.
The content of this blog article is not legal advice. It only constitutes commentary on legal issues, and is for educational and informational purposes only. Reading this blog, replying to its posts, or any other interaction on this site does not create an attorney-client privilege between you and the author. The opinions expressed on this site are not the opinions of AOL LLC., Weblogs, Inc., Joystiq.com, or Munck Carter, LLP. As with any legal issue that may confront you in a particular situation, you should always consult a qualified attorney familiar with the laws in your state.

Lots of news has been popping up lately about fan-made sequels to some of the most beloved games of bygone days, Chrono Trigger and Star Fox being just two of the more notable examples. As most of you have likely noticed, these games follow a pretty predictable pattern: a bunch of fans put in a ton of work on a sequel to their favorite game, those fans tell other fans until that project ends up getting noticed by the blog-o-sphere, and then the lawyers of the original game maker eventually squash the project to an often loud outcry from the fan community. It's the 21st century re-telling of the fan fiction legal drama, and when it comes to copyright law, the story really hasn't changed.
This all relates back to those rights that make up copyright, which we've discussed on a number of occasions in this very column. In fact, the primary right is the control over derivative works, the very same right that is often cited in the machinima realm. In short, the holder of a copyright has the right to control works based on the work protected by copyright, such as sequels and prequels. That would seemingly address all fan sequels, correct? If the issue were that cut and dry, I likely wouldn't be taking the time to write a column on it.
No, it's never quite that simple. Not only are there other potential legal implications, but there have been some longstanding arguments in favor of fan fiction from a legal standpoint. Let's start with other potential issues beyond the copyright issue. In many instances, a fan work may also infringe on the trademark rights of the original work.
So what are some of the arguments from the other side? Well, ignoring the completely non-legal arguments (I'm not making money; I help you attract more fans; etc.), there is really only one and that's fan fiction constitutes a fair use. What is a fair use? It's a list of certain circumstances where it's alright to reproduce part of a copyrighted work without permission. The list, generally, includes "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research," but has also been imputed to include parody and possibly satire. So if you're doing one of those things with the work, then you're essentially safe (though fair use is a defense, and you would still have to go to trial to assert the defense). When the court is considering fair use, there are four factors:
- The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
- The nature of the copyrighted work
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
- The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
Stepping further into the possible questions, it's been pointed out more frequently that activities like cosplay and fan art could face the same legal issues. Again, it faces the same factors as the above, and would vary on a case by case basis. Of course, you have to remember that something being inspired by a game doesn't automatically mean that selling it would be infringement. For example, I can't imagine that the contents of i am 8-bit would be viewed as infringement, nor could I imagine a pair of prints I own (landscapes inspired by Halo maps) would be.
Of course, if you have permission from the rights holder, then none of these concerns matter, which brings me to an interesting point. Microsoft's content usage rules, in theory, apply to all of this. In fact, many different companies have some sort of policy on fan work, and to the extent those rules are followed, then the fans can feel free to produce whatever they wish within those confines. And many copyright holders have been receptive to allowing certain kinds of fan content, and that's ultimately their decision.
As a final point, I've seen many comments suggesting that Nintendo, Square and others adopt the fan work and sell it as their own. While I can certainly appreciate the hunger for additional content and understand people not wanting to see work go to waste, I also have a pretty good working idea of what exactly prevents this very thing from happening. In short, beyond the desire for creative control, it's a general fear of lawsuits. Even if you want to consider all of this non-canon entries in the series and ignore the creative control and storytelling aspects, there's a serious lawsuit risk. With all of these fan projects, there are a ton of people involved. Many of these ideas for plotlines get hatched in forums over a genesis of posts for months. Beyond the simple issue of dividing payment for the work, there's a major risk that someone will sue based on their claim to a contribution that may or may not be legitimate, and ultimately, these projects likely won't bring in enough revenue to cover the cost of acquisition, the cost of a lawsuit, and still make any money for the publisher. After all, this is still a business.
So, does this mean I think everyone should abandon all of their fan projects? No, I just think those participating need to have realistic expectations with regard to their work and be doing it for the fun of it. When it comes right down to it, no one may ever actually get to play the game before you're served with a cease and desist or a lawsuit. On the other hand, you may be able to build your entire project within the pre-defined constraints of, say, the Microsoft Content Usage Rules, and allow others to enjoy your work. Ultimately, if you want to produce something for profit, you're going to have to create your own universe or work with someone who has. But in terms of simply honing your skills as a designer or programmer, working on a fan project is as valid as any other exercise, just not entirely legal.
[Image Credit: Shadows of Lylat Team]
Mark Methenitis is the Editor in Chief of the Law of the Game blog, which discusses legal issues in video games. Mr. Methenitis is also a licensed attorney in the state of Texas with Munck Carter, LLP, and a member of the Texas Bar Assoc., American Bar Assoc., and the International Game Developers Assoc., where he is a board member of the Dallas chapter. Opinions expressed in this column are his own. Reach him at: lawofthegame [AAT] gmail [DAWT] com.
The content of this blog article is not legal advice. It only constitutes commentary on legal issues, and is for educational and informational purposes only. Reading this blog, replying to its posts, or any other interaction on this site does not create an attorney-client privilege between you and the author. The opinions expressed on this site are not the opinions of AOL LLC., Weblogs, Inc., Joystiq.com, or Munck Carter, LLP. As with any legal issue that may confront you in a particular situation, you should always consult a qualified attorney familiar with the laws in your state.





Get a WordPress.com Blog





Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Dark Yoshi @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:09AM
SOL will not get a C&D. Stop arguing that it will, Nintendo doesn't care about fangames.
nutman @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:11AM
We'll see.
Nytemare @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:13AM
"Nintendo doesn't care about fangames."
IIRC, Nintendo sent a cease and desist letter to makers of some fangame...
Dark Yoshi @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:14AM
No, we don't need to see. Because sites like http://mfgg.net/ and http://metroidr.brpxqzme.net/ exist and Nintendo is fully aware of their existence, and have been for years.
Kelenae @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:15AM
Its very, very, very likely, It'll happen. You are kidding yourself that Nintendo wont do anything.
The Aquacharger @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:22AM
You know companies are legally forced to sue and send C&D when their copyright materials are being infringed upon. Why do you think Lucas sues so many people? He's actually legally forced too. If he doesn't he'll lose the right to whatever is being infringed upon.
vidGuy @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:27AM
@The Aquacharger,
You are thinking of trademarks. Copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years (in most circumstances), whether the rightsholder sues or not. A trademark holder, on the other hand, risks having his mark go generic (think kleenex or xerox) or get diluted if he doesn't sue.
Manly Mcbeefington (Mr. ESC) @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:29AM
Well they didn't take down the sites hosting the English translation of Mother 3.The Rom is Ilegal but the patch is Okay.
Honestly Nintendo why the fuck can0' we have Mother 3 or RE:0 Wii? What the frak?
Izeas GT @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:29AM
No he won't.
And the question stands -- how is this different from a fan fiction continuation of a novel or novel series?
The Aquacharger @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:34AM
@Vidguy
Sorry, the two can be easily mixxed up. My bad.
vidGuy @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:36AM
Just trying to help ;)
DeepFriedSushi @ Jul 22nd 2009 3:55AM
if they simply change up the ship/character models it would be legal?
CH3BURASHKA @ Jul 22nd 2009 1:09PM
Why are you so sure? Do you have some inside intel or what???
Gold @ Jul 22nd 2009 1:27PM
While it isn't directly from Nintendo of America,
Dylan Cuthbert, who LEGALLY worked on several Star Fox Games (Including Star Fox: Command) was asked about Shadows of Lylat and has responded with this:
"Well, as long as they don’t try to make money from it, it is “fan-art” and ok as far as I’m aware.
I think I saw a video of this on youtube a while back and it looked interesting in a hard core kind of way, but I haven’t seen any recent revisions.
Interesting comment? Hmm.. Best of luck to them - I know personally how tough it is to make a Star Fox game (having made 3 of them), and it’s not as easy as it looks."
(Source: http://www.4colorrebellion.com/archives/2007/01/10/dylan-cuthbert-on-shadows-of-lylat/)
The Dark Wayne @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:15AM
I just need Left 4 Winchester and the KOTOR 2 revival project to come out. Nothing else matters
Hodder @ Jul 22nd 2009 2:08AM
Left 4 Winchester will probably happen Valve has never had a problem with a fan mod.
ChanceC (XBL: NoPantsChance) @ Jul 22nd 2009 1:34AM
Though Shadows of Lylat looks badass,
Left 4 Winchester will be the uhh... "mod" of the year.
+1
The Dark Wayne @ Jul 22nd 2009 3:35AM
it's not valve thats the problem its the studio that distributed and produced shaun of the dead
The Dark Wayne @ Jul 22nd 2009 3:44AM
valve isnt the problem its shaun of the deads production studio that'll stop it
StarFoxA @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:20AM
I think Square shutting down a freaking ROM HACK is a little ridiculous, but I can completely understand them wanting to stop ambitious complete 3D remakes of stuff like Chrono Trigger.
Or Is It Robert Loggia? @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:29AM
Chrono Resurrection looked like a treat Too bad, eh?
Ryoga Vee @ Jul 22nd 2009 1:59AM
Just wait till Square kills "Dead Fantasy"
Kattleox @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:22AM
this reminds me of Kings Quest Nine. Fans around the world banded together to make a conclusive Kings Quest title (something the mediocre KqVIII wasnt) and were quickly shot down by Vivendi. Now they are making a game similar to and based on the events of KQ but they arent allowed to actually use the property. Too bad LucasArts cant get any competition these days, unless you call Leisure Suit Larry "competition". He's far from competitive anymore.
vidGuy @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:25AM
While I find it incredibly unlikely that a fan sequel could ever constitute a fair use - even though it does add to the "useful Arts" as copyright desires, it completely free rides on the developer's potential market for a sequel - I do find it interesting that a parody work stands a better chance at the claim.
See Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 252 F.3d 1165 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suntrust_v._Houghton_Mifflin) and Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.)
The whole realm of parody is an interesting one in US copyright law. Whereas you normally cannot appropriate the expressive content of a copyrighted work (characters, scenes, etc), a parodist is allowed to copy what is necessary to conjure up the original work in the audiences' mind. So while you couldn't write a new book about Harry Potter (an infringement on the rightsholder's derivative works right), you could, in certain circumstances, write a book about Barry Clotter, the teen wizard who goes to a school named Pigfarts, yadda yadda.
Wiizer (Fix the Comment System) @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:42AM
So, essentially, all avatars and works that everyone uses in said avatars can be 'restricted'?
It seems that you can't police everyone if this is the law... So, are we getting around copyright laws in the sense that everyone is 'speeding on the highway' and we all can't be told to slow down?
vidGuy @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:53AM
In many respects, yes. Obviously the rightsholder is going to chose his battles carefully, not only to control legal costs but also to prevent alienating his consumers. While an avatar is a technical infringement of copyright law (a copy "capable of being perceived in a tangible form"), it is a small one that does no real monetary damage - unless they want to argue that, for example, Nintendo should be selling Mario avatars, which would likely be a claim in that kind of suit.
That's one of the problems with fan works. The author/developer/publisher hates to go after the people who do these things because they are the most die-hard fans, the ones that make them money. But some things are just to be to let go. Read up on the recent Harry Potter Lexicon legal troubles to see a good example of this dilemma.
evan @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:54AM
Wouldn't there be some instances where, as parody, you could actually write a book about Harry Potter? I mean, if SNL decides to do an Harry Potter sketch, they're just as likely to call the character Harry Potter as to make up a similar name. And that would be pretty obviously parody.
vidGuy @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:54AM
"just *too big* to let go"
vidGuy @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:57AM
@evan, you're right. You don't need to change names for a parody. In that Suntrust case I linked, the defendant pretty much copied the entire set of characters, scenes, and plot from "Gone With the Wind," but did so in such a parodic way as to constitute fair use. Also note that the defendant made money off her parody book; a commercial use does not automatically prevent a claim of fair use, though it does weaken it.
NickName @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:42AM
"So, does this mean I think everyone should abandon all of their fan projects? No, I just think those participating need to have realistic expectations with regard to their work and be doing it for the fun of it." - Mark Methenitis
I think that most succinctly describes the work ethic that folks involved in fan-based projects should take. I think the Mother3 fan translation team probably serves as the best example; they worked on the project for the love of the series, but were always willing to drop it at any sign of an official translation coming down the pipeline.
Working hard on a project and then bickering about it when a cease and desist comes your way seems unproductive and foolish unless you first attempt to change the laws that make such things inevitable. Unless you seek to stop the tide, don't go about making your sand castles by the rising waters.
Fo0dNippl3 @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:46AM
Even though it would be hard to keep a secret, I think everyone working on fan projects like this should keep it hidden until the day of release. That way, even if you are serves a C&D, it'll already be out in the world for everyone to enjoy!
sam @ Jul 22nd 2009 9:25AM
This. Well, you can't keep it entirely secret otherwise how would you get contributors - but seriously, this is the internet, why are people being stopped by C&Ds? Answer: Because they used real or identifiable names, ran their own domains, etc...
If you're doing something like a fan-game which is illegal and takes a lot of effort over a long period of time, you absolutely need to organise like a hacking/cracking/etc crew and not pretend like you're all totally above board. that means identities are kept secret with only handles used, information about the project is placed on other people's websites and not on anything associated with anyone to do with the project, etc. It's not rocket science.
sam @ Jul 22nd 2009 9:29AM
Oh, another tip - separate the 'fangame' nature from the development. For instance, build the game so that the illegal bit (any stolen graphics, any text including character names etc) lives in a separate layer. Then the illegal part is a much smaller deal, easier to manage, and can be released independently without association with the public project. So you have a massive and publicly visible effort on 'Fan Game 37' with the characters 'Bob' and 'Mary' both of whom are different-coloured Pac-man sprites, but when installing the special illegal layer, the names and graphics are changed and suddenly it's Final Fantasy 15 or whatever.
Help me! @ Jul 28th 2009 1:12PM
I think you've been watching too much of "The Wire"
Bradwart @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:52AM
I'm glad Pier Solar is exempt from these things, as it's an original work. TSLRP is also important to me...IF its ever released.
Premature ejaculation man @ Jul 22nd 2009 12:55AM
Halogen would have been the best Generals mod. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooo
Lion.P @ Jul 22nd 2009 1:05AM
I don't understand why Nintendo would ever release a C&D on something like SoL or even mario kart source. They would be pushing away their core fans without any positive effect.
If the big N eventually made a good star fox wii game, we would still buy it regardless of having SoL right? I don't see any loss of profits because of these fan projects.
Roto13 @ Jul 22nd 2009 1:18AM
There have been a LOT of Nintendo fangames. I don't remember ever hearing of them issuing a C&D for any of them.
Square Enix, on the other hand....
PyrosNine @ Jul 22nd 2009 1:49AM
I always hope they'll take this game they've spent their time working on for months and years before a C & D, and just remake it into something original. They built the engine, drew the graphics, made music, a graphical overhaul and a few tweaks and it's an original game.
The CT fan game could have been the most awesome fan-made rpg ever.
Doctor John Smith @ Jul 22nd 2009 2:15AM
What I don't understand is why the people who make these awesome fan-games don't just make them spiritual successors instead of actual sequels.
If SoL had the gameplay of Star Fox, with an art style, characters, and plot that all also evoked Star Fox, without actually using anything copyrighted, we would all essentially be getting an awesome Star Fox game without any legal issues.
LeChuck @ Jul 22nd 2009 2:29AM
Agreed. It's essentially what they've done with Shadow Complex.
vidGuy @ Jul 22nd 2009 10:18AM
Exactly. What you describe is known as the idea-expression distinction in US copyright law. Essentially, copyright does not protect the /idea/ of a work (animals piloting space fighters), only the expressive content (names, recognizable sprites, etc). So if a fan-sequel was carefully designed, it would be completely legal.
D @ Jul 23rd 2009 10:14AM
where do re-creations fall into this? whether it is full-on, to-the-t remake or a fan made update. a perfect example is Goldeneye Source www.goldeneyesource.net.
Wyatt! @ Jul 22nd 2009 2:48AM
And I suppose I'll make the obligatory post pointing out that Japan is way ahead of us in this regard. On one hand it's a legal gray area where they could, in theory, go after these authors, but choose to sort of look the other way while dispatching agents to study the trends of what is and isn't popular. But the benefits of the current landscape of what can be produced as 同人 (fanmade) works has given rise to a thriving community and allows artists, musicians, and programmers budding and professional alike, an outlet to stretch their wings and refine themselves. Many comic artists in recent years have gotten their start selling fan-comics at the Summer and Winter Comic Market, a huge event held at Tokyo Big Sight that draws in excess of half a million people.
There's also a really neat collaboration concept of "circles," loose groups of individuals that collaborate with one another under the same banner. It's similar in some ways to a company, but is largely absent of the stigma attached to working for a couple different companies in the same field at the same time. It's a much better environment if you look at it from the standpoint of how enabled the people are to collaborative creativity.
It would be pretty awesome if we could get similar movements going in places that aren't an archipelago nation.
The Dark Wayne @ Jul 22nd 2009 3:45AM
wtf @archipelago part
Dark Yoshi @ Jul 22nd 2009 4:03AM
I lol'd hard at people downrating my comment because they don't know what they're talking about.
Ryan LN @ Jul 22nd 2009 1:28PM
They failed to realize that the Dark Yoshi is a member of the board of directors of a multibillion dollar, multinational company with fingers in so many pies that it had to borrow fingers from India and China. They didn't understand that the Dark Yoshi has an intimate understanding of the vagaries of copyright enforcement, corporate entropy and legal obligations to shareholders. Clearly they are mistaken when they believe that there comes a tipping point where an infringement is so large or egregious that a company HAS to do something. Knowing all of that, I "lol'd" too. At you.
Dark Yoshi @ Jul 22nd 2009 5:06PM
The difference is you're the one who has no idea what he's talking about.
DrunkenPandaren @ Jul 22nd 2009 4:16AM
More importantly, does this apply to Beyond the Red Line?
rowie @ Jul 22nd 2009 9:23AM
"But more importantly, these fan sequels can hurt the market for the developer's sequel, or even hurt the original game if the quality is poor or the substance is horribly offensive to the majority of the fanbase."
What bullshit. The people that download these fan made games know it fan made, and as a result will judge the people that made it. If anything it could help the franchise, by keeping it in the minds of gamer.