law posts (Subscribe to this feed)
LGJ: Read the fine print!
by Mark Methenitis 
{ Nov 7th 2009 at 2:00AM } 
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
Well, after the incident with Courtney Love and Kurt, it looks like the whole issue of famous musicians in games is back in the press with No Doubt suing Activision over Band Hero. A one time event is an anomaly, but twice in just a few months suggests something else. Of course, both of these all tie back to the contract, and since I'm a transactional attorney who spends the majority of most days negotiating and drafting agreements like these, I'm hoping I can shed a little light on what might be causing the problems. Since I wasn't involved in these particular negotiations nor have I read these contracts, all of what I'm presenting is speculation.
But before I begin, I suppose I should answer the simple question, "What is a contract?" I assume that most people reading this have at least some idea, but just in case, it's worth describing in detail. A contract is a legally binding agreement between two parties to perform certain promises in the future. In theory, to form a contract there are five elements: Offer and acceptance, consideration, intent, capacity, and formalities. In reality, it's fairly simple. The parties must have a meeting of the minds, that is agree to the same terms, which is often viewed as an offer by one party and acceptance by the other. Each party must put up something of value, called consideration, for the contract to be valid. The parties must intend to enter into a contract, and be of the appropriate mental capacity to enter into the agreement. And then the agreement is generally recorded in writing, as most jurisdictions have rules that require written agreements, which is then signed by the parties. And that is how a contract is born, in theory anyway.
Well, after the incident with Courtney Love and Kurt, it looks like the whole issue of famous musicians in games is back in the press with No Doubt suing Activision over Band Hero. A one time event is an anomaly, but twice in just a few months suggests something else. Of course, both of these all tie back to the contract, and since I'm a transactional attorney who spends the majority of most days negotiating and drafting agreements like these, I'm hoping I can shed a little light on what might be causing the problems. Since I wasn't involved in these particular negotiations nor have I read these contracts, all of what I'm presenting is speculation.
But before I begin, I suppose I should answer the simple question, "What is a contract?" I assume that most people reading this have at least some idea, but just in case, it's worth describing in detail. A contract is a legally binding agreement between two parties to perform certain promises in the future. In theory, to form a contract there are five elements: Offer and acceptance, consideration, intent, capacity, and formalities. In reality, it's fairly simple. The parties must have a meeting of the minds, that is agree to the same terms, which is often viewed as an offer by one party and acceptance by the other. Each party must put up something of value, called consideration, for the contract to be valid. The parties must intend to enter into a contract, and be of the appropriate mental capacity to enter into the agreement. And then the agreement is generally recorded in writing, as most jurisdictions have rules that require written agreements, which is then signed by the parties. And that is how a contract is born, in theory anyway.
LGJ: 3D Dot Game Infringement
by Mark Methenitis { Oct 10th 2009 at 1:00AM }
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
If you're like me, then you've likely been following Joystiq's coverage of 3D Dot Game Heroes and thinking "I really, really hope this gets translated and released in the US." After all, if you're a gamer like me then you love the idea of a 3D homage to the 2D games you grew up with. Of course, it's less likely that you're a lawyer like me, and so it's also less likely that you read through the comments and had an immediate reaction to the countless cries of copyright infringement in the game. Those repetitive, vocal cries have brought me to this column, which aims to answer the big question: is 3D Dot Game Heroes copyright infringement?
Let me start off by saying the analysis here is just my opinion, and a court could always find otherwise. Where this discussion really needs to start is what elements seem to be infringing. Now would be a good time to view the trailer or some screenshots, if you haven't yet. The main complaints I've heard, and can see from the trailer, are the environments (both overworld and dungeon) bear a striking resemblance to the Zelda universe (The Legend of Zelda and Link to the Past, specifically), while the hero characters bear a striking resemblance to those from the Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior past. Some of the monsters also bear quite a resemblance to Zelda baddies. And, of course, the music is certainly inspired by classic Zelda music. So, case closed, right? Well, no, that's not how copyright infringement works.
Let me start off by saying the analysis here is just my opinion, and a court could always find otherwise. Where this discussion really needs to start is what elements seem to be infringing. Now would be a good time to view the trailer or some screenshots, if you haven't yet. The main complaints I've heard, and can see from the trailer, are the environments (both overworld and dungeon) bear a striking resemblance to the Zelda universe (The Legend of Zelda and Link to the Past, specifically), while the hero characters bear a striking resemblance to those from the Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior past. Some of the monsters also bear quite a resemblance to Zelda baddies. And, of course, the music is certainly inspired by classic Zelda music. So, case closed, right? Well, no, that's not how copyright infringement works.
Australian attorney general refuses to support 18+ game rating
by Griffin McElroy { Sep 30th 2009 at 4:44PM } 
Atkinson told Australian news outlet News.com.au that he's uncomfortable with the interactive nature of the medium. "People are participating and 'acting-out' violence and criminal behaviour when they are playing a video game," he explained, later adding, "it certainly does restrict choice to a small degree, but that is the price of keeping this material from children and vulnerable adults. In my view, the small sacrifice is worth it."
Rarely can governmental actions be attributed to just one person, but the OFLC's refusal to rate mature titles is a direct result of Atkinson's opposition. Remember, this is the same guy who tried to censor a public document which canvassed Australians on the issue in an attempt to better advise the nation's ratings officials. He censored the study on censorship. Consider our mind truly boggled.
[Via GamesIndustry]
LGJ: Products LiabilODST
by Mark Methenitis { Sep 29th 2009 at 11:00PM }
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
Something that comes up from time to time in the gaming world is faulty products. Or potentially faulty products. Most recently, it seems to be Halo 3: ODST at the center of the issue (which, for the record, I've had no trouble with thus far), but the issue has touched numerous games, including Guitar Hero III, and consoles. While most people might lump all this together into 'stuff that's broken,' the reality is it touches two legal topics: warranty and products liability.
To make the distinction between the two simple, a warranty makes sure you get a working product, and products liability makes the manufacturer liable for damages the product may cause because of defects. Both concepts are ones that arise from state law, and thus the exact provisions do vary among the US states, and of course they vary between countries. But there are once again some general rules that can be applied to the ideas, as well as some complexities that enter specific to the gaming world.
To make the distinction between the two simple, a warranty makes sure you get a working product, and products liability makes the manufacturer liable for damages the product may cause because of defects. Both concepts are ones that arise from state law, and thus the exact provisions do vary among the US states, and of course they vary between countries. But there are once again some general rules that can be applied to the ideas, as well as some complexities that enter specific to the gaming world.
PalTalk takes patent infringement suit on the road, sues MMO devs
by Griffin McElroy { Sep 16th 2009 at 11:00PM }
PalTalk purchased two patents from a company called HearMe in 2002 for technology which shares data between networked computers, allowing users to see the same virtual space as they interact with one another in real time. One could construe that to mean PalTalk owns the patent on online multiplayer altogether -- but we're sure Activision's beefy legal team will have a few arguments to the contrary up its sleeve.
LGJ: Come As Your Avatar, Smells Like Lawsuit? Nevermind
by Mark Methenitis { Sep 15th 2009 at 1:00AM }
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
The well publicized dispute over the use of an avatar of Kurt Cobain in Guitar Hero 5 has provided a good backdrop to discuss the 'right of publicity.' For anyone who doesn't want to take time to read the stories, here's a summary. Guitar Hero 5 includes Kurt Cobain as an unlockable playable avatar, much like previous titles in the series have done with other rock stars. Shortly after release, Courtney Love expressed her distaste at the use of Kurt, and Activision has stated Love signed an agreement allowing the use. Since then, other former Nirvana members have stated they think the avatar should be limited to performances of Nirvana songs.
Kurt's in-game likeness is governed by the part of the law called the 'right of publicity,' also called the 'right of personality' or 'personality rights.' In the US, that is unfortunately a complicated subject. Unlike other intellectual property rights, the right of publicity is governed by the states, not federal laws. So, unlike copyright or trademark, the exact rules of the right of publicity game change in every state. This, of course, makes the topic difficult to discuss and analyze, but there are some general theories about the right that can be discussed on a universal level.
Kurt's in-game likeness is governed by the part of the law called the 'right of publicity,' also called the 'right of personality' or 'personality rights.' In the US, that is unfortunately a complicated subject. Unlike other intellectual property rights, the right of publicity is governed by the states, not federal laws. So, unlike copyright or trademark, the exact rules of the right of publicity game change in every state. This, of course, makes the topic difficult to discuss and analyze, but there are some general theories about the right that can be discussed on a universal level.
LGJ: You down with FCC?
by Mark Methenitis { Sep 5th 2009 at 3:00AM }
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
With its proposal for universal ratings, the FCC is in the news again. Yet, despite its filings having become a gold mine for breaking news, from bigger Slims to the secrets of turntablism, many people are not entirely familiar with what exactly the FCC does -- beyond, of course, Family Guy's take on the organization.
The Federal Communications Commission was created by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission. The FCC was originally tasked with managing all non-governmental use of the radio waves, as well as managing the telephone infrastructure. The initial rationale for managing the airwaves was relatively straightforward: no one could own the air or frequencies, and unless there was someone managing the use of the airwaves, broadcasting would fall into chaos. (Just imagine if there was no system in place to determine and assign broadcast frequencies.)
More importantly, there was a strong hope that the telephone system would work on a national level, and so consolidating management of these two key communication forces made sense. Over time, the organizations control has extended to all uses of the wireless spectrum, as well as all interstate and international telecommunications.
The Federal Communications Commission was created by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission. The FCC was originally tasked with managing all non-governmental use of the radio waves, as well as managing the telephone infrastructure. The initial rationale for managing the airwaves was relatively straightforward: no one could own the air or frequencies, and unless there was someone managing the use of the airwaves, broadcasting would fall into chaos. (Just imagine if there was no system in place to determine and assign broadcast frequencies.)
More importantly, there was a strong hope that the telephone system would work on a national level, and so consolidating management of these two key communication forces made sense. Over time, the organizations control has extended to all uses of the wireless spectrum, as well as all interstate and international telecommunications.
Annual ESA report boasts perfect 43-0 record against gaming regulation
by Griffin McElroy { Aug 28th 2009 at 6:00PM }
That's 43 bills over the past year that hoped to restrict the sale of video games in some manner that didn't become laws due to the ESA's legal intervention. In addtion, the group has also promoted tax incentives for game developers which were approved in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Michigan and Texas (and are being considered in 17 other states). In short, if you see an ESA member today, you should probably give them a high-five.
Venezuela could completely ban the sale of violent video games
by Griffin McElroy { Aug 26th 2009 at 11:00PM }
The bill was written out of concern for the negative effect violent video games and toys are having on the nation's youth (sigh), but was also created to prevent the use of toy weapons in real crimes. We'd scoff at this, too -- but we just watched a harrowing cinematic example of this type of criminal activity. It must be stopped!
LGJ: Welcome to the Big Leagues of Deception
by Mark Methenitis { Aug 21st 2009 at 2:00AM }
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
There are, in the legal profession, certain kinds of activities that really make a statement after the fact about just how big a company is. One of those activities is using subterfuge in either getting a deal done or in filing with the government. When I say subterfuge, I don't mean with the intent to defraud anyone, but rather with the intent that things be kept a secret. Walt Disney used dozens of companies to acquire the land that would later become Disney World, and now Sony is using alternate entities to file for FCC clearances on the PS3 Slim. Of course, I'm sure many of you are wondering how all this works, and why companies go to all this trouble.
The why is a slightly simpler answer than the how. Put simply: the company doesn't want the public to know. The reasons for the why are pretty varied. In Sony's case, they were trying to preserve the surprise we've talked about in previous LGJ columns. In the Disney case, they were trying to prevent people from either buying up the land they were trying to acquire to then re-sell it to Disney at a huge markup or prevent people from prospectively buying up all the land around the development. While a theme park is an extreme example, the same could apply if, say, Microsoft, decided to build a new campus somewhere other than Redmond.
The why is a slightly simpler answer than the how. Put simply: the company doesn't want the public to know. The reasons for the why are pretty varied. In Sony's case, they were trying to preserve the surprise we've talked about in previous LGJ columns. In the Disney case, they were trying to prevent people from either buying up the land they were trying to acquire to then re-sell it to Disney at a huge markup or prevent people from prospectively buying up all the land around the development. While a theme park is an extreme example, the same could apply if, say, Microsoft, decided to build a new campus somewhere other than Redmond.
LGJ: First Sale and Digital Distribution
by Mark Methenitis { Aug 13th 2009 at 8:00PM }
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
Ever since the Glider opinion was handed down late last year, there's been a resurgence of calls for courts to uphold the first sale doctrine with regard to all software. One such suit, featured in the latest Jurimetrics, concerned ligation over consumers as "owners" versus "licensees," since different copyright rights are granted based on the particular status. The court determined that players were licensees, thus negating certain rights of owners. We've talked about first sale before in LGJ, but generally in the context of retail products. In the context of retail games, no matter where you stand on the "owner" versus "licensee" position, nothing is stopping you from reselling the copy of the game you purchased.
Digital distribution changes this dynamic dramatically, however. As digital distribution mechanisms become more and more popular, it seems inevitable that the courts will have to eventually weigh in further on the owner versus licensee question. In fact, if those who run digital distribution systems wish to steer well clear of potential government involvement in their businesses, inclusion of certain features may mitigate the first sale question so that consumers have more rights and aren't in need of protection in that regard.
Digital distribution changes this dynamic dramatically, however. As digital distribution mechanisms become more and more popular, it seems inevitable that the courts will have to eventually weigh in further on the owner versus licensee question. In fact, if those who run digital distribution systems wish to steer well clear of potential government involvement in their businesses, inclusion of certain features may mitigate the first sale question so that consumers have more rights and aren't in need of protection in that regard.
LGJ: Fan sequel? Still not legal.
by Mark Methenitis { Jul 21st 2009 at 11:59PM }
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.
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.
NY State proposing ban on gaming while driving
by David Hinkle { Jul 17th 2009 at 10:30PM }
The new law (much like Hawaii's) doesn't just apply to games and, should it pass, will make a number of activities on your phone (text, surf the web, hold it up and look at it) illegal to do while driving. Sure, it has everyone's safety in mind, but we really think the government is crazy if it expects us to pull over and park every time we try to level up our Pidgey.
[Via Game Politics]
LGJ: And still, they want to take away our games
by Mark Methenitis { Jul 16th 2009 at 6:30PM }
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
As of late, it seems I've become sort of a policy spokesman for issues concerning the government intervening in the game industry, especially in the wake of my debate with Jack Thompson. However, the discussion over whether violent content can be policed under the First Amendment is getting tired, and the courts have universally declared "no" at this point. Rather than go down that road again, I want to discuss two new ways that the government could attack games; one of which came up in the debate itself.
The first is probably the more mundane of the two, and it's the seemingly frequent specter of imposing political correctness on games. In fact, this issue came up yet again this week as a discussion related to not just Resident Evil 5, but also Left 4 Dead 2 and Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood. Of course, the claims here were racism and cultural insensitivity. The irony is that now that the games themselves are seemingly more inclusive of characters other than white males and large breasted women, the assumption is automatically that use of more diverse settings and characters must have malicious motives, rather than crediting the industry for finally being more inclusive.
The first is probably the more mundane of the two, and it's the seemingly frequent specter of imposing political correctness on games. In fact, this issue came up yet again this week as a discussion related to not just Resident Evil 5, but also Left 4 Dead 2 and Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood. Of course, the claims here were racism and cultural insensitivity. The irony is that now that the games themselves are seemingly more inclusive of characters other than white males and large breasted women, the assumption is automatically that use of more diverse settings and characters must have malicious motives, rather than crediting the industry for finally being more inclusive.
LGJ: The new meaning of 'player vs player'
by Mark Methenitis { Jul 1st 2009 at 9:30PM }
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
Terra Nova recently posted a note about a Craigslist case that could have some impact on the gaming space. It relates to theories about how players could sue other players, which is something that briefly came up in a World of Warcraft suit two years ago (which settled before going to court). The result of the case was, in no uncertain terms, that a lawsuit under a third-party beneficiary theory could be entirely blocked by a well written Terms of Use. That's not to say that all cases involving third parties are barred, as another World of Warcraft legal battle, the Glider case, was successful; though primarily based on tortious interference. So, while some potential sources of player-versus-player lawsuits may be now foreclosed, I still think there's a range of potential suits that could become prevalent.
Of course, this theorizing requires a basic understanding of third party-beneficiaries, and that goes all the way back to the basics of contracts. In a simple contract, there are generally two parties. A basic sales transaction is probably the simplest contract. Say you go to GameStop to purchase inFAMOUS: You give the clerk your $59.99 plus tax, and he gives you the game and a receipt. That was a basic contract for the sale of goods, and the receipt is evidence of some additional terms of the contract for sale, such as the return policy.
Of course, this theorizing requires a basic understanding of third party-beneficiaries, and that goes all the way back to the basics of contracts. In a simple contract, there are generally two parties. A basic sales transaction is probably the simplest contract. Say you go to GameStop to purchase inFAMOUS: You give the clerk your $59.99 plus tax, and he gives you the game and a receipt. That was a basic contract for the sale of goods, and the receipt is evidence of some additional terms of the contract for sale, such as the return policy.
