Switch Theme:

Games, rules, and copyright  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

Hello. I am trying to get a bit more understanding in how copyright works in relation to our game rulebooks and the like.
Let's take the 40k 7th edition rulebook as an example.

If I scan the rulebook and make it available online, it will undoubtedly be copyright infringement.

If I straight up and down copy just the text, it will also be copyright infringement... I think?

If I repost all of the actual rules for gameplay and stats for models etc., but paraphrased rather than with the exact same wording, is it still infringement?

If yes, where is the threshold for how much I can post somewhere before it becomes infringement?

This is obviously all assuming it is done in a non-profit context - I am sure that trying to sell their rules would be more harshly viewed even if it is paraphrased.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/08/16 20:13:10


Currently ongoing projects:
Horus Heresy Alpha Legion
Tyranids  
   
Made in us
Myrmidon Officer





NC

Copyright law differs depending on the country, of course. United States Copyright Act does not specifically state how much of a work may be used before it's considered infringement. Hence, we have court cases that argue these things.

Quick summary from a non-US perspective:
http://www.unimelb.edu.au/copyright/information/fastfind/insubstantial.html

Pertaining to game rules, you can quote certain parts and it'll be considered "insubstantial" with the purpose of being a citation. However, as the page makes an example of a summary of major points not qualifying as "insubstantial". Arguably, game rules and unit states may be considered part of this.

Overall, it's very arguable. Intent of copied material, proportion of the whole work copied, and the importance of the portion copied are taken into consideration.

Also, here is a US perspective on "Fair Use":
https://www.umuc.edu/library/libhow/copyright.cfm#fairuse_definition

As before, it's not exact.

Also, I am not a lawyer.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

"If I scan the rulebook and make it available online, it will undoubtedly be copyright infringement."

Yes.

"If I straight up and down copy just the text, it will also be copyright infringement... I think?"

Yes.

"If I repost all of the actual rules for gameplay and stats for models etc., but paraphrased rather than with the exact same wording, is it still infringement?"

No. But it would have to be a bit more than just 'paraphrased', it would essentially have to be rewritten and presented in a new manner in order to bypass copyright.

"If yes, where is the threshold for how much I can post somewhere before it becomes infringement?"

There isnt one, or rather more accurately, there isn't a set amount. Courts tend to handle these things on an individual and case by case basis. Generally speaking however, the more you do it, the more likely you are to get into some trouble. You can 'paraphrase' a few lines of rules here and there online, you could not, on the other hand, have a website that provided all the 40k game rules for free posted on there, even if it was all paraphrased, unless you yourself are adding something significant and new to it and presenting it in a different manner (I.E. you are using it as a basis for a new ruleset in a new setting and there is no attempt made to suggest that it is compatible or based on the existing 40k rules).

Disclaimer - Not an attorney or expert, this is all based on my understanding of US copyright law, local jurisdictions may differ.


CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

Say that I modified the 40k ruleset for use with WW2 models and settings, with changes to special rules and so on but ultimately the same game, how much difference would that make?

It's not something I intend to do, I am just trying to get as good an understanding as possible.

Currently ongoing projects:
Horus Heresy Alpha Legion
Tyranids  
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

There is nothing legally stopping you from copying the 40k rules mechanics, just the specific text used in the books to express those rules.

Having said that, being technically legal doesn't stop GW's legal department from sending you a Cease & Desist order, or from taking you to court over it if you fail to so cease and suchforth... The Chapterhouse case was simultaneous proof of GW Legal's lack of understanding of, and willingness to twist key aspects of, IP law in an attempt to get their own way.

 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Ashiraya wrote:
Say that I modified the 40k ruleset for use with WW2 models and settings, with changes to special rules and so on but ultimately the same game, how much difference would that make?


If you rename everything so that it doesn't use GW terminology then you should be able to do whatever you want with your rules. Their copyright is on the (exact) written text not on the mechanics (you can describe theses in multiple way) although there are some mechanics that are patented (but that's another thing).

To put it in other words: You could write a novel about a young wizard but you probably shouldn't use names like Harry Potter or Severus Snape (neither should you copy pages of text or even sentences). So copying the essence or idea is within your rights (although if I remember correctly there were some lawsuits regarding novels that were too similar to something else) but you can't copy the exact wording without it possibly becoming a copyright issue.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

 Ashiraya wrote:
Say that I modified the 40k ruleset for use with WW2 models and settings, with changes to special rules and so on but ultimately the same game, how much difference would that make?

It's not something I intend to do, I am just trying to get as good an understanding as possible.


Considering how many other games out there basically did exactly that, I would assume its perfectly permissable, as game mechanics cannot be copyrighted (under US copyright law).

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in gb
Worthiest of Warlock Engineers






preston

 Ashiraya wrote:
Say that I modified the 40k ruleset for use with WW2 models and settings, with changes to special rules and so on but ultimately the same game, how much difference would that make?

It's not something I intend to do, I am just trying to get as good an understanding as possible.


So long as you did not sell it for profit then you would be fine.

On another note if you are planning to do the WW2 modifications then count me in to help you. The old WW2 ruleset for 40K needs updating - it dates back to 3rd edition!

Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
 
   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

I don't, it was just an example!

Currently ongoing projects:
Horus Heresy Alpha Legion
Tyranids  
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





As a side note, how does this apply to digital media like music, TV and films?

File-sharing, that is taking something that you possess (dvd, music cd etc) and uploading it to the internet...that is obviously illegal.

Downloading torrent files and storing them (flash drive, hard drive etc) is illegal too.

But what about simply viewing (streaming) the illegally shared content online on the host site without downloading the files to your hard drive etc...is that also illegal? e.g. Youtube and other equivalent sites.
   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

But what about simply viewing (streaming) the illegally shared content online on the host site without downloading the files to your hard drive etc...is that also illegal? e.g. Youtube and other equivalent sites.


Given the massive Youtube controversies about copyright, I am leaning towards that too infringing copyright.

Currently ongoing projects:
Horus Heresy Alpha Legion
Tyranids  
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 Ashiraya wrote:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

But what about simply viewing (streaming) the illegally shared content online on the host site without downloading the files to your hard drive etc...is that also illegal? e.g. Youtube and other equivalent sites.


Given the massive Youtube controversies about copyright, I am leaning towards that too infringing copyright.


No, I'm talking about infringement on the part of the viewer himself.

If I click on and watch a movie illegally uploaded to YouTube, am I, the viewer, also breaking copyright laws?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/16 22:41:15


 
   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

Oh yeah.

No, I am fairly sure that doesn't count.

Or maybe it's just impossible to police.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/16 22:43:01


Currently ongoing projects:
Horus Heresy Alpha Legion
Tyranids  
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Heh. Thats a relief then.
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Yes, watching a streamed film that has been illegally uplpoaded is an infringement of copyright. The film file has to be copied to your computer for you to view it.

There are various ways YouTube could police copyright abuse on their site.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in se
Dakka Veteran





Sweden

 Ashiraya wrote:
Say that I modified the 40k ruleset for use with WW2 models and settings, with changes to special rules and so on but ultimately the same game, how much difference would that make?

It's not something I intend to do, I am just trying to get as good an understanding as possible.


Keep in mind though, that being from Sweden GW would have a very hard time forcing you or in any other way threaten you to stop doing what they do not like, if you are not explicit doing something illegal. As they could do in the US for example.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.  
   
Made in gb
Bryan Ansell





Birmingham, UK

 Reality-Torrent wrote:
 Ashiraya wrote:
Say that I modified the 40k ruleset for use with WW2 models and settings, with changes to special rules and so on but ultimately the same game, how much difference would that make?

It's not something I intend to do, I am just trying to get as good an understanding as possible.


Keep in mind though, that being from Sweden GW would have a very hard time forcing you or in any other way threaten you to stop doing what they do not like, if you are not explicit doing something illegal. As they could do in the US for example.


As always in these situations I am reminded of the phrase 'Get a lawyer' - if you are really that worried/bothered by such ramifications as being taken to court.

It is likely that a legal professional will tell you the exact same information as other posters have provided - for a suitable fee.
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Sweden is in the Berne Convention on copyright, and also is a member of the European Union.

GW's copyrights are as good there as in any other first world country, subject to local variations in length of copyright. GW's ability to get legal redress is probably better inside the EU, if they should notice and care that someone had copied some rules.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Ashiraya wrote:
If yes, where is the threshold for how much I can post somewhere before it becomes infringement?
There really isn't any threshold. Large corporations often make completely unfounded IP claims, and pay expensive legal teams to get them upheld in court. So even if you were "technically" not infringing, they could still put you through the ringer with a long and expensive legal battle, which is lose/lose.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/17 10:30:28


 
   
Made in us
Posts with Authority






 Kilkrazy wrote:
Sweden is in the Berne Convention on copyright, and also is a member of the European Union.

GW's copyrights are as good there as in any other first world country, subject to local variations in length of copyright. GW's ability to get legal redress is probably better inside the EU, if they should notice and care that someone had copied some rules.
Which does not prevent GW from trying to claim copyright on things that they do not own, then losing the case.

Soon or late the fact that they are making toys that have a limited Design IP life is going to bite them in the nethers, in the UK at least. (Ask George Lucas... his dudes in heavy power armor have already passed that point in the UK.)

The Auld Grump - the difference between Stormtroopers and Space Marines - Space Marines hit what they are shooting at.

Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.

The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
 
   
Made in au
Hacking Proxy Mk.1





Australia

You know even if it all was illegal the American legal system is designed to stop a man stealing his neighbor's hogs, not complex IP infringement, I don't think GW could do anything about it

 Fafnir wrote:
Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
 
   
Made in gb
Bryan Ansell





Birmingham, UK

Is there an elephant in the room here?

OP: Are you considering or have you started a project using existing rules as a base?

If so there are plenty of members here on Dakka alone - Let alone in the wider gaming community - that can help with your endeavors.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Louisiana

 Absolutionis wrote:
Copyright law differs depending on the country, of course. United States Copyright Act does not specifically state how much of a work may be used before it's considered infringement. Hence, we have court cases that argue these things.

Quick summary from a non-US perspective:
http://www.unimelb.edu.au/copyright/information/fastfind/insubstantial.html

Pertaining to game rules, you can quote certain parts and it'll be considered "insubstantial" with the purpose of being a citation. However, as the page makes an example of a summary of major points not qualifying as "insubstantial". Arguably, game rules and unit states may be considered part of this.

Overall, it's very arguable. Intent of copied material, proportion of the whole work copied, and the importance of the portion copied are taken into consideration.

Also, here is a US perspective on "Fair Use":
https://www.umuc.edu/library/libhow/copyright.cfm#fairuse_definition

As before, it's not exact.

Also, I am not a lawyer.


This is the best post thus far in the thread.

To add a bit to what Absolutionis said, while copyright law does differ a bit depending on where in the world you are, most copyright laws are broadly similar thanks to the Berne Convention. The fundamental point of various copyright laws remains the same, and the high points are all very similar.

I am mostly familiar with US 17, so I will talk about copyright from that perspective. I too am not a lawyer.

Your question is principally directed to what copyright does not protect.

US 17 102 (B) states the following:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.


So there you have it. Regardless of the exclusive rights of a copyright holder, in no case does copyright protection extend to ideas, procedures, systems, methods of operations, concepts, or principles.

It is very, very hard to argue that game rules fall within the scope of copyright protection. Rules are systems, they are based on principles, they describe specific procedures, processes, and methods of operation. All of these things are explicitly and unambiguously carved out of copyright protection.

Now, a work expressed in a tangible medium is potentially subject to copyright protection, so the specific words used to describe a set of rules is certainly subject to copyright protection to some degree. But you have to keep in mind that in no case does copyright protection extend to any thing described in section 102(b).

This means that application of the law has to be very careful to avoid extending de facto protection to those things under the guise of protecting the exclusive rights of a copyright holder. A similar example is the scenes a faire doctrine.

Scenes a faire says that protecting a work of art cannot extend to de facto ownership of a genre. Therefore, anything that is necessary, obligatory, or indispensable to creating a work within a particular genre is not itself subject to copyright protection. In other words, J K Rowling can't own the wizard school genre just because she wrote some popular books, and my romantic comedy is not a copy of yours just because we followed the same genre conventions.

Now, scenes a faire is about making sure that my copyright does not allow me to own works that I did not create. It is similar to 102(b) in the sense that copyright has fundamental limitations beyond which it should not extend, even under the guise of protecting what the law is ostensibly supposed to protect.

If I sue you because you copied my rules, I have to thread a very delicate needle. I have to show both that you copied my unique artistic expression and that a finding of infringement would not provide de facto protection to the ideas, systems, methods of operation, concepts, and principles embodied in that text.

I can only claim ownership of that text for its aesthetic value, not its value as a system of rules, because 102(b) explicitly states that I do not, in any way, own those rules "regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied" in my written expression.

In short, it doesn't matter that I wrote the rules down. I simply don't own them. All I own is the artistic value of the words used to express those rules. And how much artistic value is there in my writing, especially considering that the scope of this artistic value is only that which was never before created by any human being in the history of the universe?

Not only are rules not subject to copyright protection, but many, many, many previously created works have used very, very, very similar words to express similar rules. This gives you a really razor thin margin of protection when it comes to the text of a game system, or at least it should.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2015/08/17 17:20:22


Kirasu: Have we fallen so far that we are excited that GW is giving us the opportunity to spend 58$ for JUST the rules? Surprised it's not "Dataslate: Assault Phase"

AlexHolker: "The power loader is a forklift. The public doesn't complain about a forklift not having frontal armour protecting the crew compartment because the only enemy it is designed to face is the OHSA violation."

AlexHolker: "Allow me to put it this way: Paramount is Skynet, reboots are termination attempts, and your childhood is John Connor."
 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka






@weeble - the reason that copyright doesn't protect authorship of ideas, proceedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, discoveries.... is because that is what patents are for.

Be thankful that tabletop gaming isn't like the tech sector. If it were, you'd have Apple/Microsoft equivalents that spent hundreds of millions of dollars on portfolios of incredibly broad stretching patents and spent hundreds of millions more litigating competition out of business. Some patents the courts have upheld are absolutely ridiculous; and, at the very least, they're stupidly expensive to go to court over.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/17 17:36:47


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







Why does GW (or any other game company) keep mixing "fluff" and background in with the rules text?

Because the "fluff" and background material aren't the game mechanics, and removing them while presenting just the game mechanics requires more effort than photocopying a page of the rulebook.

So you've got these sentences of text containing material that describe procedures, processes, and methods of operation (which may be exempt on principle), and mixed in with them are sentences of text which don't (and thus not exempt on principle). Copy the whole paragraph (or the whole page of rules, background and examples) and now you're infringing because you've copies the background and examples).

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Louisiana

 Talys wrote:
@weeble - the reason that copyright doesn't protect authorship of ideas, proceedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, discoveries.... is because that is what patents are for.

Be thankful that tabletop gaming isn't like the tech sector. If it were, you'd have Apple/Microsoft equivalents that spent hundreds of millions of dollars on portfolios of incredibly broad stretching patents and spent hundreds of millions more litigating competition out of business. Some patents the courts have upheld are absolutely ridiculous; and, at the very least, they're stupidly expensive to go to court over.


High stakes patent litigation is my bread and butter.

I work about 20 or 30 of those kinds of cases every year. We actually just got two favorable jury verdicts last month. We got a finding of non-infringement and invalidity in the Northern District of California and a finding of willful infringement and a 30 million dollar verdict in the Northern District of New York a week later.

I have been on both sides of the aisle, but we normally work for 'the man'.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/17 19:45:58


Kirasu: Have we fallen so far that we are excited that GW is giving us the opportunity to spend 58$ for JUST the rules? Surprised it's not "Dataslate: Assault Phase"

AlexHolker: "The power loader is a forklift. The public doesn't complain about a forklift not having frontal armour protecting the crew compartment because the only enemy it is designed to face is the OHSA violation."

AlexHolker: "Allow me to put it this way: Paramount is Skynet, reboots are termination attempts, and your childhood is John Connor."
 
   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Is there an elephant in the room here?

OP: Are you considering or have you started a project using existing rules as a base?

If so there are plenty of members here on Dakka alone - Let alone in the wider gaming community - that can help with your endeavors.


I did not specify what exactly I am doing as I wanted to keep the information I recieved unbiased (and because I was actually curious on the subject in general, not just specifically for my case), but after reading the replies it looks like it wouldn't have been a problem anyway.

I am working on designing a RPG system to use for the Warcraft setting (as I am a fervent roleplayer in that setting), using FFG's Rogue Trader as its base. I am extensively rewriting the system to match the new setting, but once you get down to playing it is still identifiable as the game it was before, so I have yet to share it with anyone while I ponder if sharing it on a few forums etc. is enough to attract angry eyes. I am at least confident that I should be safe from the Warcraft side - as long as I don't try to sell what I do, Blizzard won't care - but would FFG? The core mechanics are still there, after all, even if I have paraphrased and/or modified pretty much everything, no fluff is left, etc.

Maybe I am just overthinking it and/or worrying too much, but in days like these you can never be too careful.

Thank you for the post, Weeble, it was most insightful.

This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2015/08/20 00:37:48


Currently ongoing projects:
Horus Heresy Alpha Legion
Tyranids  
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: