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.

Can anybody tell me if game rules can be copyrighted?

The reason I ask is that club I belong to has gotten hold of a source book called "A Very British Civil War". The year is 1938 and King Edward is on the throne after refusing to abdicate. His friend Moseley ends up being Prime Minister. The book gives loads of ideas for different factins and there motivations. You have the facists, the reds, the anarchists, the liberals, the crooks, refugees etc all with their own agendas. The book has no rules, it leaves it to you to use what you want. This means you can play big games using 15mm models or skirmish games using 28mm models.

The idea is to trawl through the various systems and come up with some rules for the club, but if they work well we could then see about publishing them. So my query is if we find a system that works, how much of it has to be changed for it to be different enough from the original for us not to step on toes?

Hmmm. Good question.

I think it would have to be a wholely new system I'm afraid, unless you can find one ala AD&(H)D D20 system, which I believe to be open source, in that anyone can use it. Absolutely no idea if this means you can do it for free, or whether they are just free and easy with selling licenses.

I can only speak for the U.S., but you can not copyright the rules for a game.

"The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.... Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game."

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

I just noticed your little flag so that probably doesn't help much, but as an RPG player this has come up many times before for me.

I remember speaking to one of TSR's legal team years ago, as I was checking if a Black skinned Elf race would get me into trouble with their legal department and things like using Class, saving rolls etc.
Had a long interesting chat with her and she said it would be hard for them to target any similar thing, rules etc unless it was blatently a direct copy. She basically said unless I call them Drow, and folllow a Goddess called Llolth there would be no interest in it for them to go after it. She also pointed out that D&D was hardly based on original ideas, so it would be counter productive to their buisness anyway.

No idea if that still stands umpteen years later, might be an indication of why they went under. But that seems to tie into Neconilis' comments above, and this was the UK branch of the company at the time.

I would think as long as you come up with your own base system, you can use any dice formula you want and set the game up.

My RPG uses a D100 system, almost feels like a cross between AD&D and Warhammer Fantasy, but doesn't really match either system. So I would have no fear of releasing it if fate smiled upon me.

As I understand it (and I'm no lawyer) the writing of the rules is covered by copyright, but the mechanics of the rules are not.

That's the principle that allows the makers of cheap boardgames to produce generic knock-offs of games that belong to other companies.

So as long as you write your rulebook in your own words, and are not copying actual text, it's probably fine.

If you're looking at publishing them, though, it would be well worth taking the time to talk to an actual lawyer in the field.

I agree.

Rule mechanisms are based on natural laws such as probability and cannot be copyrighted.

The terms (text) in which they are expressed are copyright.

You can't do a straight copy of the D&D Player's Guide but you can make a game in which there is a character attribute of strength and you have a 5% chance to hit (or whatever it is, haven't played D&D since about 1984.)

Fluff is copyright if it is original. Fluff based on mythology or old books isn't copyright because the original sources are out of copyright.

As always, having a lawyer check your stuff is a good idea.

Don't forget you can research copyright laws on the official government websites in most countries. You don't have to rely on what a bunch of wargamers tell you.

Huh thats all very interesting.

I heard about TSR years ago having troubles with another company making modules (mayfair games) and using the term 'Thac0'.

I have no idea what ever came of it, but I do know that I owned several boxed modules from mayfair games 'invincible overlord series'.

I just find it interesting that I can possibly take a very popular game, change the name, slightly change the wording, use my own art content and make money from it.

Hmmm...... very interesting.

Hellfury wrote:I just find it interesting that I can possibly take a very popular game, change the name, slightly change the wording, use my own art content and make money from it.

Copyright infringement is rarely a binary decision. Slight changes may (or may not) be sufficient.

But in general, the thread has a pretty accurate description: rule mechanics are not covered by copyright; the expression of rule mechanics is.

Kilkrazy wrote:Fluff is copyright if it is original. Fluff based on mythology or old books isn't copyright because the original sources are out of copyright.

I can't speak for the UK, but this is inaccurate in the US. I can rewrite Hamlet in my own words, and I've created a copyrighted, protected work. Now, you can take Hamlet and rewrite it yourself, and my copyright probably doesn't impact your work at all.

Thac0 is a copyright phrase of TSR, but the base chance to score a hit is actually a mathematical matrix. TSR can't copyright the matrix but they can copyright the text describing it.

Instead of Thac0, Mayfair should have made up a phrase like Base Armour To Hit Chance (BathC) or something.

You will need to change the wording significantly. The more complex the game is, the harder work that will be.

If the game is exactly the same in all but names and phrasing as an already popular game, why would people buy your game rather than the original?

Kilkrazy wrote:

If the game is exactly the same in all but names and phrasing as an already popular game, why would people buy your game rather than the original?

Well, if it's cheaper...

Janthkin wrote:

Hellfury wrote:I just find it interesting that I can possibly take a very popular game, change the name, slightly change the wording, use my own art content and make money from it.

Copyright infringement is rarely a binary decision. Slight changes may (or may not) be sufficient.

But in general, the thread has a pretty accurate description: rule mechanics are not covered by copyright; the expression of rule mechanics is.

Thanks Janthkin, thats pretty much what I was trying to imply.
Forinstance, if I take the way Victory Points work in AT-43 (a term which seems to be commonly shared by many wargames) and then apply that same mechanic to my own game (reworded appropriately to allay legal infringement), I can not be liable because a mechanic cannot be copyrighted.

I actually find it rather amazing that a mechanic cannot be copyrighted simply because if a particular ingenious mechanic is devised, that a person should be rewarded for their acumen of game design (something which is in short supply nowadays). It just feels so...wrong to be able to do that.

Kilkrazy wrote:You will need to change the wording significantly. The more complex the game is, the harder work that will be.

If the game is exactly the same in all but names and phrasing as an already popular game, why would people buy your game rather than the original?

For the same reason GW made spacehulk.
Say for instance that I buy the game rights from Topps/Wizkids 20th century Fox's "alien" IP, and then make spacehulk reworded appropriately using aliens and colonial space marines, I could effectively make a mockery of GW's spacehulk, and GW wouldn't have much of a legal leg to stand on because it is quite obvious that spacehulk 'was inspired' by aliens.

Ofcourse and obviously I am no lawyer, just interpreting how I see this matter.

Hellfury 40 Times Ten Thousand.

On the grimdark of garages, there is only hammer.

"The hammer is my penis"

And you hammer in the morning, hammer in the evening, hammer all the live long day?

Hellfury wrote:I actually find it rather amazing that a mechanic cannot be copyrighted simply because if a particular ingenious mechanic is devised, that a person should be rewarded for their acumen of game design (something which is in short supply nowadays). It just feels so...wrong to be able to do that.

For such innovations, we have a patent system. And indeed, some video game companies have patented various interesting game mechanics. (Did you ever play "Eternal Darkness" for the Gamecube? Great Cthulhu-like horror game, with a nifty *patented* insanity system.)

Hellfury wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You will need to change the wording significantly. The more complex the game is, the harder work that will be.

If the game is exactly the same in all but names and phrasing as an already popular game, why would people buy your game rather than the original?

For the same reason GW made spacehulk.
Say for instance that I buy the game rights from Topps/Wizkids 20th century Fox's "alien" IP, and then make spacehulk reworded appropriately using aliens and colonial space marines, I could effectively make a mockery of GW's spacehulk, and GW wouldn't have much of a legal leg to stand on because it is quite obvious that spacehulk 'was inspired' by aliens.

Ofcourse and obviously I am no lawyer, just interpreting how I see this matter.

This is one of those areas that are particularly foggy. In the situation you describe, it's entirely possible that a court might decide that you've infringed on the "look and feel" of GW's IP, without having copied a word. But that's not copyright law - that's trademark law.

A man's gotta do, what a maaaan's gotta do...

Well that's food for thought, cheers guys. I think there are enough hacks in the club to be able to take the mechanics of a game and rewrite them differently enough. Plus from I've been hearing it's likely that the ruleset will have multiple systems bolted together.

Take a look at the website http://www.freewargamesrules.co.uk/ for some free resources for rules mechanisms.

Or use an open source rules set like FUDGE or StarGrunt II that encourages you to spread the wealth...

Hellfury wrote:I actually find it rather amazing that a mechanic cannot be copyrighted simply because if a particular ingenious mechanic is devised, that a person should be rewarded for their acumen of game design (something which is in short supply nowadays). It just feels so...wrong to be able to do that.

It all comes down to the oft-repeated adage about copyright: "You can't copyright an idea, only an expression of that idea."

So much comes down to basic intent. If your intent is to take something without paying for it and make a lot of money then right from the get go you are on a sticky wicket.

If your intent is to produce something for free for friends to enjoy, right then you are on safer ground.

Of course it isn't as simple as that, as mp3-sharers will testify. But if, for instance, you and your mates are cobbling together a set of game rules from every source and you are producing a hybrid set of rules and inadvertently include a copyrighted phrase, then if all you want to do with it is distribute it for free to your friends, I can't see a games company bothering any. Fans have been producing homebrew mashed up versions of original games for decase - who hasn't grafted house rules onto a stock game and ended up with a hybrid you like? Its exactly the same idea, and no big deal.

If you wanted to sell the final product, then they may take a closer interest however and you'd be advised to make sure you only incorporate the essence of the mechanics without repeating phraseology word-for-word and also you religiously expunge any trademarked terms (read the small print in the front of copyrighted books to see which terms the owners consider copyright).

As you are looking to produce a hybrid mish-mash of multiple sources of inspiration, I can't see you falling foul of "passing off" legislation, whereby a term that is close to that of the copyrighted/trademarked one is deemed to be breaking the law because the intent is to deceive the customer into believing the rip-off goods are produced by the owner of the trademark/copyright. After all, it could be argued that GW did exactly the same thing themselves when they produced the 5th edition of 40k - where the new rules for deployment and allocation of the 1st turn closely mirror those used in Warmachine which had been released a few years earlier.

Cherrypicking good mechanics from various games and producing a new ruleset out of the mix has a long and glorious history in wargaming, and it does nothing to worry copyright holders!

Gavin Thorne wrote:Or use an open source rules set like FUDGE or StarGrunt II that encourages you to spread the wealth...

Please, not FUDGE, that ruleset sucks...

You might also look at a few older situations, such as the D20 open liscense agreement, vs. the 4th edition non-open agreements. And WOTC's opininion that they can copyright the mechanics of MTG. Just the fact that a company is of the opinion you can't do something, might end you up in court, whether you are within your rights or not. At that time, saying "but the guys on DakkaDakka said...." will not get you very far at all.

Before seriously pursueing any publishing, hirer a lawyer and do some investigation.

mikhaila wrote:You might also look at a few older situations, such as the D20 open liscense agreement, vs. the 4th edition non-open agreements. And WOTC's opininion that they can copyright the mechanics of MTG. Just the fact that a company is of the opinion you can't do something, might end you up in court, whether you are within your rights or not. At that time, saying "but the guys on DakkaDakka said...." will not get you very far at all.

Before seriously pursueing any publishing, hirer a lawyer and do some investigation.

Yes! Hire more lawyers! Fight the recession!



(I wonder what became of Scarab? He was my IP homie.)

This duplicate post stands as a memorial to the Dark Times of February 25, when Dakka posting became hazardous and intermittent.

Janthkin wrote:

Hellfury wrote:I just find it interesting that I can possibly take a very popular game, change the name, slightly change the wording, use my own art content and make money from it.

Copyright infringement is rarely a binary decision. Slight changes may (or may not) be sufficient.

But in general, the thread has a pretty accurate description: rule mechanics are not covered by copyright; the expression of rule mechanics is.

Kilkrazy wrote:Fluff is copyright if it is original. Fluff based on mythology or old books isn't copyright because the original sources are out of copyright.

I can't speak for the UK, but this is inaccurate in the US. I can rewrite Hamlet in my own words, and I've created a copyrighted, protected work. Now, you can take Hamlet and rewrite it yourself, and my copyright probably doesn't impact your work at all.

Same in UK. What I meant is that if GW made a scenario based on King Solomon's Mines, someone else could also make a scenario based on King Solomon's Mines.