« Welcome to the new IPR blog | Main | All Your Pigs Are Belong To Us »
August 05, 2005
Hot Topics, Hot Coffee, and Hot Intellectual Property
Welcome! Here you'll find postings on the hot topics in IP in games, and on how the hot topics in our industry relate to IP issues.
So what hotter topic than "hot coffee", right? If you're in games you've heard a lot of furor and debate about "hot coffee" - censorship, freedom of speech, truth in advertising, responsibility, politicians, ethics. But if you're reading this, I bet what you really want to know if how it all relates to Intellectual Property Rights!
Who owns "hot coffee"?
Back when the word was that it was a player originated mod, we'd be right in one of the most controversial topics in IP for games. Who owns the mods that people create based on off the shelf use of commercially available games? Is it a derivative work? Or is it a new work, like the books that are written using Microsoft Word?
But wait, that's not the issue at all, because next we hear, there was the speculation that the mini-game was created by a team member, unbeknownest to management. And just put in, or left in, the game by that person without anyone knowing. Wait, hold the skepticism, and just consider for a minute: Who owns things someone puts into a game without anyone knowing? Well if they're an employee, they probably have a contract that assigns all their copyrights and moral rights to their employer. For work related to their job. Even if the employer claims it wasn't work they commissioned or approved, my guess is that it would still be among the things agreed to be assigned to the employer. But that begs the question of who owns unrelated things that are snuck into a game. What if it was just a game demo by an aspiring designer, unrelated to the "host game"? And not created with company resources? We'd have to get out the person's contracts with the publisher, and start reading ... hmmmm ... just gotta get out my legalese-to-english translator here ...
Except, wait, now it getting easier. Now the word is that the creation of the mini-game was known by Rockstar, and was created in the normal course of business by employees, using textures and models owned by Rockstar. Except it was supposed to be removed for the final published version. That makes the copyright question a lot easier, now it's just like any other game content in GTA: San Andreas.
But, wait, "hot coffee" sounds like a great trademark! Great word of mouth, appeal to anti-establishment youth. Who owns that?
Posted by TobiSaulnier at August 5, 2005 06:18 PM
Comments
But wait…I really do want to know who owns the mod…or a mod…or at least how you all think that would be sorted out in court. At what point does a derivative work become a new work and how does a license play into it? Take, for example, total conversion mods that can change the game completely…one case I always cite is the Japan Mod for Rogue Spear…it turned the Tom Clancy shooter into a Feudal Japan Ninja Stalker Game. The conversion was total; so long as some of the code from the original game was used does that mean the game is a derivative work even if the “look and feel” completely changed?
Posted by: Hector Postigo at August 23, 2005 08:11 PM