SymbolShift Posted March 17, 2022 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2022 Sorry to re-ignite this thread, but I've been thinking recently if anyone knows the answer to this. If someone has an "intellectual property" copyright on something, what exactly does that mean? For example... A - Identical pixels to original, and identical colour (Despite what we remember, Willy was never pure white). That said, the grey I'm using is 192,192,192 (RGB). One could argue that since the ZX Spectrum never used RGB values, that any colour used today is just a visual approximation. Hence, any colour used is technically different from the original. B - Same pixels, pure white. As stated in A, Matt Smith's Willy (pardon the expression) was never pure white, so this Willy is again different from the original. C - Magenta Willy, clearly different from the original used. D - Pixels have been changed from the original, therefore is different. If all these Willy's are "different" in some way to the original, how can anyone claim that they own the Intellectual property? If you notice, anyone that claims to own the IP, never actually lays down the rules of what is and what is not copyright infringement. In conclusion, if someone owns the "intellectual property", does it mean whatever they want it to mean? If so, that seems massively unfair, to twist a law into what they want it to mean. Usually laws have to be written down with a definition. Otherwise, without a definition, how is one expected to abide by the law? Maybe the answer is... they are not. jetsetdanny and Spider 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Posted March 17, 2022 Report Share Posted March 17, 2022 Its an interesting thought and I suspect it would come down in the end if it ever went that far to what a judge or magistrate thought was a 'copy' or not. I see 100% what you're saying, if he's a different colour or bright level "is he the same" ? Its also going I think to vary as its digital, for instance you'd likely not get away with using a well known trainer logo inverted or tweaked with say something as its physical. Although in theory it should be treated the same tis probably not. There was a case many years ago I think where Sinclair won a case against another machine as the ROM was the same but the judge could not "see" the rom but they won on the grounds the keyboard was. I recall reading this in a magazine back then, I can't recall what machine it was sorry. I keep thinking the Jupiter Ace but I could be wrong. jetsetdanny 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SymbolShift Posted March 17, 2022 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2022 That's a good point about inverting a logo, and do the same rules apply if something is digital? I think a lot of this boils down to the fact that judges/magistrates have limited technical knowledge, and people (and companies) totally take advantage of this. I've worked in the tech industry for many years, and seen many "very questionable" things that go on. However, the tech companies know very well that by staying one step (or several steps!) ahead of legal industries tech knowledge, they can stretch the law into very grey areas and get away with it. Telemetry within Microsoft Windows is a good example of this. I just wish there was a website out there that would clearly define what we can and cannot do when it comes to digital copyright infringements. But then again, why on earth they want the people to know the boundaries of law? 🤣 jetsetdanny 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Posted March 17, 2022 Report Share Posted March 17, 2022 Nail / Head with limited tech knowledge , you could (although you should not) I would just speculate a very tech savvy one would possibly just possibly reach a different conclusion or thoughts (even if the outcome was the same, perhaps their comments would vary and carry some weight) vs one who did not know anything about technology at all. You do raise a valid point with MS too. Yes I know. To be fair at least it does say now rather than (possibly) doing it anyway. I have seen something "possibly interesting" in a very old version of a Windows service pack actually, plain text too! Unsure if by omission or design. If it was physical items it would be easier to say for sure really, as said 'law' would be relatively clear on that. Having said that, as you know just because its digital does not mean there's a "free for all" , although we are talking a very old design anyway with little (any?) commercial value at least that I can see, I'm no expert though at all. To be honest if the trademarks are valid and apply and say I held them and was not happy I'd be more interested in going after those making monetary gain from physical items aka t-shirts / badges etc rather than someone reusing a 38year old game design 😉 EDIT... MtM raised some good points in this topic too. jetsetdanny 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Posted March 17, 2022 Report Share Posted March 17, 2022 Although not too relevant maybe, about 8 or so years ago , I ported some games over from the Spectrum to the BBC Micro. I had to disassemble them and rewrite them from scratch , even though they were adventure games. Then make loading screens etc and tidy them up. I did attempt to contact the authors of these. I approached one author who replied to me and was quite happy provided no rights were lost (I can't remember his exact words, I may still have the email) The others did not reply although its quite possible they never got the mails. I was careful to ensure I prominently displayed their original copyrights untouched. I did add my attribution as it was a conversion as such however I did -not- put (c) on that line at all, merely a quick line of text that I had "built" this for this platform. I heard no complaints since. They were relatively well received by the Acorn community at the time. I did only a few months ago discover a walkthough of one of them on YouTube, and to my surprise the original author had posted a comment (he was one of the ones I was not able to contact) and his comment said "Its a good game, even if I do say so myself lol" , another one actually has a comment on CASA solution archive saying something like the conversion had the "blessing" of the original author. 🙂 jetsetdanny 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SymbolShift Posted March 17, 2022 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2022 I totally get what you are saying. I think most (if not all!) game authors from way back would be flattered that anything to do with their game still exists, and has generated any interest nowadays. It's pretty obvious to them that they do not stand to make any money from something they did 40 years ago (at least from individuals making remakes/ports). It's not like we are claiming the games were our ideas. It's those greedy legal minded people out there, trying to make some quick cash, that ruin it for everyone. I vote that we move to another planet, and leave all those people behind 😁 Spider and jetsetdanny 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Posted March 18, 2022 Report Share Posted March 18, 2022 Perfectly summed up. I can't add more as I agree! SymbolShift 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsetdanny Posted March 19, 2022 Report Share Posted March 19, 2022 On 3/17/2022 at 5:45 PM, SymbolShift said: I vote that we move to another planet, and leave all those people behind 😁 Better kick those people off to another planet. This one is too nice to leave behind and, what's more, to leave it to greed and foul play! Spider and SymbolShift 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.