Much of the independent video game world is up in arms regarding the recent news that large UK game developer King.com has “trademarked” the word CANDY. Many see this as an attempt by a Wonka-esque behemoth to grab control of a common word in order to crush its smaller competitors like some piece of common confectionary. While there may
College sports is big business. Student-athletes generate truckloads of cash for their schools, but are prohibited by NCAA rules from sharing in the haul. In fact, if the student-athlete learns that someone is commercially exploiting his or her name or picture, NCAA rules require the student “to take steps to stop such an activity in order to retain his
There are so many fun things you can do with celebrities. In addition to the traditional things like writing books about them, you can also use their catchphrases to make greeting cards; make movies about them using puppets; or even use claymation television to have them fight each other to the death. But what about including digital
Free-to-play games are all the rage these days. Many people while away their days playing Angry Birds, or Words with Friends before going home to watch Monday Night Football. Nerds — and, increasingly, “normal people” — do the exact same thing, except instead of watching football, we play games like Super Monday Night Combat. This summer, the remarkable viability of the free-to-play business model gained extra attention when Forbes reported that the most-played PC game in the world is now a free-to-play game called League of Legends. For those of you struggling to understand the profitability part, just take a look at League of Legends character Teemo (pictured left). I mean, seriously, who can resist purchasing all the adorable “skins” for him?! (Clearly, not me.)
Nevertheless, the business world of free-to-play gaming is not without its dark, seedy underbelly, where even the cute and cuddly characters are forced to work in digital sweatshops and sell virtual drugs on simulated street corners just to make ends meet. Well, ok, maybe it’s not thatextreme. But as a recent (and bitter) dispute between game makers Zynga and Kixeye demonstrates, the gaming business can be just as ugly (and fascinating) as some of the game battles themselves.
Q: I wrote, directed and produced a sci-fi action short that I think would make a great big budget feature. In the meantime, I have a friend who works for a small video game developer who absolutely loves the concept of my short and thinks it would make for a great game. I think it would be very cool and am thinking about putting together some sort of deal with my friend, but I don’t want to do anything that could jeopardize my ability to someday make a studio film based on my short. Should I just pass or do you think there’s a way I could make this work?
A: For you and your friend’s sake, I hope your short doesn’t involve a chubby, mustachioed Italian plumber with a love of coins who’s intent on saving a princess from mushroom and turtle creatures… in space. If that’s the case, we may have a problem. If not, there’s a chance you can make this work, but you’re right to be concerned about the possibility that your granting of rights to this video game developer could later affect your ability to produce a big screen adaptation of your short film.
First a quick note to those readers who think this may not apply to them because it involves video games: the majority of these issues would arise with respect to a production of any type of derivative work based on something you own, whether it be a video game, a book, a stage play, etc. so don’t be afraid to keep reading!…
It might seem axiomatic that whenever you develop a new product or service you ought to immediately register a trademark or servicemark to ensure marketplace protection. And I’m not talking about trademarking “That’s Hot” or “You’re Fired!” I’m talking about real, useful stuff. Like Oxyclean.® Or Chia Pet.®
(Fun fact of the day: you can only use the ® symbol if your mark is registered with the USPTO. Otherwise you are stuck using the ™ symbol, which is just a claim of ownership over a mark.)
Most of the time, promptly registering a trademark is a good idea — not only does it help you establish rights in your own mark, it gives you early warning if you’re going to wind up in a dispute (and ample opportunity to change your mark before you invest too much time, money, and heart into it). But not always. For a good example of the latter situation, just look at the current dispute between ZeniMax Media, the publisher of a series of role-playing games called The Elder Scrolls and forthcoming game entitled The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, and Mojang, creator of the popular game Minecraft, and forthcoming game entitled, Scrolls.…
Last week, KROQ’s Kevin & Bean interviewed Castle actress Stana Katic, who is starring in a new movie called For Lovers Only. The film is a “sexy love story set in Paris” and was “shot in the spirit of the French New Wave” (which sounds to me like a blend of smooth jazz, a Monet painting, and a nude beach).
The fascinating thing about the film is that it was produced by just five people. The small crew drove around France in one car using a handheld camera, and would haphazardly discover new filming locations (ironically, quite similar to the formula for a Jackass movie, though those are more “shot in the spirit of the American love of men being struck in the groin”). So although the script may have been rehearsed the night before, the location was often “TBD.”
Evidently unaware of the contingent of fascinated entertainment lawyers in the audience, Katic never discussed whether the film’s five-person crew obtained clearances or releases for anything or anyone they may have incidentally filmed. But from her description of the production, it seems possible — maybe even likely — that they didn’t. The film is currently available only through iTunes or at European film festival screenings. But although that whimsical approach to filmmaking may make for great promotional interviews on the radio, it could present a problem when filmmakers start looking for major worldwide distribution.…
On Monday, June 27, 2011, the United States Supreme Court struck down the California video game law on First Amendment grounds . . . barely.
Most of the news reports about the decision called it a 7-2 decision in favor of the First Amendment rights of minors to purchase whatever violent video game they want. But those reports have it wrong. Yes, the justices voted 7-2 to strike down the law. But while the news reports made it seem like a completely lopsided knockout, they missed the fact that those justices who voted to strike down the law were split 5-2 on the substantive reasons for doing so.
Let’s back up and remember what the case is about and why it is important to the entertainment industry and to anyone who values First Amendment protection for (even bad) artistic expression.…
Q: I want to make an independent film about a video game character by mixing the original storyline and characters with my own ideas. I didn’t know if I needed to obtain permission or rights to make it even though its going to be non-profit. I just want to be able to put it on YouTube and stuff. Thanks!
A: Your gracious author is wondering if you somehow stumbled upon his Xbox Live Gamertag and discovered that when he’s not faithfully answering legal questions or playing the role of human punching bag for his two young children, he’s sneaking off to his man hovel (i.e., his living room after everyone’s gone to bed) to play Halo 3 online with his similarly maturity-stunted friends. This mild addiction to a videogame has lead to an introduction to the world of guerilla videogame cinema known as “Machinima.”…
I’ve always been a fan of spotlighting important legal issues that seem to fall between the cracks. So if net neutrality is “the most important public policy you’ve probably never heard of,” and if last year’s documentary filmmaking allowance was the most important DMCA exception nobody seemed to notice, then the Ninth Circuit’s February 17, 2011 decision in MDY Industries v. Blizzard Entertainment is the most important denial of a motion for rehearing that no one is talking about — especially if, like me, you love video games, justice, and legalese-laden 48-page opinions that read kind of like Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.
Admittedly, the premise of this case is pretty ridiculous. But beneath that ridiculous premise, and the pages upon pages of legal minutia, is a pretty important and interesting legal issue that has real influence on your everyday life.
MDY Industries centers on a “bot” (short for robot) program called “Glider.” Using the Glider software allows World of Warcraft gamers to put a WoW character on autopilot, thereby avoiding the laborious chore of “leveling” the character and acquiring weapons and gold. In other words, Glider allows WoW gamers to skip the nascent stages of character development and proceed straight to the joy of being powerful and wealthy — something many WoW gamers will never actually experience in real life. Conceptually, using Glider is similar to “gold farming” — i.e., paying someone in a developing country to acquire virtual money for you. (It would be fascinating to know what effect Glider has had on the hundreds of thousands of gold farmers in the developing world.)
The legal fight began more than four years ago, when MDY preemptively sued Blizzard for a declaration of its rights after Blizzard’s counsel visited MDY founder Michael Donnelly at home in October 2006, “threatening suit unless MDY immediately ceased selling Glider and remitted all profits to Blizzard.” Naturally, Blizzard had been very unhappy about Glider and (among other things) the effect Glider was having on WoW’s virtual economy.
From Donnelly’s perspective, his company made $3.5 million by selling a legitimate aftermarket product that made WoW more enjoyable for many gamers. From Blizzard’s perspective, it not only had to spend money dealing with “bot” complaints from its users, but it also lost substantial revenues from gamers who otherwise would have spent many more billable-months in their quests to obtain virtual fame and fortune (e.g., instead of subscribing to WoW for one year, a player might only subscribe to WoW for 6 months, since the player could achieve more in less time).…