next »

[eobet]

Take really, really old games which had never had sequels, remakes or re-releases...

For example, say, Caverns of Khafka by Cosmi Corporation that says (C) 1985 on its title screen.

I guess most people here will say that it's "abandonware" since that company most likely doesn' exist, but how about this then...

The Eidolon, published by Activision and developed by Lucasfilm in 1985.

Both Activision and Lucasfilm still exists, even though they are called something different today and I bet they will react if a game called The Eidolon would be released.

But recently, I've been reading news like the fact that Sega renewed the Jet Set Radio trademark for example.

So how long does the legal protection around these games really last?

Also, often the original authors signed away the rights to the names for their own games back in the day. What happens if such an author wants to re-release one of his own games?

[Ina Vegt]

Copyright of corporate identities lasts for at least 50 years after release, more depending on jurisdiction (the Berne convention specifies 50 year, with the option to extend).

(Registered) Trademarks last as long as people will pay for them (Sometimes up to a limit), but is more expensive the greater area you want them. (Don't forget what happened with Smarties, there's a North America based company that holds the North American Trademark for Smarties and another company that holds the Trademark for Smarties for the rest of the world, two reasonably different products.)

Unregistered Trademarks vary heavily depending on jurisdiction.

[eobet]

Registered Trademark... that's when the game title has an (R) or (TM) after it, right?

So it's not protected at all when the company stops paying?

How can you find out, if, for example either ActivisionBlizzard or LucasArts are still paying for The Eidolon name?

And if not, is it possible for me then to register The Eidolon name myself? (This is hypothetical, of course.) 

[Ina Vegt]

You pay for a period of time.

And ® is registered trademark, ^TM is unregistered trademark.

A registered trademark automatically turns into an unregistered trademark once it's last payment expires.

Unregistered trademarks generally have far less protections than registered trademarks, if they have any protection at all.

Another important thing to remember is that companies are legally required to defend their trademarks in many western countries, especially so for unregistered trademarks.

A registered trademark can be looked up (there might be a fee) in the database of the local authority on trademarks.

General rule o' thumb: Do not use unregistered trademarks of a franchise that has seen commercial exploitation in the last ten years, do not use registered trademarks at all, and it would be preferred if you used bootleg-like or completely original names. (Don't use Caverns of Khafka, use Caves of Askhaf.)

--

Another important thing I forgot to mention, patents.

Patents are much like registered trademarks, you pay a sum of cash to a jurisdiction to get the patent for x years, and it's not unusual to have the possibility to pay more cash to extend.

If there are elements of a game that are patented, forget it, cloning or remaking that game is a Bad Idea. Whether the patent is enforcable or not, the big companies that own the patent can throw so much legal power at you that it'll be a financial burden that you likely can't take.

[eobet]

Hmm... I can't find a statue of limitations on unregistered trademarks...

Let me put it this way, then: LucasArts decides to release a new The Eidolon game, but ActivisionBlizzard says no. But since it was an unregistered trademark, does ActivisionBlizzard have the law on their side, or can LucasArts do something to claim back the right to use The Eidolon name?

[Ina Vegt]

Not up to date with the USA's trademark laws, sorry. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a similar situation to the way copyright works in the USA (retroactively register and be able to sue for a smaller amount of money than you would have if you did register it.)

One important thing, due to the way trademarks work, if they have legal ground to sue you, they likely will. (While it's allowed to bat an eye towards copyright violations, trademarks need to be defended.)

The savest thing is just to avoid intellectual property infringements, and if you want to do something 'grey', contact a qualified legal expert who is up to date with the respective laws in your area, his advise will be likely superior to any which you can get for free on the internet.

[Craig Stern]

Trademarks are tricky. In theory, they can last forever, but there are a number of ways you can lose one (or not get a valid one to begin with) under U.S. law. Abandonment is one way to lose a trademark, so if a company really truly has abandoned its trademark, the trademark is subject to cancellation.

Copyrights, on the other hand, will outlive the author by 70 years. And there isn't any such thing as abandonment of a copyright.

[eobet]

So in my example above, ActivisionBlizzard can tell Lucasarts that "no, we're haven't abandoned The Eidolon", and then still not release anything for another 20 years...

[Ina Vegt]

So in my example above, ActivisionBlizzard can tell Lucasarts that "no, we're haven't abandoned The Eidolon", and then still not release anything for another 20 years...

Yeah, but if Lucasarts can prove ActivisionBlizzard abandoned it (By not protecting the trademark), Lucasarts can go right ahead.

[Craig Stern]

And if not, is it possible for me then to register The Eidolon name myself? (This is hypothetical, of course.) 

Even if that trademark is subject to cancellation, that doesn't mean you'll be able to successfully register it afterwards! U.S. trademark law, generally speaking, is very protective of the consuming public. If the Patent and Trademark Office gets the impression that you're trying to "pull one over" on consumers, it's likely that they won't approve your registration.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Just for clarity, you shouldn't really "slash" trademarks/copyrights like that. They're completely different things and cover completely different things. Trademarks are of names: company names and game titles, copyrights are of works: particular games. Patents are also very different. It's crucial to understand the difference between trademarks and copyrights, and the first post here doesn't seem to make that distinction.

[Craig Stern]

Paul is right, though I would hasten to add that you can also trademark designs, symbols, music, etc. A trademark can be anything that distinguishes a good or service as being "a single thing from a single source."

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Yes, although with music it's more of a recognizable jingle that's trademarked rather than a recording of a song (which would still need to be copyrighted). Anything that's recognizably symbolic of a company, like the McDonalds golden arch or the Pepsi symbol, or the names and likenesses of individual characters central to a story, can be trademarked.

[Ina Vegt]

Yes, although with music it's more of a recognizable jingle that's trademarked rather than a recording of a song (which would still need to be copyrighted). Anything that's recognizably symbolic of a company, like the McDonalds golden arch or the Pepsi symbol, or the names and likenesses of individual characters central to a story, can be trademarked.

Company or Product.

Electronic Arts is a trademark, I can't name my game company Electronic Artists.

"Simcity" is a trademark, I can't make, say, Simville.

It's grey, but it's important.

Very least, if your name suggest it's related to something trademarked, it's likely an infringement,

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Yes, true, I forgot product.

As an aside, you guys know cliffski? He's the developer of Democracy and Kudos. He was making a game called "Rockstar Legend" or something, and Rockstar Games sent him a letter saying he couldn't use that as a title since it's similar to their games. Similarly, there was a freeware game called Piano Hero which got a similar letter from the publishers of Guitar Hero. Those seem a bit excessive to me, would someone really be dumb enough to confuse a freeware game called Piano Hero with the commercial product Guitar Hero?

[Craig Stern]

They might not confuse the product, but they might confuse the source (i.e. the company that makes the product).

[mona.adele]

Take really, really old games which had never had sequels, remakes or re-releases...

For example, say, Caverns of Khafka by Cosmi Corporation that says (C) 1985 on its title screen.

I guess most people here will say that it's "abandonware" since that company most likely doesn' exist, but how about this then...

The Eidolon, published by Activision and developed by Lucasfilm in 1985.

Both Activision and Lucasfilm still exists, even though they are called something different today and I bet they will react if a game called The Eidolon would be released.

But recently, I've been reading news like the fact that Sega renewed the Jet Set Radio trademark for example.

So how long does the legal protection around these games really last?

Also, often the original authors signed away the rights to the names for their own games back in the day. What happens if such an author wants to re-release one of his own games?

Works protected under US copyright are protected for 120 years from time of publication for anonymous works/corporate entity works, and life of the author +70 years for individual works. In most cases games are created by companies, so the 120 year rule applies. Copyrights that were still active at the time of any of the copyright extension acts automatically had those years added (prior to the 90's corporate works were only protected for 90 years, individuals life +50).

Trademarks are protected indefinitely while the mark is being used in commerce. Note that a work may become abandoned if it isn't used for a particular period of time. You can read more about abandonment here http://www.helium.com/items/1363534-trademark-abandonment-cancellation-by-non-use

[Zaphos]

As an aside, you guys know cliffski? He's the developer of Democracy and Kudos. He was making a game called "Rockstar Legend" or something, and Rockstar Games sent him a letter saying he couldn't use that as a title since it's similar to their games. Similarly, there was a freeware game called Piano Hero which got a similar letter from the publishers of Guitar Hero. Those seem a bit excessive to me, would someone really be dumb enough to confuse a freeware game called Piano Hero with the commercial product Guitar Hero?

I think legal departments are kind of on autopilot with respect to these things; they have to defend the trademark to keep it (?), and it's probably easiest & safest for them to just send letters to anything that comes close.

[Craig Stern]

I think legal departments are kind of on autopilot with respect to these things; they have to defend the trademark to keep it (?), and it's probably easiest & safest for them to just send letters to anything that comes close.

Right. Every time they let something like that slide, they run a greater risk of their trademark becoming generic. Once a trademark comes to stand for a type of good in the public's mind, rather than a particular good from a particular source, it's generic, and it's no longer a valid trademark. So if "X Hero" came to just mean a rhythm game simulating an instrument ("X"), without regard to who made it, the "X Hero" trademark would slip into the public domain.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

That's not necessarily a big problem though -- the "Sim" or "Tycoon" trademarks are kind of in the public domain too, you'll find games called Sim X or X Tycoon which are not made by Will Wright or Sid Meier (or whoever originated X Tycoon?). So I guess I'm just against the idea of operating on autopilot when it makes no sense -- even with regards to large corporations, I think thinking about every decision is important.