On 5/16/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Note that there is no question (IANAL, TINLA) that openttd infringes > > the copyright on Transport Tycoon in any jurisdiction that recognizes > > the doctrine of "mise en scene", i. e., pretty much any jurisdiction > > that has a copyright law. See Micro Star v. FormGen. > > There are always questions, of course. And, I do think you > have a pretty strong point here, in the sense that this can be > a very real issue. > > But, the scenes are not a part of openttd. They are the non-free > component which forces openttd into contrib.
No, the artwork (if included) would be literally infringing. The "mise en scene" doctrine is not about literal copying, it's about the creation of sequels (parodies, clones, etc.) that plagiarize the original work and siphon off the commercial potential of it and/or of derivative works. > > In general, Debian should not be distributing game clones, in main, in > > contrib, or anywhere else. The fact that copyright holders rarely > > bother to pursue legal action against half-assed clones of obsolete > > games does not mean that they are legitimate in the eyes of the law. > > I agree with your second sentence. I'm just not sure that your > general statement from your first sentence applies here. > > The question is: does openttd contain copyrighted material from > Transport Tycoon? If you are talking about literal copying, you are asking the wrong question. The question is, does a clone of a specific game infringe its copyright? And the answer is Yes. A game clone -- as opposed to a new work in the same genre, with rules, tiles, etc. that are convincingly independently developed insofar as they are not scenes a faire -- always infringes the copyright on the original (assuming that the original is not old enough for its copyright to have expired, and was not published without copyright notice prior to 1976). > I don't have the answer to that question, and it sounds like the > copyright holders are not currently interested in stating their > opinion. > > That leaves us with "due diligence" -- whatever that means in this > context. It means reading the law and getting a clue. I refer you again to Micro Star v. FormGen. > I don't think a blanket prohibition on clone software (or even > game clone software) will serve us very well. Sometimes it's > going to be a problem, sometimes it's not. The times it's > going to be a problem is when the clone software copies > a tangible expression of creative content from the original > work. > > We have not yet identified any such elements which are > relevant to openttd. If you understood the meaning of "derivative work" -- as you have conclusively demonstrated elsewhere that you do not -- you would have no difficulty identifying those elements. Cheers, - Michael
