Can I make a fan game and release if for free?

Yes you may use pop culture in an editorial sense in your own pop culture creation in the USA. Free of Speech. Freedom of the Press. So if you really enjoy it that IP more than trying to come up with your own IP go for it. Nothing says you can't do both. That IP you are so found of might be the motivating factor for you to produce something really good.

It won't make a bit of difference if the game is same as countless other games though if you are missing a massive advertising presence and customers what seek your business specifically to buy from.

You should though make sure though usage is editorial in nature.

 

It wouldn't really matter. Neither could claim ownership of the work, but they could both require you to take it down.

Its another weird way the law works. Derivative works have their own automatic copyright the same way original works do. So if I copy something that belongs to Disney, Disney (or anyone else) can't take my work and use it themselves. Regardless of the legality of my copy.

This can all get extremely complicated when derivative works are legally created. Which is why you often get odd things like a board game created from a TV franchise, but with no references from the accompanying movies. And other similar nonsense.

Its also frequently why some older IPs are completely untouched. Working out exactly who owns what can be virtually impossible.

Fingers crossed that someone works out a better way to balance all of this in the future.

 

Well get your butt working on a follow up to Red Faction Guerrilla!

 

Because I don't know the first thing about composing music XD And even if I did there's no way I could make anything that could hold a candle to bear mccreary's stuff lol

 

Unless you post it on youtube! This is Jim Sterlings topic - which he has rather smartly circumvented.

Still though - you don't want to rip someone elses work right? I mean just (I kinda dislike stating this) morally - the people who created that work of art should have all ownership of that - and not have to worry about someone bastardizing it -
Not saying you will - or would, but there is the possibility.

How about capturing the music/audio and reversing it, fiddling with the pitch shift and converting it to chip tunes. I wonder what that would sound like and if that would be enough derivation to make it your own. And call it Combatstar Astronomica.

 

Though it really doesn't matter. Derivative works are a right granted to the original copyright owner in US copyright law (and most others). So in most cases creating a derivative work is a violation in the first place. Additionally, when you are talking about large IP, there are already tons of derivative works by that owner which would mean your work isn't derivative, just simple infringement. For example, you couldn't make a Micky Mouse game and claim it is derivative, because there are endless Mickey Mouse games created by Disney. Disney licensing/producing goods with their IP is a basically a form of protection as well as revenue, it would be very difficult to create a transformative work with Mickey Mouse, as he is already on everything under the sun.
Moreover, even if you did manage to create something, using IP, that was derivative, despite the infringing material, you are correct that non infringing material "may" be something you can copyright. BUT... only the part that can be copyrighted. Most stuff can't be, including game mechanics. Sure if you introduced your own character in the game, the original owner still recreate your game exactly, just not use your character. But that wouldn't happen in reality, (plus it would be huge dick move to rip another character, get caught then turn around and sue for exact same thing).
Also bear in mind that a lot stuff with regards to big IP is also trademarked as well as copyrighted.

For example, I couldn't legally create a Transformers™ broadway musical. Hasbro(?) has the legal right create derivative works, and we aren't talking about a single copyright, we are talking about probably dozens if not hundreds, and trademarks galore. And what would be left for me to copyright after ignoring all infringing material? Not much if anything. (maybe the music, if it was original, but probably not the lyrics.)

Do you have an example? Most games I have seen of this nature are licensed. (except of course parody). Heh... I did just see a Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure card game at a game shop in Seattle.

 

Probably not the best example! 1984 was supposed to be Mickys debut in the public domain. Currently awaiting 2023 but not expecting that will ever happen.

But thanks for the info - derivative always seems unclear and generalized.

 

Sure. When the original Firefly board game game came out they had secured the lisence to the TV series, but not the Serentity movie. This the game only referenced places and characters and games from the TV series and not the movie. Essentially the game and the movies were both derivative works from the TV show, but the game was not derivative from the movie.

In later expansions they did get the rights to the movie, and then added the movie content into the game.

You'll often see a similar concept in books. Often despite the movies doing super well and the characters becoming iconic, published books will still retain cover art that looks nothing like the movie. Sometimes this is just artistic purity. But often it's because even though the movie is a legal derivative of the book, it doesn't automatically give the book rights to be derivative from the movie.

Not everyone has Disneys capacity to make every possible derivative work in house.

 

YTrue, but you don't think taking that work, messing with the pitch and likely making it sound awful is more of a bastardization that using it in its pure form as the centrepiece for the game?

 

Oh, now I get what you are saying. Gotcha.

Yea that does get very weird very quickly. Even back at Disney, there was wierd legacy licensing issues. Like with Oswald or even in our marvel games, we couldn't use adamantium legally.

Side note: have you played the firefly boardgame(s)? If so, do you recommend? If so which one?

 

Quite a while ago, probably in the '90s, there was a computer game based on some Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, except while they had the rights to make a game from the movie, they didn't have the rights to Arnold's likeness, so they had to use a kind of generic-looking muscle dude. Which kinda seems like it defeated the purpose....

Except things like copyright laws. That's not even remotely what freedom of speech or press means, like at all. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can do or say anything you want with no consequences, it simply means the government can't shut you down. e.g., if you have a website with some kind of content that your hosting provider has rules against, they can take it down and your rights are not being infringed. If nobody wants to host it, tough, that's the free market; you can still host it yourself and the government can't prevent that. But you're not free to use other people's property with no consequences.

--Eric

 

Plus free speech is a largely American concept that doesn't really exist in any other jurisdictions. We have freedom of political expression, which means you can say anything you like about political issues. But not free speech, which allows you to say anything about anything. It basically means that any game you make under free speech provisions will likely be shut down everywhere outside the United States.

I own Firefly: The Game. Along with the Breaking Atmo' expansion. I haven't played any of the further expansions or any of the other games. But I do really enjoy playing it.

My recommendation depends. If you love the firefly franchise, then I definitely recommend it. You get to play with all of the characters. You get to dodge through reaver and alliance space. You can bring River along, who can either totally kick arse, or simply hide behind a crate and do nothing.

On the other hand if you simply love board games, it's not a good experience. The game is long, two experienced players with the breaking atmo' expansion can finish the game in about two hours. Four new players with the base game can get through six hours of gameplay before giving up on ever finishing. (True story, we gave up on the first game.)

Characters are also unbalanced. The Serentity crew are much more powerful then any other character in the game. This makes sense to fans of the show, but throws off players unfamiliar with it.

There are plenty of other elements in the game that benefit from TV show knowledge. Knowing the difference between Osiris, Persephone and Stronghold will give you a significant leg up. As does knowing the significance of the fluffy pink dress or a fancy hat.

The mechanics of the game are also fairly mundane. Most of the missions are pick up and deliver. Gameplay is basically pick up and deliver small missions until you have enough cash and crew to do pick up and deliver on the main objective. Without the theme it's a pretty bland game.

TL;DR: If you like the show and the theme, buy the game. If you haven't seen the show, or didn't like it, don't go anywhere near the game.

 

Oh.. tough call then. I love firefly and l love board games.

On a related note, I just remembered another recent situation that fell into what you described. The original producers of Buffy the Vampire Slayer were going to a reboot of the movie. But they only had the rights to the character and contents from the movie, nothing from the show. It ultimately went no where, which is probably for the best.

 

That puts you in the same place as me. And I quite enjoy the game. If you have any other firefly fans to play with, you'll have a good experience. But I wouldn't try and play it with people who aren't fans of the show.

 

No I agree it would probably result in a terrible sounding piece, but I think editing something down to where it is not recognizable - at some point it becomes non-derivative - and I know there is guidelines within the law as to how much editing needs to be done - but my point isn't how much editing would need to be done - my point is - better to create original content - even if inspired by something else.

I'm also not an audio guy - so if I wanted to create a piece that was inspired by the theme song to a popular IP - I'd hire or partner with someone experienced/knowledgeable in audio creation, instead of using the popular IPs content.

 

No, I may write and create all I want editorially about Mickey Mouse and the like. Just what do you think this thread is here about and it even mentions Mickey Mouse? If I choose to illustrate and animate editorially it's still freedom of speech. I may not, as often done in the business and government media, editorialize to present opinions that are lies for personal or political gain. I may editorialize though about, for example, the pervasive violence in Disney and other IP, legally, and they can't touch me. Copyright laws can't stop that. See for example, 'Supersize Me'.

 

That's simply incorrect.

--Eric

 

American fair use covers verbatim citations for the purposes of news reporting and research. You may not illustrate and animate without Disney's permission, because that would not fall under fair use.

Freedom of speech only protects you from being prosecuted by government. It does not protect you from being sued by Disney and does not allow you to use their intellectual property. It is worth mentioning that they've been protecting ownership of Mickey Mouse for almost a hundred years, pushing extension of copyright protection each time.

 

One can comment on Mickey Mouse and Disney all they like. You can even use original Disney produced material to comment on the material without getting into trouble. You could probably even create your own content using Disney IP in order to comment on Mickey Mouse and Disney. A video where Elsa and Snow White discuss the changing role of the Disney princess over time could probably just skate in under fair use. A parody video where Sleeping Beauty tells Leia she needs to put down the gun and wait for a prince to come rescue her is likely okay.

That still doesn't let you create your own game using Mickey Mouse. While possible, its hard to provide relevant commentary in games. And making a game that is purely commentary is virtually impossible.

I think you have this one wrong too. From the outside looking in, it appears free speech in the US does let you lie all you want. There is a reason few other countries have American style free speech protection. And I'm going to stop now before I go to far into the political.

 

Well, no, there's libel/slander to consider.

--Eric

 

Interesting, I wonder how they define the line between not enough editing and an acceptable amount, kind of like an objective distinction on something that's inherently subjective?

 

I have heard and seen two court cases where some people have done this. Both of them where sued for millions of dollars even though they where poor people and never got any money for the fan made project. One case which is the most recent was against a man who created a fan story about Harry Potter. It became popular and the lawsuit was broadcast on the news station. Another one was against a cartoon artist who was sued by Walt Disney world. That artist was also sued for millions.

As I said they where just fans recreating the artwork. Both Harry Potter creator and also Walt Disney where able to provide evidence of millions worth of money lost in income.

These lawsuits also happen when someone's artwork is similar to anothers. Even though they are unrelated.

 

It is civil, there are no objective guidelines because every case is different. They must argue successfully and show in court that it causes damages/brand confusion.

 

Legality is the least of your concern anyway, initial legal fees is the blunt weapon they have that will crush you no matter how right you are, ask openIV in the gta scene that is all original code (though this has been resolve by now).

 

Yeah - all about who has the most money to pay the best lawyer to argue the most convincing case.

 

Most of the time it's just to drain your resources long before it even gets to court. You have to pay a lawyer to represent you or you're likely guaranteed to lose to even nonsense lawsuits, but hiring a lawyer immediately gets you if it's not a giant corporation like Disney, but still costs an enormous amount.

Game Reviewers like Jim Sterling know about this. They have hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees after getting sued by frivolous lawsuits. They eventually win, but at what cost? A LOT of money. It is a shame that YouTube doesn't pay for their defense to stop this frivolous stuff form happening. And it is a shame that gamedevs, artists, etc. do not have an organization or union to pay for their defense so they can actually stop Disney/Hasbro/Whoever from destroying fans for frivolous reasons.

 

I've played the board game version (the one with the expansions that @kiwase mentions) and quite like it. That said, I agree with him that it's not a board gamers' game. We treat it more as a short-play RPG. It's pretty casual and lite mechanically, it's really more about the atmosphere and role-play of being ship captains in the 'verse. So if you're into detailed games it's probably not one for you, but if you're in it for social role play and a not-too-serious evening it's pretty cool.