tboxx

An independent artist created a sonic the hedgehog sprite sheet and as long as I give him credit, I can use it. My questions is: Is there a legal disclaimer I can put on the screen that says this is not made by sega...etc to avoid being sued. I simply want to make a sonic game for fun on the iphone and provide it free of charge to anyone. Will I get sued for doing that or is there a way I can state this is for fun and the graphics were independently. Or is this a shady idea?

 

Sonic the Hedgehog  is Saga's Intellectual Property.   I don't believe the fact an independent artist drew the picture changes anything. Nor would a disclaimer of any sort. 

You could get sued. Will you get sued?  That is harder to predict.  

As much as I don't think self-advertising this way is elegant, I think an article I wrote some time ago might help you rethink your idea:

 

http://gamesmakingnoob.blogspot.com/2012/12/i-have-brilliant-game-idea.html

 

 

I like your article.  Its an interesting paradox though.  A game without a good idea is worthless and a good idea by itself is worthless.

Stormynature, on 23 Feb 2013 - 12:02, said:
Stormynature, on 23 Feb 2013 - 12:02, said:

tboxx, on 23 Feb 2013 - 11:50, said:
tboxx, on 23 Feb 2013 - 11:50, said:

I think a few different collaboration agreement templates in plain language that covers all the legal jargon would be a wonderful
resource.

Will never happen except in the most basic of contractual situations. The reason being is that "honouring the intent" of a contract is extraordinarily open to interpretation on both sides. The legalese is a stylised form of language that has arisen to given specific and unique meanings to terminologies used and how they are used so as to rigidly define the limitations/restraints upon which a contract is formed. Many lawyers do not know themselves how to craft airtight contract which is why there is often so much dispute in the court systems. Your only hope in creating a very simple plain language is that the courts themselves will enable its intent to be honoured over a legal "loophole" dugout by a professional lawyer engaged against you. There are precedents for this which is why plain language is the only recommendation that counts outside of a lawyer....and it still comes down to the reality of the fact that you should be seeing a lawyer.



edit: I forgot to mention the other aspect of why sorry. Normal everyday language in any language spoken tends to have a multiple set of interpretations which can depend a number of different factors and is very open to misinterpretation between two or more parties without anyone having realised that they all have a different understanding of what had been said.

Legalese can be explained in plain language to an extent. Contracts disputes end up in court for many number of reasons some of which have zero to do with how the agreement was drafted. People use legal forms every day in a ton of industries. You can get model agreements for a will, forming a company, a healthcare proxy etc. The reality of the fact is not everyone can afford to pay an attorney for legal work and want some type of guidence when they decide to do it themselves is it better to have an attorney draft your agreements? Yes, no doubt.

 

Fantastic responses.

Many locations will limit the value of plain language agreements to something like $50,000, assuming that if something is of that much value you would have been competent enough to get a lawyer to draft it for you.

Limited in what way? That the person suing can only recover up to ~$50k (or whatever the limit) owed? Which party is limited?

 

The first example that comes up in Google:

 

 

This act shall be known and may be cited as the Plain Language Consumer Contract Act.
...
(b) Exclusions.--This act does not apply to the following: 
 (1) Real estate conveyance documents and contracts, deeds and mortgages, real estate certificates of title and title insurance contracts. 
 (2) Consumer contracts involving amounts of more than $50,000. 
 (3) Marital agreements. 
 (4) Contracts to buy securities. 
 (5) Documents used by financial institutions, which financial institutions are subject to examination or other supervision by Federal or State regulatory authorities, or documents used by affiliates, subsidiaries or service corporations of such financial institutions. 
 (6) Contracts for insurance or insurance policies. 
 (7) Contracts subject to examination or other supervision by the Pennsylvania  Public Utility Commission or by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 
 (8) Commercial leases. 
 

 

 

In other words, for this state, plain language contracts are allowed for almost anything you could use a contract for.  You can use plain language agreements for everything except those few items.  If your usage is excluded, a formal legal agreement is required.

 

You are confusing the point of the statute in PA and what a plain language contract means. That Act, which is states this outside of your quote, requires consumer agreements to be written in plain language unless it falls under one of the exceptions you quoted. The difference is contracts are not required to be written in legal
jargon to be effective/enforceable Generally. So this law you cited does not create the ability to have an enforceable plain language agreement because that is the general rule but rather is designed to require companies contracting with consumers to write the agreements so that the consumer can easily understand it. So an agreement in PA for over $50k to a consumer could be written in plain language could be enforceable. $50,000 is not a cap on the enforceability of a consumer contract, it means a company/person contracting with the consumer is no longer required towrite the agreement in plain language and can write the agreement in
legal jargon.

 

 

What if the game starts pulling in a lot of money, and two kids disagreed on who gets what.  It seems that legal guardians coming to an agreement, preferably recorded some how is probably the second best, and first would be to consult a lawyer.

 

Right. Have a collaboration agreement beforehand, signed by the parents.

 

I would suggest you also have the minors sign the agreement adding additional signature blocks is not a big deal.  Depending on the state, their signatures very well could bind them when they turn 18 if they don't disaffirm the agreement. 

 

"The minor may disaffirm his contract during minority or after he attains the age of majority, but in the latter situation he must disaffirm by words or conduct within a reasonable time after majority, or else he may be held to have ratified the contract and to be fully responsible thereunder." 14 Mass. Prac., Summary Of Basic Law § 5.38 (4th ed.)