Original post by Washu

Original post by ZenDavis

Quote:Original post by Washu
Use [quote][/quote] when quoting something, to prevent confusion.

Or better yet, create your own fictional characters.

But doesn't that ruin the point of the parody? ;)

Quote:Original post by ZenDavis
Well lets say I want to use Mario in an RPG project that falls under parody, where does GameDev stand with that.

Keep in mind that there are two separate issues in your question:
- What Nintendo would do;
- What GameDev thinks.

Why is the latter important? IOW, why do you ask, what is it you're REALLY trying to find out?

Quote:Original post by ZenDavis
...Either way what you're saying is that it would be decided in a courtroom. My question is whether GameDev would let me seek collaboration for a project that is essentially a videogame equivalent of "South Park".

I get the feeling you think that the "proven in court" part of the discussion is of interest but not vital to your real question; which is, "Will GD allow someone to place HW posts for a parody project".

However the proof issue is a vital part of the answer because, until someone actually goes to court and the judge rules in their favor, the matter remains unproven. Just because someone believes that their project constitutes a parody that doesn't mean that the court will agree. Further more, as the matter is unproven, there remains the chance that the IP owner will take some form of action to prevent the use of the IP.

That is fine if the project team are willing to take on that legal risk (and have suitable indemnity insurance). They can put up a web site, post about the project and hope that Nintendo don't notice. The problems start when they seek to expose Gamedev.net to that risk.

What is the likely action? - In most cases I would assume a simple cease and desist letter and GD.net would immediately remove the offending material. However, there are companies out there who actively pursue trademark and other IP related infringements specifically in order to try and force a pre-court settlement. They know that companies will pay a settlement if it is likely to be cheaper than the cost of mounting a defense. they will often pursue any parties involved in the alleged infringement and specifically those that they think may have some cash. In other words they are less likely to actively pursue the (poor) individual who committed the alleged infringement and put more effort into attempting to prove the involvement of any company involved (such as GD.net), from whom they would have a greater chance of gaining a settlement.

The cost of responding to a cease and desist is minimal; but there is a cost. Any escalation above that and the costs rise dramatically.

Quote:Original post by Tom Sloper
....what is it you're REALLY trying to find out?

What the Op is really trying to find out is NOT "will GD.net allow me to post (what I believe to be) a parody project".
The real question being asked is "will GD.net expose themselves to potential legal action and the associated costs(however minimal), because I want to use someone else's IP".

I certainly don't believe that GD.net has any responsibility to expose themselves to any level of risk and believe the current system whereby IP related projects are banned, unless the team can prove they have permission from the IP owner, is perfectly reasonable.

Quote:Original post by Obscure
What the Op is really trying to find out is NOT "will GD.net allow me to post (what I believe to be) a parody project".
The real question being asked is "will GD.net expose themselves to potential legal action and the associated costs(however minimal), because I want to use someone else's IP".

Ah. I always love seeing the real question!

Quote:Original post by Obscure

Quote:Original post by ZenDavis
...Either way what you're saying is that it would be decided in a courtroom. My question is whether GameDev would let me seek collaboration for a project that is essentially a videogame equivalent of "South Park".

I get the feeling you think that the "proven in court" part of the discussion is of interest but not vital to your real question; which is, "Will GD allow someone to place HW posts for a parody project".

However the proof issue is a vital part of the answer because, until someone actually goes to court and the judge rules in their favor, the matter remains unproven. Just because someone believes that their project constitutes a parody that doesn't mean that the court will agree. Further more, as the matter is unproven, there remains the chance that the IP owner will take some form of action to prevent the use of the IP.

That is fine if the project team are willing to take on that legal risk (and have suitable indemnity insurance). They can put up a web site, post about the project and hope that Nintendo don't notice. The problems start when they seek to expose Gamedev.net to that risk.

What is the likely action? - In most cases I would assume a simple cease and desist letter and GD.net would immediately remove the offending material. However, there are companies out there who actively pursue trademark and other IP related infringements specifically in order to try and force a pre-court settlement. They know that companies will pay a settlement if it is likely to be cheaper than the cost of mounting a defense. they will often pursue any parties involved in the alleged infringement and specifically those that they think may have some cash. In other words they are less likely to actively pursue the (poor) individual who committed the alleged infringement and put more effort into attempting to prove the involvement of any company involved (such as GD.net), from whom they would have a greater chance of gaining a settlement.

The cost of responding to a cease and desist is minimal; but there is a cost. Any escalation above that and the costs rise dramatically.

Quote:Original post by Tom Sloper
....what is it you're REALLY trying to find out?

What the Op is really trying to find out is NOT "will GD.net allow me to post (what I believe to be) a parody project".
The real question being asked is "will GD.net expose themselves to potential legal action and the associated costs(however minimal), because I want to use someone else's IP".

I certainly don't believe that GD.net has any responsibility to expose themselves to any level of risk and believe the current system whereby IP related projects are banned, unless the team can prove they have permission from the IP owner, is perfectly reasonable.

Well no. I know how to use the English language. If I had wanted to ask your question, I would have. I asked what I meant to. Don't be presumptuous and put words in my mouth. It reflects badly on you and makes you look like a douche - no offense but it does.

All I wanted to ask was whether GameDev would allow a posting of that nature. That's all. Your relatively confrontational post is silly because it's not like I went ahead and posted any projects dealing with the IP properties and then after being shut down, raised this issue.

The videogame industry has always been caught "is it art or is it not" paradox. All other mediums that are considered art DO allow parody, courtroom challenges or not, and this has been proven by history (and some really shitty movies).

All in all, THIS is discussion. Last time I checked, this wasn't the Help Wanted forum. Your knee-jerk reaction is quite telling however and in the end, I guess in your eyes videogames don't constitute art. More than that, on a personal level, you're kinda being awfully condescending. Tone it down.

And again, this is discussion. I don't have any projects in effect that deal with the IPs of any other company. But discussion on these things IS important.

The bottom line is that if anyone who wanted to step up to plate and make the swing, there is legal precedence that would stand there at home plate with them. Would there be IP challenges? Of course!

But there are parodies of IPs all the time - from Penny-Arcade to Family Guy. In the case of the videogame industry, I think they're relatively okay with it as long as that doesn't enter their respective medium. Once that does happen, there will be a huge court room fight, it will be on media sites everywhere, and winning or losing, the people who make that first step will get known everywhere.

And there is also the fact that although they may lose, they may also win. In that case the company suing would have to be pay for the legal costs of the winning party. And done right, the winning party would have a tidal wave of publicity going forward. It's a risk versus reward scenario - I just think your "OMG! We're GONNA' GET SUED TO OBBBBLLIIIVVIIION!" reaction lacks a certain amount of backbone, especially since once again - THIS IS JUST DISCUSSION.

Then again... you are from England? I don't know why you're commenting on something that discusses American Law. You don't apply to this conversation at all.

[Edited by - ZenDavis on February 19, 2010 11:07:15 AM]

Quote:Original post by ZenDavis
The videogame industry has always been caught "is it art or is it not" paradox. All other mediums that are considered art DO allow parody, courtroom challenges or not, and this has been proven by history (and some really shitty movies).

I think you are missing the wood for the trees here: History hasn't proven anything, nor have bad movies. Instead, a series of very expensive court cases have been fought to secure parody as a legitimate application of fair use.

Quote:Your knee-jerk reaction is quite telling however and in the end, I guess in your eyes videogames don't constitute art.

The relation of games to art has nothing to do with the issue. A parody movie can be taken to court just as easily as a parody computer game, and in either case, the onus is on the producer to prove that the movie/game is a legitimate use of parody.

Quote:Well no. I know how to use the English language. If I had wanted to ask your question, I would have. I asked what I meant to. Don't be presumptuous and put words in my mouth. It reflects badly on you and makes you look like a douche - no offense but it does.

All in all, THIS is discussion. Last time I checked, this wasn't the Help Wanted forum. More than that, on a personal level, you're kinda being awfully condescending. Tone it down.

And again, this is discussion. I don't have any projects in effect that deal with the IPs of any other company. But discussion on these things IS important.

Then again... you are from England? I don't know why you're commenting on something that discusses American Law. You don't apply to this conversation at all.

You asked for GameDev's stance on help wanted posts for parody projects. Obscure replied with a detailed evaluation of the risk GameDev would be taking in doing so, and stated that they would not accept such posts.

Nowhere did Obscure personally attack you, and your attacks on his character are hardly befitting of an "important discussion".

Quote:Instead, a series of very expensive court cases have been fought to secure parody as a legitimate application of fair use.

Did this happen in the past? Then it falls under history. Duh.

Quote:The relation of games to art has nothing to do with the issue. A parody movie can be taken to court just as easily as a parody computer game, and in either case, the onus is on the producer to prove that the movie/game is a legitimate use of parody.

You're repeating yourself (and others and myself). We've all said as much. It's been repeated a hundred times now. Duh.

Quote:You asked for GameDev's stance on help wanted posts for parody projects. Obscure replied with a detailed evaluation of the risk GameDev would be taking in doing so, and stated that they would not accept such posts.

Nowhere did Obscure personally attack you, and your attacks on his character are hardly befitting of an "important discussion".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/patronizing

Look at definition number three. You can insult someone without vulgar or personal attacks by simply talking down to them. Don't tell me you didn't know this? Duh. (See what I'm doing here? In case you don't, it's a simpler, concise version of what Obscure did.)

All in all. Lets be cordial gentlemen. I've been fine with everyone's responses but Obscure can walk out of the thread. I didn't care for his tone.

Quote:Original post by ZenDavis
I know how to use the English language....
All I wanted to ask was whether GameDev would allow a posting of that nature.

Then why didn't you just ask that in the first place?

Also:
Name-calling is uncalled-for. Let's try to keep it civil.
And please try to keep quoted text short and to the point.

Quote:Original post by Tom Sloper

Quote:Original post by ZenDavis
I know how to use the English language....
All I wanted to ask was whether GameDev would allow a posting of that nature.

Then why didn't you just ask that in the first place?

Also:
Name-calling is uncalled-for. Let's try to keep it civil.
And please try to keep quoted text short and to the point.

Because I thought you guys could make the connection between the bloc-o-text I posted in the OP and asking where the use of parody fell under it.

I mean it was the entire post from the Help Wanted section regarding IP usage, and the subject matter of parody inherently has to do with mocking an IP that usually, but not always, belongs to someone else.

I'm actually a bit shocked that the correlation wasn't made.

Short answer (or at least my professional opinion) from the lawyer:

Until we get this site registered as a DMCA service provider, any posts containing proposals, content, or other information that may give rise to legal action from a copyright owner, regardless of the merits of that copyright owner's claims, are subject to deletion. This is why Obscure raised that point.

Also, for the sake of civil discourse, please refrain from being belligerant. It undermines any possible objective you may have.