|
I am an attorney from New York that works pretty exclusively with game and app developers. I keep seeing headlines about another indie getting screwed over by a big company, when the simplest of protections (ie. registering a trademark) would have saved them. So, I'm here to offer some free guidance to those who might have some questions. I also wrote this guide on trademarks for people who can't/don't want to spend the legal fees on actual protection: http://ryanmorrisonlaw.com/trademark-advice-for-those-who-cant-afford-any-advice/ DISCLAIMER: I am an American attorney licensed in New York. Nothing in this post creates an attorney/client relationship. I cannot answer specific questions that only relate to you. This post is meant as general guidance to inform only and you should always contact a lawyer before moving forward with anything. Right then. Ask away!
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
If I start a company to make a specific service, and don't do a check to see if some or all of the concepts are patented before forging ahead, what are the possible ramifications down the line? Assuming I don't have any money to pay a lawyer, what should I do to help protect myself? (I'm from Australia BTW, but let's just gloss over that fact for the moment...)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Well I'm in America so I'll talk about their patent system. Usually, unless you're creating hardware, patents are 100% not worth your concern. They cost an insane amount of money to register and even more to enforce. I would always recommend trademarking your company name and putting out a good product instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Software law being that fun magic land that it is, if I make a good product and it sells ok, and some other company copies the functionality of that software and it sells like hotcakes, what are the possible options? What kind of things might this infringe on, and what would I have to show to prove the infringement? The SCO trial over the linux kernel was about source code. Obviously source code is a different story than making an editor with the same features and button layout, so if I somehow believe they've actually copied my source, what are the sorts of variables that makes it even a viable option to pursue legal action against them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
George Bush posted:Well I'm in America so I'll talk about their patent system. Usually, unless you're creating hardware, patents are 100% not worth your concern. They cost an insane amount of money to register and even more to enforce. I would always recommend trademarking your company name and putting out a good product instead. So (and I understand that nothing you say here constitutes any kind of official advice, or can be counted upon to be accurate in another country) you would say that the chances of us being blindsided by a patent lawsuit if our idea takes off are pretty minimal?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
TodPunk posted:Software law being that fun magic land that it is, if I make a good product and it sells ok, and some other company copies the functionality of that software and it sells like hotcakes, what are the possible options? What kind of things might this infringe on, and what would I have to show to prove the infringement? Copying source code verbatim is a lot easier to prevent or stop than stopping someone from copying function. You can't really protect function, except sometimes with a patent...although that is extremely easy to get around. (Patents are VERY narrow.) Your best bet is almost always the trademark route, because if you can prove consumer confusion you can usually get the other guy shut down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Sir_Substance posted:So (and I understand that nothing you say here constitutes any kind of official advice, or can be counted upon to be accurate in another country) you would say that the chances of us being blindsided by a patent lawsuit if our idea takes off are pretty minimal? Is there a risk? Sure. Is it likely? Definitely not. Patent trolls are looking for a payout from Apple usually, not you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
If I use artwork from an old Apple II game (say, Oregon Trail by MECC), can I be sued? I'm guessing the answer is "yes, if you make any money" or "no, unless the rights were sold to a company that still exists" but I'd love a lawyer's opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Similar to Novo's question, what if you use assets from someone else's game X but require that game X is installed by the user, and you don't distribute the the game itself or include the assets with your game. I assume that using named characters, vehicles, towns, etc aren't allowed, but what if you use generic trees, buildings, player or NPC characters, vehicles, models/textures/sounds etc, and don't refer to the original game's proper nouns at all? Does it make a difference if game X costs money or is free to download and play (my guess is no)? Does it matter if game X is still active or not? Does it matter if you give away or sell your game?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Novo posted:If I use artwork from an old Apple II game (say, Oregon Trail by MECC), can I be sued? I'm guessing the answer is "yes, if you make any money" or "no, unless the rights were sold to a company that still exists" but I'd love a lawyer's opinion. Yes, even if you DON'T make money. It's less likely they'll come after you and more likely they'll just send you a cease and desist telling you to stop, but you're definitely putting yourself at risk by using art owned by someone else without a license.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Gangsta Lean posted:Similar to Novo's question, what if you use assets from someone else's game X but require that game X is installed by the user, and you don't distribute the the game itself or include the assets with your game. I assume that using named characters, vehicles, towns, etc aren't allowed, but what if you use generic trees, buildings, player or NPC characters, vehicles, models/textures/sounds etc, and don't refer to the original game's proper nouns at all? Are you talking about a mod? Or a complete stand alone game that just requires you to own the game you are "borrowing" from? I'm a loser, you can talk to me in real game speak, haha. But to your last point, no it doesn't matter if you sell or give away the game. Infringement is infringement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
I was referring to a completely stand alone game that isn't a sequel or continuation of the original game's story or anything like that, just reusing someone else's art assets. I guess it could be considered a mod, but I haven't really thought of it like that. I don't have any particular game to borrow from in mind...something with enough reusable assets for whatever genre game I'd be making. I have no concrete plans for doing this, just thought of doing it as a means to make a game without needing an artist. I assumed it wouldn't work out so I never went beyond "hmm, I wonder if this would get me in trouble?". A little more concrete examples would be reusing gems and sound effects from a puzzle game, or buildings/trees/vehicles/people from GTA or any MMO for an open world action game, or terrain/units/sounds from DOTA for a non-MOBA game, etc, while not referring to the original trademarked proper nouns anywhere in the new game. I think you answered it with Novo's question: cease and desist in the best case, something more threatening in the worst case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
All things considered, you could probably get away with declaring that a mod. Is a mod that keeps the game engine but uses new art assets more of a mod then a mod that keeps the art assets but uses a new game engine? You're avant-garde on the modding scene, truly questioning the deep truths of the modding world and forcing people to I give up I can't do art critic I'M SORRY 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
I never signed and was never given an NDA, or a word about it. The code for my project is apparently owned by a state government. Given that, how free am I to discuss it? Clearly I cannot divulge personal information I come across as part of my job for ethical reasons - what's the legal standing on talking about the project itself, then?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Whats a good rule of thumb for creating an LLC. I have an idea for a site I am building that would probably make money through ads/parnerships, but I'm not sure I need an LLC. Ditto on any mobile app of a similar vein. I see private developer apps do well in the App store but transferring ownership can be a hassle once it's published.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
This is exactly the thread I was looking for. Your post on trademarks was great as I am working on a startup web/mobile app and am looking to protect my IP in some way before pitching/demoing the product. Contacting you through your website.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
2banks1swap.avi posted:I never signed and was never given an NDA, or a word about it. The code for my project is apparently owned by a state government. That seems like I'd need a lot more info to give you an answer. And we aren't allowed to answer such a specific question over a forum like this since so many facts can greatly change the advice. Sorry, mate. But to play it safe, I wouldn't discuss it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Kallikrates posted:Whats a good rule of thumb for creating an LLC. I have an idea for a site I am building that would probably make money through ads/parnerships, but I'm not sure I need an LLC. Ditto on any mobile app of a similar vein. I see private developer apps do well in the App store but transferring ownership can be a hassle once it's published. Transferring ownership can be a hassle, but setting up an LLC can be expensive. To be honest, a lawyer knows a lot more about the risks that an LLC protects you from, but an accountant would be the best one to talk to. They most likely offer a free consultation and can answer a quick question like this for nothing. Also, an LLC may not even be the best option in your state/country, as the laws vary as much as possible from state to state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Spasms posted:This is exactly the thread I was looking for. Your post on trademarks was great as I am working on a startup web/mobile app and am looking to protect my IP in some way before pitching/demoing the product. Contacting you through your website. Got your email and responded. Trademarks are usually the absolute best protection for game and app developers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
If you make a website that is an obvious parody of another website (and rhymes with the name of it and offers similar functionality), can you get shut down?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
If I have a site that lets people post libelous or obviously fake things about a person, and attaches those posts to the persons picture/social media profiles, how do I avoid getting sued? Is there some magic "this is all fake and parody and entertainment only" clause that I can put in tiny font on every page?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
more like dICK posted:If I have a site that lets people post libelous or obviously fake things about a person, and attaches those posts to the persons picture/social media profiles, how do I avoid getting sued? Is there some magic "this is all fake and parody and entertainment only" clause that I can put in tiny font on every page? Uh. Uhhh... No magic clause can save your rear end from doing something dumb and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Uh. Uhhh... Serious question. How do Facebook and twitter do it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
more like dICK posted:Serious question. How do Facebook and twitter do it? It's against their Terms of Service to impersonate another. See the rules. Several US laws also make sure that you can't directly sue Twitter (or a service provider) for the collective userbase's actions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
fletcher posted:If you make a website that is an obvious parody of another website (and rhymes with the name of it and offers similar functionality), can you get shut down? Depends on what you mean by "get shut down". You must, of course, abide by the Terms of Service of your hosting provider, and some hosts have provisions saying parody works aren't allowed on their service. If you use the other site's trademarked or copyrighted works directly, you might get a DMCA takedown notice, in which case you have some time to either take down the content or respond to the takedown notice directly. You might argue that your use of the work falls under the "fair use" doctrine because it's transformative and for educational purposes, etc. If the company chooses to pursue the case in court and you still think your use is fair, I'd recommend contacting the EFF for legal advice. I am, of course, not a lawyer. This might be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:It's against their Terms of Service to impersonate another. See the rules. Several US laws also make sure that you can't directly sue Twitter (or a service provider) for the collective userbase's actions. Oh it wasn't about impersonating someone, but posting about them. I guess libel is covered by "no unlawful use" in the TOS, which is way simpler than I expected. edit: If you have a site like Twitter or Facebook, is there a requirement to be proactive about removing illegal content or do you just have to respond to requests in a timely manner? more like dICK fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Have the linking provisions of the GPL actually been tested in court? i.e. what the line is between an interconnected application suite ("aggregate") and a complete program, and what "operating system" in section 1 actually means?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Great thread, thanks for doing this. My question: I am going to be starting a company with another person, creating software and other products for sale. We will be equal in the business (50/50 ownership) and as luck would have it, we're in New York state! Would you recommend an S-Corp or an LLC to start? There will be some small initial personal investment from us two, but no "outside" money or loans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Do you have any experience with non-compete clauses in employment contracts? A start-up is knocking at my door and I've been trying to negotiate its removal but they are being stubborn. I consulted the lawyer I use for my freelance work and he suggested that the following be added to the contract if the non-compete isn't removed. 1. upon termination the non-compete is void, or 2. adding a 'consideration' clause which entitles me a years worth of salary (length of non-compete term) + normal severance I approached the boss with those counter offers and was basically laughed at. Are these reasonable things to be asking for? My lawyer and research indicates that it is, but they are claiming otherwise. I guess I should mention that the contract also has the standard confidential information / non-solicitation clauses in place, which I have no problem with. They just want to prevent me from working on a similar project, which to me is ridiculous in the web development industry. As it stands the non-compete is so vague that it could mean anything. I could PM you the entire contract if that's something you need to help, if you can help at all. Oh My Science fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Oh My Science posted:Do you have any experience with non-compete clauses in employment contracts? A start-up is knocking at my door and I've been trying to negotiate its removal but they are being stubborn. I consulted the lawyer I use for my freelance work and he suggested that the following be added to the contract if the non-compete isn't removed. This varies greatly by state (in terms of how non-competes are treated and/or enforced). Is this in CA (just guessing since you said start-up) because non-competes are void there (this was in VA, which is not friendly to non-competes). A former employer (consulting firm) had a non-compete clause but people broke it regularly and there wasn't much the company could/would do about it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
Can you help me interpret this "free" license or do I need to contact the creator? I want to be able to sell a game using one of her retro fonts, does that count as selling "copies of the Software"? What if I generate a bitmap font first and use that instead of bundling the font file?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Novo posted:Can you help me interpret this "free" license or do I need to contact the creator? I want to be able to sell a game using one of her retro fonts, does that count as selling "copies of the Software"? What if I generate a bitmap font first and use that instead of bundling the font file? 5. Kreative Software reserves the right to change this license at any time without notice. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Novo posted:Can you help me interpret this "free" license or do I need to contact the creator? I want to be able to sell a game using one of her retro fonts, does that count as selling "copies of the Software"? What if I generate a bitmap font first and use that instead of bundling the font file? IANAL but I've read up on quite a few license types to be safe. No, it's not a copyleft license as far as I can tell. It looks like a modified BSD license. So long as you don't use these fonts: "Jewel Hill, Miss Diode n Friends, This is Beckie's font!" or "Pro CE" you can use them in a commercial product. As you're technically redistributing their software in yours, you must credit them but otherwise you are fine.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
I have a question regarding GPL v3. This gem, sshkit (https://github.com/capistrano/sshkit), is licensed with GPL v3. Capistrano (https://github.com/capistrano/capistrano) references it as a dependency (but it itself is MIT licensed). If I reference Capistrano in an application, what obligations do I have with regards to GPL v3 and the two layer dependency I now have on sshkit, if any? The application is a Rails app, and is a private program which I do not intend on distributing. Does sshkit's GPLv3 license compel me to make my private web app source available?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
My understanding of GPL is if you use any portion of source covered under a GPL license it means that all corresponding source is now covered under a GPL license. It being a copyleft license and all.quote:The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work. While Capistrano might be officially under a MIT license, it really should be under the exact same license as sshkit. So you will need to find something else if you don't want your project to be under a GPL v3 license. EDIT: Technically if you have used Capistrano at all in your project, you are poo poo out of luck and your project is now under a GPLv3 license even if you strip it out. You would need to roll back your source to before you used the software. I think you would be fine if no Capistrano code at all is in your project and you just used it's API's and distributed Capistrano as a stand-alone application. But if you embedded the software into the code itself than you have trouble. 2nd EDIT: You also don't need to give away the source code pre-emptively. But if someone asked than you would need to give away the source code. Lord Windy fucked around with this message at 07:49 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Factor Mystic posted:I have a question regarding GPL v3. This gem, sshkit (https://github.com/capistrano/sshkit), is licensed with GPL v3. Capistrano (https://github.com/capistrano/capistrano) references it as a dependency (but it itself is MIT licensed). Gpl doesn't say that you have to make the source available to all, only that users of the program need to have access to the source. If you're not distributing the software to anyone then you don't need to release the source code.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
Contra Duck posted:Gpl doesn't say that you have to make the source available to all, only that users of the program need to have access to the source. If you're not distributing the software to anyone then you don't need to release the source code. Oh, well that works as well. I hope I am not being entirely wrong all the time 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
Contra Duck posted:Gpl doesn't say that you have to make the source available to all, only that users of the program need to have access to the source. If you're not distributing the software to anyone then you don't need to release the source code. Fine, but what constitutes a "user of a program" when the program is a rails app, which was deployed by capistrano, which has a dependency on sshkit? Since people who visit my website can't run capistrano or sshkit commands, does that mean they're actually not users of any GPL software?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
No, you're not giving them the program to run, you're running it yourself on your own machine and sending them the output. Because you're not giving them the binary of your webserver you have no obligation to give them the source.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
The GPL was invented in the 80s and has no idea about modern software. Always keep that in mind.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:11
|
|