12-19-2004, 09:10 AM
Side topic from that article. He says:
This seems like a flawed analogy to me. In a Kinkos you rent a computer, but what you do and create on that computer comes directly from your own mind. In a game, what you do and create comes directly from the developers. These games aren't to the point where a player is really creating anything original. Rather its that players are just creating copies of what the developers have already created.
A better analogy would be walking into a Kinkos, renting a computer, producing something using the Kinkos' logo, and then trying to sell it. I think Kinkos would complain about you trying to sell their logo as if it was your own creation. Though here you get into trademark infringement and so maybe its not such a good analogy either.
Thinking along these lines does bring up an interesting thought though. I hear that in City of Heroes a player can pretty much make their character look any way they wish. So then this makes one wonder who owns the rights to how their character looks? The player may actually be creating something original in this case. Lets say a player designed a character, played it, became known among the whole fan base, and then went on to use that character in a comic book or cartoon. Would the developers of City of Heroes have any right to say that that player couldn't sell the comic book/cartoon or that they (the developers) should get a cut of the money made from it? I think it is areas like this where things start to get rather fuzzy. Areas where a player is actually creating something new instead of just copying what the developers have already come up with. Of course, then one must ask where the line is between what the developers come up with and what the player creates.
Quote:Legally, the analogy I like to use is this: If you go into Kinkos and rent a computer, they do not own what you produce. The same is true, in my mind, for MMOs: The player pays for the ability to produce something using the game's systems and servers. To claim that the player has no rights and no ownership over any in-game results of production strikes me as inherently flawed. But I'm no lawyer, so we'll just have to wait and see.
This seems like a flawed analogy to me. In a Kinkos you rent a computer, but what you do and create on that computer comes directly from your own mind. In a game, what you do and create comes directly from the developers. These games aren't to the point where a player is really creating anything original. Rather its that players are just creating copies of what the developers have already created.
A better analogy would be walking into a Kinkos, renting a computer, producing something using the Kinkos' logo, and then trying to sell it. I think Kinkos would complain about you trying to sell their logo as if it was your own creation. Though here you get into trademark infringement and so maybe its not such a good analogy either.
Thinking along these lines does bring up an interesting thought though. I hear that in City of Heroes a player can pretty much make their character look any way they wish. So then this makes one wonder who owns the rights to how their character looks? The player may actually be creating something original in this case. Lets say a player designed a character, played it, became known among the whole fan base, and then went on to use that character in a comic book or cartoon. Would the developers of City of Heroes have any right to say that that player couldn't sell the comic book/cartoon or that they (the developers) should get a cut of the money made from it? I think it is areas like this where things start to get rather fuzzy. Areas where a player is actually creating something new instead of just copying what the developers have already come up with. Of course, then one must ask where the line is between what the developers come up with and what the player creates.