Super Metroid - Reverse Boss Order / Suitless Cyborg Run

2005-12-14 10:37:43 am

Quote from Radix:

Is this guy who responded to my question being a prick or telling the flat out truth?

IANAL, but I have a decent grasp of copyright law. This guy is essentially telling the truth: the copyright holder has the exclusive right to create derivative works, and I can't see any way that a speedrun *video* wouldn't be considered a derivative work. (Emulator runs distributed as a sequence of key presses are an entirely different business.)

The good news is the fair use doctrine under U.S. law. Judging from the analysis presented in the Wikipedia article, speedrun videos may be considered fair use because:

* They are transformational rather than merely derivative
* They don't affect the potential market of the games (except arguably positively)
* They advance the knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new

Issues include whether the videos show a substantial part of the original work (this likely depends on the nature of the game), and possibly also whether the videos are used for commercial purposes.

It'd be interesting to know what the Internet Archive's rationale is for hosting speed videos; does anyone know?

[quote="Radix"]Is [url=http://community.lawyers.com/messageboards/message.asp?channelId=&subId=&mId=723380&mbId=53]this guy[/url] who responded to my question being a prick or telling the flat out truth?[/quote]IANAL, but I have a decent grasp of copyright law. This guy is essentially telling the truth: the copyright holder has the exclusive right to create derivative works, and I can't see any way that a speedrun *video* wouldn't be considered a derivative work. (Emulator runs distributed as a sequence of key presses are an entirely different business.)

The good news is the fair use doctrine under U.S. law. Judging from the analysis presented in the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use]Wikipedia article[/url], speedrun videos may be considered fair use because:

* They are transformational rather than merely derivative
* They don't affect the potential market of the games (except arguably positively)
* They advance the knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new

Issues include whether the videos show a substantial part of the original work (this likely depends on the nature of the game), and possibly also whether the videos are used for commercial purposes.

It'd be interesting to know what the Internet Archive's rationale is for hosting speed videos; does anyone know?

Yoshi348

2005-12-14 10:50:02 am

PAGE BREAKER

Ready and willing.

I've slept on this.

I'm resigning as admin.

I can't work with someone who holds so much hatred in his heart for people who aren't fucking murderers or something. And it's not like this is the only obssesion of hatred he's had. I highly believe that hatred is something you do because you have to, and even then you don't feed off it or drive off it. You can drive off the positive motivation to change things, but Nate just sits there in his fucking hate hole and hate things like the prick he is. Hopefully he'll learn one day just how unhealthy this really is... before the ulcers kill him.

And Tim's the one who calls himself the Sith Lord admin...

Fredrik

2005-12-14 10:53:09 am

Quote from Trebor:

Say I were to go out and purchase Microsoft Word, and then use it to produce a Word document. Now, clearly I own all the rights to the information contained in this document. Why wouldn't a speed run be the same thing? If I purchase a game from a company, then proceed to produce a vid using the game, shouldn't I own the rights to the information contained in that vid, i.e. the moves, route, etc. that are contained in it? Sure, the game itself is copyrighted, but I'm not distributing the game.

Unlike a speedrun, the document does not contain any data from Word that is "creative work". Actually, there *are* editors in various categories that disallow redistribution of files created with them, but it would be pretty suicidal for Microsoft to put that restriction on Word :-)

Ideas are not subject to copyright, so it is highly doubtful that you could claim rights to a route (which is certainly a good thing -- imagine if someone finds a great new sequence break and then says no-one else can use it?).

The only thing that might be copyrightable is your particular execution of the route and tricks involved. Whatever that means, and if it applies given that speedruns are derivative works. Giving proper credit when using someone's tricks is a matter of honesty, and copyright law isn't concerned with honesty; it's concerned with creating profit incentive for commercial media publishers.

Indeed, intellectual property law sucks, and there's not much we can do about it.

[quote="Trebor"]Say I were to go out and purchase Microsoft Word, and then use it to produce a Word document.  Now, clearly I own all the rights to the information contained in this document.  Why wouldn't a speed run be the same thing?  If I purchase a game from a company, then proceed to produce a vid using the game, shouldn't I own the rights to the information contained in that vid, i.e. the moves, route, etc. that are contained in it?  Sure, the game itself is copyrighted, but I'm not distributing the game.[/quote]Unlike a speedrun, the document does not contain any data from Word that is "creative work". Actually, there *are* editors in various categories that disallow redistribution of files created with them, but it would be pretty suicidal for Microsoft to put that restriction on Word :-)

Ideas are not subject to copyright, so it is highly doubtful that you could claim rights to a route (which is certainly a good thing -- imagine if someone finds a great new sequence break and then says no-one else can use it?).

The only thing that might be copyrightable is your particular execution of the route and tricks involved. Whatever that means, and if it applies given that speedruns are derivative works. Giving proper credit when using someone's tricks is a matter of honesty, and copyright law isn't concerned with honesty; it's concerned with creating profit incentive for commercial media publishers.

Indeed, intellectual property law sucks, and there's not much we can do about it.

MonsterERB

2005-12-14 11:06:53 am

Regarding the whole "lawsuit" issue - I wouldn't worry. Game companies are, first and foremost, BUSINESSES. They want to make money. Now, say that someone makes a speed run compilation video and sells it for a small fee. (Not like that would ever happen.) A few hundred copies, tops, are sold. Total money spent? Maybe a couple thousand bucks.
...
Why would a company sue for that small amount, when these vids are actually an amazing source of free publicity? These speedrun vids make the novice drop their jaw, and say, "I NEED that game". They go out and purchase said game, putting $$$ in the coffers of the game companies. How many copies of Prime sold, solely due to the awesomeness of Radix' 1:37 100% run?
===
EDIT
===
Just read Yoshi's post. Your rank title is appropriate. Don't know how nate will react when he sees it... but I wish you well. Yoshi's always been my favorite character in Mario Kart, so I hold a certain fondness for you on that basis alone. Godspeed, little green dinosaur dude. Wink

Regarding the whole "lawsuit" issue - I wouldn't worry.  Game companies are, first and foremost, BUSINESSES.  They want to make money.  Now, say that someone makes a speed run compilation video and sells it for a small fee.  (Not like that would ever happen.)  A few hundred copies, tops, are sold.  Total money spent?  Maybe a couple thousand bucks.
...
Why would a company sue for that small amount, when these vids are actually an amazing source of free publicity?  These speedrun vids make the novice drop their jaw, and say, "I NEED that game".  They go out and purchase said game, putting $$$ in the coffers of the game companies.  How many copies of Prime sold, solely due to the awesomeness of Radix' 1:37 100% run?
===
EDIT
===
Just read Yoshi's post.  Your rank title is appropriate.  Don't know how nate will react when he sees it... but I wish you well.  Yoshi's always been my favorite character in Mario Kart, so I hold a certain fondness for you on that basis alone.  Godspeed, little green dinosaur dude.  :wink:

Yoshi348

2005-12-14 11:44:38 am

PAGE BREAKER

Ready and willing.

Guys, on the copyright issue, the issue isn't whether the game companies can sue us, it's whether we can stop G4 from stealing our work and showing it without any attribution.

nate

2005-12-14 11:45:07 am

Quote from Fredrik:

Ideas are not subject to copyright, so it is highly doubtful that you could claim rights to a route (which is certainly a good thing -- imagine if someone finds a great new sequence break and then says no-one else can use it?).

the us patent office can help!

Quote from MonsterERB:

Now, say that someone makes a speed run compilation video and sells it for a small fee. (Not like that would ever happen.)

HAHAHAHA. SIGGED!
of course, it all depends on whether you were being 100% serious.

MonsterERB

2005-12-14 11:50:44 am

Nate, you need to tweak your sarcasm detector. Apparently it's only detecting obvious sarcasm, not the droll/ironic/deadpan type featured in my last post. Wink

...
And, forgive me, but if I were to make a speed run vid, and G4 TV decided it was good enough to air, I'd be ecstatic. Who cares if they're not paying me a fee to show it? Thousands of people would be watching my run. (NOTE - this is hypothetical. This would NEVER happen with one of my runs in real life.) Maybe that's just me, but I wouldn't be upset at all. My opinion of speed running is that once I finish a run, I give it away to the gaming community. It's not mine anymore - it belongs to fans of the game. Other runners opinions may vary. Wink

Ekarderif

2005-12-14 11:54:25 am

Quote from MonsterERB:

Thousands of people would be watching my run.

Except your run does not exist. It would be G4's run because G4 doesn't say who the runner is or where the run came from. And it only shows select areas (often some of the worst selected areas). This is stealing in all senses of the word.

MonsterERB

2005-12-14 11:57:38 am

Quote from Ekarderif:

Quote from MonsterERB:

Thousands of people would be watching my run.

Except your run does not exist. It would be G4's run because G4 doesn't say who the runner is or where the run came from. And it only shows select areas (often some of the worst selected areas). This is stealing in all senses of the word.

Ahhh... wasn't aware of that. I assumed the run would be attributed. Well, in that case, I retract my statement. Just goes to show that common courtesy is too much to expect. I mean, it would take the show's host 1.2 seconds to say, "watch this Metroid Prime trick", and 2.2 seconds to say, "watch this Metroid Prime trick, from kip's speedrun". I guess they can't be bothered. >_<

kwinse

2005-12-14 12:04:25 pm

I'm sorry, but I don't watch G4 and very well may have missed something earlier in this topic of much bickering and off-topic-ness... Whose run did they show?

Yoshi348

2005-12-14 12:18:55 pm

PAGE BREAKER

Ready and willing.

The vast majority of the discussion is over here at SDA. That topic stretches a long time, from people simply interested in speedruns getting on TV, to it actually happening... it's a real time capsule. Interestingly Radix hasn't discussed what he has here over there. Radix's first (and only?) post here is where that conversation starts.

As for my big post back there... I'm talking things out with Nate. Stay tuned...

Fredrik

2005-12-14 12:55:26 pm

Quote from Yoshi348:

Guys, on the copyright issue, the issue isn't whether the game companies can sue us, it's whether we can stop G4 from stealing our work and showing it without any attribution.

The point is that if you can't claim copyright on the runs because they are derivative works, then you can't legally stop G4 from doing that.

Ekarderif

2005-12-14 12:56:35 pm

Yes... that was only slightly implied in all of the discussions.

Radix

2005-12-14 01:15:06 pm

Quote from Fredrik:

given that speedruns are derivative works.

I don't think they are.

Who has read the copyright law? I have.

Under things protected by copyright, it mentions computer programs. Clearly a game falls under this. How does it define this though?

Quote:

A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.

It makes no mention of the coypright status of the "result".

How about derivative work?

Quote:

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

Please tell me how a video recording of the result of running a computer program, influenenced under the control of the person running the program, counts as any of those definitions. We're not changing the program.

[quote="Fredrik"]given that speedruns are derivative works.[/quote]

I don't think they are.

Who has read the copyright law? I have.

Under things protected by copyright, it mentions computer programs. Clearly a game falls under this. How does it define this though?

[quote]A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.[/quote]

It makes no mention of the coypright status of the "result".

How about derivative work?

[quote]A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.[/quote]

Please tell me how a video recording of the result of running a computer program, influenenced under the control of the person running the program, counts as any of those definitions. We're not changing the program.

Fredrik

2005-12-14 01:26:08 pm

A game also includes graphics, level design, and other aspects of presentation.

kwinse

2005-12-14 01:35:51 pm

Quote from Radix:

Quote:

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

Couldn't a speedrun be considered an abridgement or condensation of the game, since in many cases you are skipping or otherwise speeding through many parts of the original work?

Laney

(user is banned)

2005-12-14 02:22:34 pm

How about Ingame Videos of Games on CDs you can buy in several Magazines?
Other People aren't allowed to duplicate them at choice, so why should then Speed Runs not also fall under these Regeln?

nate

2005-12-14 02:26:21 pm

Regeln = rules

according to radix, game magazines have to ask for permission to reproduce those videos of the games. that's why you can't (without asking for permission).

i don't see how this is an issue; g4 is wrong and is going to get pwned, either by us or by nintendo & co. and it's going to be a blast to watch. i'll supply the popcorn.

spineshark

2005-12-14 03:25:15 pm

in the name of justice!

If we do it, we should hire Jack Thompson.

No, seriously, who is better for the job? Just show him "Video Game Vixens" and the special on "God of War" and he'll be up in arms before anybody even says anything.

I hope that I can find out a somewhat better answer to this than some random guy who says he's a lawyer that didn't even understand which part of the question we were asking...

Andrew Mills

2005-12-14 04:21:22 pm

Strategy Guide Writer

Quote from Radix:

This is all pointless bickering compared to what we should really be worried about.

When you record yourself playing a video game, who owns it?

Is g4 tv right? Can they really air our speed runs with no credit and it's legal?

Is this guy who responded to my question being a prick or telling the flat out truth?

Let it be public record that if it's proven that a run can't be protected as copyright for the runner's name, that I'm quitting SDA.

You should have known that recording speedruns aren't legal as they're digital reproductions of coypright IP. Neither is their reproduction in any way shape or form without prior written consent from the copyright/IP owners (in this case Nintendo).

The ONLY reason we don't get told to stop is because we're not selling them for a profit (which if Nintendo were to get a hold of regarding the SDA dvd sales, could lead to a very real lawsuit). Why do you think both MIM and SoS are profit free on SCU? Because if I sold them for a profit, I'd get hit with mighty cease and desist letters in an instant (and or an expensive lawsuit).

The same applies to the unauthorised public viewing of speedruns. If it's in a profit free context (which SDA is - if we disgregard the DVD sales aspect). So if G4, or ANY other TV company wanted to show a speed run without the prior concent of the runner, they can most certainly do so, I'd also imagine that they'd get clearence from Nintendo before doing so (unlike us), as they recognise the potential legal rammifications of showing it without prior written consent from the copyright holder.

In a nutshell, as far as Metroid goes, ANYTHING using official artwork, audio or graphics is the SOLE copyright of Nintendo. Heck the ONLY things I legally own on SCU is the domain name, HTML code, unique non-metroid like images and text. Same for SDA, same for M2k2 and same for the likes of IGN, Gamespot and the like.

[quote="Radix"]This is all pointless bickering compared to what we should really be worried about.

When you record yourself playing a video game, who owns it?

Is g4 tv right? Can they really air our speed runs with no credit and it's legal?

Is [url=http://community.lawyers.com/messageboards/message.asp?channelId=&subId=&mId=723380&mbId=53]this guy[/url] who responded to my question being a prick or telling the flat out truth?

Let it be public record that if it's proven that a run can't be protected as copyright for the runner's name, that I'm quitting SDA.[/quote]
You should have known that recording speedruns aren't legal as they're digital reproductions of coypright IP. Neither is their reproduction in any way shape or form without prior written consent from the copyright/IP owners (in this case Nintendo).

The ONLY reason we don't get told to stop is because we're not selling them for a profit (which if Nintendo were to get a hold of regarding the SDA dvd sales, could lead to a very real lawsuit). Why do you think both MIM and SoS are profit free on SCU? Because if I sold them for a profit, I'd get hit with mighty cease and desist letters in an instant (and or an expensive lawsuit).

The same applies to the unauthorised public viewing of speedruns. If it's in a profit free context (which SDA is - if we disgregard the DVD sales aspect). So if G4, or ANY other TV company wanted to show a speed run without the prior concent of the runner, they can most certainly do so, I'd also imagine that they'd get clearence from Nintendo before doing so (unlike us), as they recognise the potential legal rammifications of showing it without prior written consent from the copyright holder.

In a nutshell, as far as Metroid goes, ANYTHING using official artwork, audio or graphics is the SOLE copyright of Nintendo. Heck the ONLY things I legally own on SCU is the domain name, HTML code, unique non-metroid like images and text. Same for SDA, same for M2k2 and same for the likes of IGN, Gamespot and the like.

nate

2005-12-14 04:30:20 pm

don't agree with you owning the domain name, as they own the samus trademark in the eu afaik.

as for g4, i agree that they need to get nintendo's permission to play a metroid speed run. i'm personally hoping that they didn't, so we can sic nintendo on them. go nintendo go!

Radix

2005-12-14 04:30:21 pm

Quote from kwinse:

Couldn't a speedrun be considered an abridgement or condensation of the game, since in many cases you are skipping or otherwise speeding through many parts of the original work?

We are not abridging or condensing the "set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer" defined as a computer program.

Quote from Andrew Mills:

You should have known that recording speedruns aren't legal as they're digital reproductions of coypright IP.

You ignored what I said in my post quoting the law.

The law mentions NOTHING about the result of the program being executed.

If you really believe they're illegal then how do you explain how magazines can print screenshots in them? They must all be illegal too.

Oh and if you ever played bricks (<----) then I own your solution. Really... you'd better give it to me or I'll sue you. I made the windows version of the program after all. So I must own the results of the program right? You see where this ridiculous reasoning goes? This forum post is now owned by the Mozilla Foundation!

[quote="kwinse"]Couldn't a speedrun be considered an abridgement or condensation of the game, since in many cases you are skipping or otherwise speeding through many parts of the original work?[/quote]

We are not abridging or condensing the "set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer"  defined as a computer program.

[quote="Andrew Mills"]You should have known that recording speedruns aren't legal as they're digital reproductions of coypright IP.[/quote]

You ignored what I said in my post quoting the law.

The law mentions NOTHING about the result of the program being executed.

If you really believe they're illegal then how do you explain how magazines can print screenshots in them? They must all be illegal too.

Oh and if you ever played bricks (<----) then I own your solution. Really... you'd better give it to me or I'll sue you. I made the windows version of the program after all. So I must own the results of the program right? You see where this ridiculous reasoning goes? This forum post is now owned by the Mozilla Foundation!

Kejardon

2005-12-14 04:45:35 pm

Embarrasing Fact: Power suit made by lowest bidder

Quote from Radix:

This forum post is now owned by the Mozilla Foundation!

*ker-sigged*

Andrew Mills

2005-12-14 06:07:42 pm

Strategy Guide Writer

Quote from Radix:

If you really believe they're illegal then how do you explain how magazines can print screenshots in them? They must all be illegal too.

That's obviously silly now. Firstly, MANY magazines are SUPPLIED with the images directly from the publishers themselves (www.gamespress.com for example). The publishers are in force giving their expressed consent to use THOSE SPECIFIC images supplied by them (in fact, most images are embargoed for a while, I had a bunch of MP2 images (screenshots and renders) before they were publically released elsewhere and was told NOT to release them until the embargo was lifted on a specific date. And this was from Nintendo's official UK department.

And for those images that they capture themselves, all printed magazines will have some form of written consent from the various publishers to display the screenshots from their games in the magazines (drawn up between both parties legal departments). The magazines make their money from the advertising and NOT the sales themselves, but they still know to ask for permission first as legally, the publishers own the copyright and all likeness's of that said software (which in the case of magazines is visuals, in the case of video it's audio and visual), which is applicable to all forms of distribution. I would imagine even the likes of IGN and Gamespot adhere to such things (which also ensures they have a rosy relationship with the publishers, leading to better exclusives in the long run).

I may be no lawyer, but with years of Marketing experience under my belt (along with a Marketing degree), you get to learn these things as they are EXTREMELY important to understand in a marketing environment (at a basic level), to ensure you don't inadvertantly put a company you're marketing in the shit, through copyright-infringement.

Of course, if you have the money and resources to fight this with G4 or similar, feel free. I'd be genuinely interested in the result...

Quote from Radix:

Oh and if you ever played bricks (<----) then I own your solution. Really... you'd better give it to me or I'll sue you. I made the windows version of the program after all. So I must own the results of the program right? You see where this ridiculous reasoning goes? This forum post is now owned by the Mozilla Foundation!

As ridiculous as it may sound, that's the way it is. Read a bunch of legal notices on various game manuals and such. You may be suprised at how much they CAN have a legal hold of regarding to an issue such as this (i.e. regarding unauthorised broadcasting of copyrighted material).

I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying how it works. And unless you have the cash to fight it, I doubt it's going to change...

Quote from njahnke:

don't agree with you owning the domain name, as they own the samus trademark in the eu afaik.

I'm afraid they don't. Samus is in fact a REAL name used by people, and as such can't be copyrighted (otherwise EVERY name would be by now and to use it, we'd all be paying royalties to the legal owners for the privilage of our own names). Otherwise I'll be registering Andrew (and then Andrew Mills) tomorrow morning and demanding all other people with the name of Andrew or Andrew Mills either change it or give me money. Maybe Samus is a series of abbreviated words joined together (like NBA or WWE) and might be copyrighted under that context. And that would be another matter entirely. But certainly Nintendo have NO legal grounds for which to make me release the domain name Samus.co.uk.

Made up words (such as Metroid and zebes) CAN be copyrighted as they were made up by Nintendo. Series of words can also be copyrighted (such as Rockman, Perfect Dark) etc. As I said, I'm no lawyer, but I know enough on some stuff.

[quote="Radix"]If you really believe they're illegal then how do you explain how magazines can print screenshots in them? They must all be illegal too.[/quote]
That's obviously silly now. Firstly, MANY magazines are SUPPLIED with the images directly from the publishers themselves (www.gamespress.com for example). The publishers are in force giving their expressed consent to use THOSE SPECIFIC images supplied by them (in fact, most images are embargoed for a while, I had a bunch of MP2 images (screenshots and renders) before they were publically released elsewhere and was told NOT to release them until the embargo was lifted on a specific date. And this was from Nintendo's official UK department.

And for those images that they capture themselves, all printed magazines will have some form of written consent from the various publishers to display the screenshots from their games in the magazines (drawn up between both parties legal departments). The magazines make their money from the advertising and NOT the sales themselves, but they still know to ask for permission first as legally, the publishers own the copyright and all likeness's of that said software (which in the case of magazines is visuals, in the case of video it's audio and visual), which is applicable to all forms of distribution. I would imagine even the likes of IGN and Gamespot adhere to such things (which also ensures they have a rosy relationship with the publishers, leading to better exclusives in the long run).

I may be no lawyer, but with years of Marketing experience under my belt (along with a Marketing degree), you get to learn these things as they are EXTREMELY important to understand in a marketing environment (at a basic level), to ensure you don't inadvertantly put a company you're marketing in the shit, through copyright-infringement.

Of course, if you have the money and resources to fight this with G4 or similar, feel free. I'd be genuinely interested in the result...

[quote="Radix"]Oh and if you ever played bricks (<----) then I own your solution. Really... you'd better give it to me or I'll sue you. I made the windows version of the program after all. So I must own the results of the program right? You see where this ridiculous reasoning goes? This forum post is now owned by the Mozilla Foundation![/quote]
As ridiculous as it may sound, that's the way it is. Read a bunch of legal notices on various game manuals and such. You may be suprised at how much they CAN have a legal hold of regarding to an issue such as this (i.e. regarding unauthorised broadcasting of copyrighted material).

I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying how it works. And unless you have the cash to fight it, I doubt it's going to change...

[quote="njahnke"]don't agree with you owning the domain name, as they own the samus trademark in the eu afaik.[/quote]
I'm afraid they don't. Samus is in fact a REAL name used by people, and as such can't be copyrighted (otherwise EVERY name would be by now and to use it, we'd all be paying royalties to the legal owners for the privilage of our own names). Otherwise I'll be registering Andrew (and then Andrew Mills) tomorrow morning and demanding all other people with the name of Andrew or Andrew Mills either change it or give me money. Maybe Samus is a series of abbreviated words joined together (like NBA or WWE) and might be copyrighted under that context. And that would be another matter entirely. But certainly Nintendo have NO legal grounds for which to make me release the domain name Samus.co.uk.

Made up words (such as Metroid and zebes) CAN be copyrighted as they were made up by Nintendo. Series of words can also be copyrighted (such as Rockman, Perfect Dark) etc. As I said, I'm no lawyer, but I know enough on some stuff.

Yoshi348

2005-12-14 06:27:28 pm

PAGE BREAKER

Ready and willing.

Copyright and trademark are totally not the same thing. I wouldn't put any value on your advice if you can't even get that right.