Def have to disagree with you. Yes EA/Maxis should not own the "Isometric Play-house" deisgn but there have be dozens of games like this - The Playboy Mansion title for PS2 actually copied this style but they weren't sued by EA because they used a different style & theme, look. The Ville even has the same visual aesthetics on characters as The Sims Social, this is bullshit & Zynga has no soul.
EA vs Zynga - Why you should side with Zynga
@JoeyRavn said:
@nintendoeats said:
I guess the question to ask is: Should id Software be allowed to sue 3d Realms for making a doom clone?
I think we can all agree that we don't want to live in that world.
But this is clearly not the case here. Duke Nukem 3D (if that's the game you're talking about) has enough original content to distinguish itself from Doom without any cause for confusion. I suggest you read EA's complaint if you think this is a case of someone merely making a game similar to another one.
I think your forgetting just how similar shooters were at that time. There's a reason that until around the time that HL came out, all First Person Shooters were referred to as Doom clones.
Even in the specific case of Duke Nukem, the similarities it has with Doom are at around the same level as the ones here. The fact that they added a bunch of other stuff isn't strictly relevant, depending on the situation.
If, say, I'm building a car and I design all of it myself EXCEPT for the engine, the design of which I nicked wholesale from VW, they're still going to sue my face off.
It doesn't matter if I add things to it to make it more powerful, or what I do with the rest of the car: If I've stolen their design I am liable to be sued.
So, are sets of game mechanics equivalent to engine designs? Are they equivalent to game engines even? I don't think they should be.
The only example that I can think of that makes sense is the Donkey Kong clones that came out in the 80s, such as Crazy Kong. Those were basically the same game (same levels, same physics, same everything) with a few cosmetic changes. THAT is something sue-worthy. Basically whether or not Zynga should be legally liable depends on how closely the follow not just EAs formula, but all of the mathematical design decisions that go on top of it. It's also worth noting that in the case of Crazy Kong, there were distinctive characters and concepts involved. In this case, your dealing with much more generic types of IP. Cartoony people with big heads aren't exactly new. In fact, if you asked me to make a game of that sort, I would probably create something very similar. It's not the most creative set of design decisions, considering what already exists in the history of people simulators. I'm not saying that this situation is one way or another, but I am saying that this is where I believe the benchmark should lie.
For once I do actually side with Zynga on this. EA is obviously going to use this as the back-door loophole to further suppress the industry with copyright restrictions that don't belong. Sure, The Ville looks almost identical to SimCity Social, but the route that is being take right now reminds me of the SOPA act. Instead of having a lawsuit that will combat the crime directly, we have laws to be put into place that will actually impact the entire industry negatively.
Much like you said, this isn't a popularity contest, but this is the internets. While my feelings are that EA should lose this, I hope that somewhere along the line good practices (lol) are erected and bills that directly combat Zynga in this fashion surface.
EDIT: @Salarn: Reading a little more into it, did EA just rush SimCity Social to beat the Ville to the punch? I've noticed the feeling of "complete" in the Ville - while I notice a lot of "coming soon" in SimCity Social. It may be an assumption, but this sounds like a bully tactic only pursuable by a larger company with more funds. If I'm correct, than fuck EA all the way.
@Brodehouse said:
Remember how everyone supported Runic when they accused that Chinese company of lifting design and assets from and repackaging them as their own 'similar' game? Who exactly was beating the "Runic is trying to copywrite gameplay!" drum in that case? It's amazing that you can get a full 180 of opinion about an identical case just by changing the name of the victim. Thank Christ actual law doesn't work that way.
That was a case of asset theft. That is copyright infringement (proved by the things like audio recording of the Runic guy's non-used samples being in the stolen content in the other game, there is a known single source from which both assets came and Runic own the recording that was the original so can show clear infringement). You cannot steal source or binary code, you cannot steal assets; they're all copyrighted by the original author. You have to be real careful to not transmit the copyrighted creativity of a thing if you want someone to create a 'derivative' of it (I can describe some art to someone who hasn't seen it and they can make their take on it and as long as I was functional in my description then the resulting work isn't an infringement - this is the grey area that I talked about at length regarding reverse engineering of source code, I am less in the know when it comes to art assets and how much effort people put into avoiding getting caught vs avoiding breaking the law).
As coders we avoid breaking the law (reverse engineering, second coder writing the new program, only use small code chunks for inspiration that are not large enough to attract copyright, see patentable nonsense for algorithms creating havoc in the US for this accepted thing of sharing algorithms for how to get stuff done) but as tracers for comics and all that jazz (books full of human poses to get your skills in drawing humans in poses, at what point are you making original poses if you learnt from tracing but not freehand, maybe you're muscle memory tracing for certain poses but without the source material for reference then how do you learn to draw correct poses? The 'inspiration gap'?) indicate then maybe on the art side people are more interested in not getting caught than not actually breaking the law.
My layman view of these two works from EA and Zynga are these are two artists who may have been copying but probably weren't (when you consider the functional as in button number and functionality cannot be copyrighted in my view). We're purely looking at art and the proportions being different for characters and so much more make me think these are original works with some similarities and maybe a touch of light infringement with palettes but we're talking skin colour selection here, there shouldn't be a case made on if Fallout 3 uses the same hex values for the selectable character skin as Neverwinter Nights or Two Worlds - that is not enough volume of creativity to be copyrightable and in other respects these works differ enough. Obviously, if EA can go to court and show evidence that Zynga artists were given their assets and told to duplicate them then they've got it sown up, but you don't leave that kind of evidence lying around which is why we have to look at "so similar it is impossible to believe this wasn't an exact steal" as our level of proof to protect everyone else from false positives. The collective culture creates a massive general stylistic whole which no individual copyright holder owns so we get 'lush fantasy' (Oblivion, Two Worlds) and all these other styles, including this Flash vector art crap that both these games use with slightly different takes.
Even if Zynga stole the assets and knowingly derived their game assets from them (which would be an incredibly stupid thing to do as Zynga have plenty of artists who seem to be able to freehand this style of stuff using only their internal pool of work for reference), I don't think EA can prove it and to avoid false positives (which would make copyright a broad tool to impair creative works, even ignoring the war on fair use that is a separate issue) that means Zynga should win the case. The duplication of the gameplay isn't a copyright issue (as explained above, functionality isn't copyrightable for software, cloned gameplay is totally legal) but when combined with the similarity of art style then I think it generates a passing-off/trademark case that could stand up. But not a copyright case, unless EA are going to give evidence of the illegal duplication of their work by derivation. Without proof the smoking gun seems insufficient in this case.
That sounds bad, its almost the foreboding of the downfall of gaming.
How EA licensed every gameplay concept and no company got to make games anymore without paying a lot of money.
But there's a underground sect of developers (no, not indie devs, fuck those) that goes against the tide and strives to convince the masses to rise up against EA.
Little did they know even rebelling was licensed...
If you read EA's full complaint, they seem to have a fairly strong case. And they're in it for the long haul, because this is one of their key IPs. Especially since it's against Zynga, who has a history of being sued and stealing games right from other companies. They pulled wholesale from the Sims in ridiculous ways, right down to personality types, animations, height of walls, color palettes, UI elements, etc. Read it for yourselves. They even hired key people from EA who would've had access to information on the Sims Social prior to the Sims Social being released.
I really still do not understand why people think this will lead to EA copyrighting gameplay elements or something as insane as that. They aren't even concerned about that. They're concerned that a company with a history of stealing from other companies has now copied their game, and with Zynga in the state it's in, now's the time to sue them because the company is hemorrhaging money.
Siding with Zynga is ridiculous to the point of absurdity.
The problem is that Zynga chose to have icons and names very close to EA's the Sims, which warrants a lawsuit. It's like if someone made a oil change company called Ms.Lube and competed against the already established Mr.Lube.
@benjaebe said:
Siding with Zynga is ridiculous to the point of absurdity.
Really no more needs to be said. Bunch of chicken littles in this thread. Derrrrr EA wants to trademark jumping and shooting and charge everyone lots of money :/
I side with the consumer.
Although after skimming your post I think that means Zynga in this case. Weird.
I agree with you in principle but not when a game literally looks like a cut and paste job from an existing game. Plus haven't a couple of devs accused Zynga of doing this before?
I really don't feel comfortable siding with anyone on this as I am not a lawyer or law student (yet). I don't even want to pretend I know the legal ramifications of either outcome in court.
What I can say however, is that this kinda looks like a business power play by EA to bully Zynga around. Regardless of who wins this case Zynga is gonna have to lawyer up, and that costs a lot of money (something that Zynga is hurting for right now).
Doesn't EA copy Call of Duty gameplay wholesale with it's dozens upon dozens of military FPS clones? GTFO, EA.
@sofacitysweetheart said:
Doesn't EA copy Call of Duty gameplay wholesale with it's dozens upon dozens of military FPS clones? GTFO, EA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor_(1999_video_game)
Sarcasm doesn't translate well on the internet, so I hope for your sake you're just kidding around.
@benjaebe said:
If you read EA's full complaint, they seem to have a fairly strong case. And they're in it for the long haul, because this is one of their key IPs. Especially since it's against Zynga, who has a history of being sued and stealing games right from other companies. They pulled wholesale from the Sims in ridiculous ways, right down to personality types, animations, height of walls, color palettes, UI elements, etc. Read it for yourselves. They even hired key people from EA who would've had access to information on the Sims Social prior to the Sims Social being released.
I really still do not understand why people think this will lead to EA copyrighting gameplay elements or something as insane as that. They aren't even concerned about that. They're concerned that a company with a history of stealing from other companies has now copied their game, and with Zynga in the state it's in, now's the time to sue them because the company is hemorrhaging money.
Siding with Zynga is ridiculous to the point of absurdity.
Actually I'd say that (second) linked article gives a good handle on the case and what is going on but in no way makes a view other than 'EA should win' invalid/absurd/ridiculous. What you are saying is that you believe without a shadow of doubt that EA can prove in court that Zynga stole the copyrightable elements of EA's game. My professional (as a Software Engineer, not as a Lawyer so this is layman) understanding of copyright of code (which defines the gameplay elements of games) is that reverse engineering is legal, that is the visible functionality of a program cannot be copyrighted or through duplication lead to copyright infringement (there is no need for fair use, it simply does not infringe if you did not copy their source or binary files, for which the author holds copyright). This means playing the same, if the code was not stolen, has no bearing on the actual copyright claim (but would possibly cause reason for a trademark dispute of passing-off).
EA may well be trying to claim that Zynga took talent from their development pool and through that pre-release information managed to quickly replicate the copyrightable material in their game and that this transfer of information is clear from the similarities in the final product but when I look at the similarities they are functional, not artistic. As your link says (the next article where the defence for Zynga is laid out is yet to be released so obviously as we are only reading one side of the case it points only to the strength of EA's claims, the weaknesses will come in the follow up article) Zynga will probably say taht any similaries you are seeing is from scènes à faire. That is basically the reasoning given in this thread that the similarity is coincidental and due to the shared heritage/genre expectations and so not an indication that the Zynga artist looked at the EA work and copied it but both were given functional constraints (not copyrightable) including a genre aesthetic and so the results are necessarily similar. I think Zynga would be stupid to copy art assets by telling their artists to make something like EA's work as the genre conventions are all so set and Zynga have been making stuff in this style for a while that they should be able to give their artists the functional requirements and leave them at that. The sharing of a few hex values for colour palettes is not enough for me to consider their smoking gun to be a clear sign.
I'm not saying Zynga did not rip off the game, I am not saying they definitely did not copy this art, I'm saying I don't think from the shown stuff that I think they have proven it beyond doubt and that a judgement in EA's favour could (but in no way must or definitely will) have a concerning effect on copyright infringement cases in the future. If EA leverage the functional similarities (which should not have copyright status) of the games to make their copyright case stick in a way that otherwise it would not, I am even less happy for what precedent it could set.
Edit: clarified which link I was talking about in case it wasn't clear from the context.
2nd Edit: When I say 'rip off' I mean plagiarism of gameplay, when I say 'copy this art' I mean copyright infringement by non-exact duplication of expression. Why I say this has grounds for passing-off trademark dispute is the same game style (down to exact gameplay mechanics and menu navigation by the sound of it) and similar visuals could cause genuine marketplace confusion (the different names doesn't matter where I'm from, a generic brand can confuse the marketplace with container shape and box art with completely different names on the product). But the bar for copyright infringement must be placed much higher as it is an accusation of theft of expression, of duplication of copyrighted material (two people who independently create the same expression is totally fine for copyright, we say if you exactly make the same art as someone before you that it is incredibly unlikely so the potential infringer needs to prove they didn't copy rather than the accuser to prove it was copied due to the exactness of comparison - when I draw Mickey Mouse then, ye, sane voices say I did it by imitation so it is copyright infringement and any valid expression I wish to add is creating a defence of fair use to an infringement).
The issue is if it comes down to "hey they took our mechanic" or "hey they ripped off these things and that we do in a very particular way and they are all the same in their game."
They aren't going to town because of ONE similarity, nor will the case be ruled separately for every common trait, but rather as the whole picture. EA simply needs to provide enough concrete examples of the game being highly similar to theirs. They don't get pissy at all of the SimCity style games out there, but this Zynga game is actually ripping off their property in a significant way.
Now, one could argue that because EA took so long to bring the same experience to the platform in question, that they essentially invited others to fill that gap, but it should have been done without totally ripping off EA's popular franchise.
@CL60 said:
Zynga should just stop blatantly copying everything like assholes. At the very least be subtle about it.
This. Read through the EA case and look at the pictures. There's no debating that Zynga copied (as they have done tons of times now) Sims Social down to the tiniest pixel.
@Shivoa said:
EA may well be trying to claim that Zynga took talent from their development pool and through that pre-release information managed to quickly replicate the copyrightable material in their game and that this transfer of information is clear from the similarities in the final product but when I look at the similarities they are functional, not artistic.
I fail to see how any of the similarities are functional and not artistic. There have been Sims clones before, i.e. Playboy: The Mansion, but it's apparent to me that Zynga just palette swapped and copied over not only the game design, but also things like animations, UI style/placement/dimensions, etc. Given Zynga's history of legal trouble and their well-known game design theory basically being "take someone else's game and make it ourselves," I think it sets a decent stage for where a reasonable person could think that Zynga is in the wrong, which is all EA is trying to prove.
I really don't see how it sets a precedent at all. This is the first time EA has bothered to do anything and games like Playboy: The Mansion have been around for a long time.
A lot of people look at EA and probably assume the worst, but if any of the smaller developers had enough legal muscle to go up against Zynga and drag them through a lengthy court process then you bet they would be trying the same thing too.
@TheDudeOfGaming said:
Man, if EA wins then so be it. I just wanna see Zynga burn.
What if one of those adventure game companies back then had had a significant win in a case and practically closed the door on other companies' adoption of a look/taste/walk/take/etc. mouse interface? Not taking a hard stance on it either way. This case in the last day or so has me thinking about where the line must be drawn.
@MordeaniisChaos said:
The issue is if it comes down to "hey they took our mechanic" or "hey they ripped off these things and that we do in a very particular way and they are all the same in their game."
They aren't going to town because of ONE similarity, nor will the case be ruled separately for every common trait, but rather as the whole picture. EA simply needs to provide enough concrete examples of the game being highly similar to theirs. They don't get pissy at all of the SimCity style games out there, but this Zynga game is actually ripping off their property in a significant way.
Now, one could argue that because EA took so long to bring the same experience to the platform in question, that they essentially invited others to fill that gap, but it should have been done without totally ripping off EA's popular franchise.
I can take Windows 95 and exactly duplicate every inch of functionality down to the drivers and all other software built for Win95 working of my duplicated OS. I can make a game where every reaction to the analogue input of the thumb sticks exactly matches how it feels to the movement of the player on the screen in your different game. I can make my crappy Ville game play exactly like your crappy SimSocial game with the same menu choices and everything (avoiding trademark infringement for terms, possibly with concerns if I used the same names as to if I was making a copy of an expression in those name choices, but in some cases the 'buy' is probably 'buy' due to functionality reasons so you see the same words a lot). In these cases I cannot do it by stealing your code but by reverse engineering it. And I can do it completely legally as functionality (ideas) are not expression and so cannot be copyrighted, how exact a duplication of functionality I am making can determine how careful I have to be to make my reverse engineering beyond reproach as to not potentially be transmitting copyrighted material to the writer of my duplicated functionality system.
The art is different enough in these two games so isn't a slam dunk for copyright infringement (you have to prove your stuff was copied from, this isn't stolen assets) and the games playing the same can be defended in court.
@benjaebe: UI style & placement seem to diverge in many places. The functionality of a UI (what buttons it has in what chain of interactions, this often leads to how big the boxes that contain buttons are) is functionality. I can describe to you how the Windows control panel works in functional terms and when you build it (even if you have never seen it in your life) you will get something that looks very similar with exactly the same interaction and right down to half of the icons looking quite common because their iconography so the image fits the functionality. If they were stolen then it would be really clear as they'd have the same exact icons precisely (so you can make it look like you didn't steal it by making similarish but not the same icons after stealing, but because that's not the only way you can end up with that result we can't blindly convict).
I agree that the animations, skin tone hex values and some other things don't look great for Zynga (some of that could be coincidental, I have no idea what research into the commonality of these things going back in time will say but maybe a Bratz avatar maker from 1999 will have those hex values and everyone has just been ripping them off from there and pretending that it's so little to steal it isn't really theft at all, be that valid or not) but taken as a whole I don't think EA's smoking gun is convincing enough for me. No one likes clones, but when the person didn't conclusively steal your assets then you shouldn't be able to convict for copyright infringement (however hard it is to split functionality from expression, that is required before they can be compared - visual similarity by shared functionality is common).
Edit: in case it isn't clear, I have only seem the claim and so have not seen the animations actually animate. The shots made it look like they were maybe a bit too "describe this to me and I'll copy it", which could be bad news as then Zynga would have to show their art pipeline has a copyright infringement jumping gap in it (which their coder/design pipeline may need to also prove, depending if the judge is inclined to require more of less evidence - as above see ReactOS for how you can do this functionality cloning in a way as to be safe from potential requirement to defend yourself in court when doing software reverse engineering), while the actual static shots make it seem reasonable to me they both share common ancestry and genre conventions but nothing jumps out as 'only explainable as stolen' (beyond small stuff like the skin colour hex values - EA's smoking gun - which may be explainable outside of Zynga stole them and 6 he values for skin tone would be insufficiency unless it convinced that all the rest was also stolen and then changed, but why wouldn't you just slightly change the values if you were so good as to just about mask all the other stuff? A single slip up in the expert thieves?).
@Eviternal said:
@Sackmanjones said:
Hmm. Idk man. I saw the trailer for the ville I think it's called? And holy shit that thing is almost indistinguishable from the sims social. All the way down to how it animates.I encourage you to re-read the original post. Salarn's argument isn't that Zynga is free of guilt, it's that if EA win this case, a legal precedent will be set for companies to pursue action against any game with similar elements to theirs.
I for one agree; this could be profoundly negative for the gaming industry if EA win with such broad allegations.
Zynga have committed blatant plagiarism in the past and deserve to be prosecuted for it, but this avenue is not the right one.
That's just what Apple are doing atm with Samsung though. At least in this case Zynga have actually copied something.
@Salarn said:
This is not a popularity contest, this is a legal matter which can change game development significantly.
I start to shout something similar every time a political election is brought up, but a good chunk of people just don't care. They don't want to hear the arguments, they don't want to know the details, they just want their team to win.
I think the number of people who have already responded with, "I don't like Zynga" and have obviously not read your post should be a good example of this.
Eh, fuck these types of lawsuits. I really hate having to take the side of a company/person I hate. Kinda like the Mac Miller lawsuit with Lord Finesse.
EA doesn't want to copyright mechanics by make sure that Zynga (and others) can not blatantly copy a game with minimal changes. That is what Zynga has done since day 1. If a random company created a carbon copy of Halo and called it Angel Hat there would be lawsuits everywhere. EA just wants it to be illegal to make a game that is identical and call it original.
@Shivoa:
I think it's fair to say there's a pretty good case for EA's side of things.
@MordeaniisChaos: Please read my previous posts in this thread to see how ReactOS can exist and what reverse engineering can do to translate non-copyrightable functional components without expressive copyrighted coming over too. As a pair of games with a range of selectable characters and positioning of objects in house locations those have been staged to seem more visually close than an actual examination would initially indicate. Basically being able to make a character in Mass Effect 3 and Fallout 3 have very similar looking faces is not a sign of copyright infringement but that they both have tweakable face designs. The functional comparison of the two products is a clear cut case of plagarism, but the actual details of the art make me think it could have no copyright infringement involved (and maybe Zynga will be required to prove that but maybe EA need to prove the positive, I am happier in a world where EA need to prove it rather than Zynga defend it and so far this document contains nothing I think of as proof).
If I told you about a modern minimalist design, line-art heavy (high res pixel art) house and selected some conditions like wall colours, clothing and hair choice, you could independently draw both either photo above and neither. They have been posed and cropped to seem more similar than they are in the details of the oven, cupboard unit, fridge, character proportions and details, fireplace, and so on. When looking at the other pictures where the two 'make a person and house' titles have no been used to create similarities in user choice creations then the art style differences are even more striking. Again, I am not saying Zynga did not take the assets from SimsSocial and make their own version while their coders made a game that played the same, I am simply saying they may have just had a list of object types and style guide and told the artists to build with no knowledge of what SimsSocial looked like and it would have come out the same as the are identical on a functional basis but not on an artistic basis and so it is a hard case to prove copy and not independent creative work based on the same functional plan (the design doc is the same).
Zynga blatantly stole pretty much every piece of Sims Social, not even just pieces (like they always do). They deserve to lose this fight. Especially considering higher-ups at Zynga have said that their business model is to copy other peoples games to duplicate their success.
@Shivoa: Tetris v Xio International makes a good case for why the look and feel of a game are copyrightable expression. The court decided that the aesthetic of Tetris was not inseparable from the ideas, rules or functions of the game design, so Xio International had mimicked Tetris's expression to basically be lazy and not have to design their own. EA is saying that Zynga very, very closely mimicked Sims Social (down to the animations, personality types, color palettes, etc.) and has thus violated their copyrighted expression of the gameplay idea.
Knowing who Zynga is, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that they came up with their artistic elements on their very own. I mean, they're Zynga, this is what they do.
@benjaebe: Yep, I am saying both that Tetris case and this one are not a nice clean 'good' ruling if copyright applies to any form of functionality (and the Tetris 'aesthetic' is not an aesthetic but a requirement of the grid functionality of the code, there is little to no art inside it just as there is no art in the Windows 95 task bar beyond the windows logo by the word 'Start' and so an exact copy is purely a functional duplication and should not have copyright applied to it) because the coding industry relies on reverse engineering and such like to operate as it currently does. Even taking the complete functionality of the entire package as a whole, normal software development calls all of that functionality ideas and not expression and so no one should succeed in claiming a copyright (even as a whole with every functional bit exactly duplicated, that is fine). Tetris has so little expression in it (which is a 'are games art' discussion in itself) that that was obviously a hard case to decide as the duplication does look so close to be stark, baring some slightly different shading to the blocks. I'm not saying no one has ever gotten away with suing someone for ripping off their menu flow, I'm saying they shouldn't because it is pure functionality and in this case the differences in aesthetic for UI and game is enough to make me think it can be questioned if this is a duplication of the expression on display or just a duplication of everything but the expression (which is such an accepted process for software engineering that is even has formalised methods for guaranteeing no legal issues).
Maybe I'm not aware of the extensive stable of visually distinct products that Zynga make and where each one of them took their cues from but they seem to have that Flash vector art look required of many early Facebook games doing the least work to get some cartoony stuff rendering in 2D with minimum bandwidth to all of them and this Ville seems to be a 'Zynga' (or generic Facebook game) stylised look to a Sims game. It doesn't help that Sims style is reasonably close to the looks of existing Zynga games so there isn't a massive change (but the Zynga game big head cartoon vs more realistic proportioned Sims is evident). I believe Zynga have never designed a game in their life and just clone but they do seem to have somewhat of a UI and character style in a lot of their titles that has some consistent edges (the hand of the same shop of artists) that continues into this game. And if you only stole the functional side and drew your own art and wrote your own code (to do the same thing) then I call clone/plagiarism/marketplace confusion but not copyright infringement (unless you can be like Ferrari and back up your claims with evidence - ok, mixed metaphor there and that was rather different).
To expand what I mean when I make a controversial statement about Tetris shouldn't get copyright protection.
I put the question like this: Does Tetris contain copyrightable art/expression beyond the audio, binary (as a whole, the exact machine code as written), and potentially (depends which version, how minimalist it is) some sprite files? What about the Windows 95 taskbar?
They are both constrained by the functionality of their requirements (the grid for Tetris, the bar with left and right key locations for the taskbar). The choice of which 4 block arrangements exist is a gameplay issue, something constructed in code to provide a functional game that plays in a certain way. I consider it an idea to have those selection of 4 block patterns and their drop percentages where they are, not an expression. Being so bare and defined by the gameplay there is no art to the Tetris game area, it is an area as pure and functional as the grey of the taskbar. The interesting point is that the whole of the game functionality as expressed by the coder as the binary (and before that translation to machine code, as source code) is an expression, but the functionality itself is not the copyrightable part of that, it does not contain expression is the accepted thought that leads to reverse engineering.
But most games do have plenty of copyrightable material. Not only are there massive binaries which have copyright (but not when you extract their functionality out of them, only the whole has copyright) but most of their assets are also (unlike the game grid in Tetris, in my opinion) copyrightable.
I would say that (pretend this is all new enough that there is an inventor who is living and this was first designed within copyright terms back in time) that a card game like Bridge is not copyrigtable, but you can trademark the name of it and make an 'official' set of cards to play bridge and the exact art work on the cards is also expression and copyrightable and the exactly written rules are also copyright (I think this is actually how non-video games work, with an obvious parallel to video games, but I DO NOT KNOW THIS FOR SURE*). So you can sell a box with Bridge(TM) written on it with your official rulebook and your exact set of picture cards. But you can not go after anyone who sells a game which also has exactly the same 13*4 card structure (with different pictures, but maybe royalty designs and number of icons on non-face cards, the split of face/non-face and maybe the suites aren't as staggeringly interesting original set of four things) and same way of playing it (but the rules are expressed differently, the tell of the same game but not using the same language).
They are selling BridgeKnockoff but the art of the cards does not infringe (even if the functionality is an exact duplication), nor does the expressive content of the written rules (even though they result in the same game being played). There is a trademark dispute over the selling of their game and marketplace confusion and if you could ever prove it then you could get them for copyright if they weren't careful with how they cloned your game, but you need to really be sure they cloned something copyrightable like the art or the words in the rules by not reducing out of your game only the functional components and then building a wholly original expressive content of their own without reference to your expressive copyrighted material.
It's a hard case, and if you make Tetris then I think you've got copyright on the music and maybe some of the art work on the UI (obviously you've got a much stronger case if the steal your assets bit-for-bit as to theft, you just have to show your sprites have enough complexity to be expressive and so get copyright and as a whole you probably do with most games of Tetris but I'm thinking about the GB original here and maybe not? I mean brick down each side is the only distinctive thing about that release's UI if you've stripped the distinct texturing of the blocks and replaced them with the modern colour option to distinguish blocks, a functional requirement of making the play area still show the dropped block outlines clearly) but the game grid is pure functionality and required to make the thing work. Obviously the legal system has already said the Tetris game area can be cloned as a copyright infringement recently but I'd rather that case get reversed as I cannot see any expression, only functionality (ideas) being duplicated.
Hyperbole asplode: I'm going to go off and make sure I've got the latest editions of WINE downloaded for all the major distros in case the world is changing and we suddenly lose the right to reverse engineer functionality (as non-copyrightable ideas).
* Disclaimer to analogy and talking out my arse.
Edit: SPaG pass, more correct words, less bad typing.
@Shivoa: It's pretty evident that they just looked at the game on the other side of the fence, made some changes, and put it out with the goal of confusion in the marketplace. It's a bigger picture than just "you're technically allowed to recreate a product." Sure, you are, but there's more to the legality of a product than it's use of original or licensed assets. That's why things like likeness rights exist. Because obviously you can't use an actual face of a dude, but you also can't use a likeness of that face. Sure, you can make an approximation, but you can't just take his face, and give it a different name.
Also, what you are technically allowed to do means fuck all in contemporary courts. Especially with Copyright crap.
They almost certainly made this with the express purpose of looking like something else on the marketplace to capture a part of that market.
@MordeaniisChaos: Again, likeness rights are a cousin of trademark (or are exactly the same thing if you're actually taking action using extended form of passing-off common law) so again I say that there is a case for marketplace confusion and an unregistered trademark dispute on the similarities of the goods/services in this case (and I would think it a fine thing if EA won) but this is not a copyright infringement case on those terms, which it this thread's discussion, and so Zynga should be able to defend themselves and avoid EA making headway that could be turned to help companies use future similar claims to prevent genuine similar independent creation. The first person to use the Shivoa trade mark can prevent anyone else using it (or to be more gaming relation: Scrolls (TM)) but in copyright several people can make the same stuff, there is no conflict unless one person stole it rather than created it and to protect independent invention then there must be a decent level of proof for theft and not similar creative process. The elements of a game that attract copyright do not include how it is played so in this case we much look at the visuals and they seem to be similar but not the same for a style that is overflowing with all these similar aesthetics and limited by functionality (like prop blocks of grid footprint to make them placeable on the regular grid of the floorplans). It's a debatable point, but I think Zynga should win unless EA have proof of theft and that decision would be good for the industry.
The consumers have already spoken, as have the markets, about Zynga as a useless cancer that can be safely culled. Ripping off game designs gave them a bubble but only really one hit and then bleed-over numbers in their other titles and they're not even the best at scamming consumers with uninspired social Skinner boxes today. They're going pop, partially due to their questionable practices, this lawsuit isn't needed in the fight against clones (which could be fought as a trademark dispute if you actually wanted to help the industry with clones and establish some case history) and copyright infringement is quite tightly tied to reverse engineering and separation of what elements of a system can be copyrighted so could (but may not) have wider implications than just a fight against clone an into the attack on elements that might be considered trope or even scènes à faire rather than clone. The industry is all about looking at peers and saying 'can I do better than that', 'is that stylistic choice interesting in the context of my desired gameplay', 'wouldn't it be cool if we make a new SystemShock, but us developers don't have that license', 'man I'm too lazy to think up a aesthetic design, what is everyone else doing'? The last one is dodgy, but to protect the other choices then we kinda go with the flow.
@Shivoa: While your points are interesting (I found myself entranced by your vast layman knowledge of tetris and copyright laws) I have to say the message (herein adhering to the previously mentioned copyright laws, in this case a law battle between EA and Zynga) can get a bit jumbled (the narrative of which is still excellent) by your common usage (interspersed sporadically to add deeper meaning) of parenthesis which can make (not to detract from the value of the message of course) the overall narrative (rich and verbose) hard to follow; (not trolling, just a suggestion).
@Humanity: Yep, that's certainly true. :) It's a case of If I Had More Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter and the annoyance of reading unlinked, asterisked footnotes on the internet when you have to scroll down to get to them (making parenthesis slightly preferable in my personal view). Unfortunately, I wouldn't hold your breath for me to change my forum post style away from the stream of conciousness on display, inline asides and detail note included. Unless Dave's plan for the new forums includes some custom mark-up to create linked footnotes (anchor navigations pointing both down to footnote and back to reference point) similar to how LaTeX does it.
Edit: can't type, SPaG
A few points. One, EA is a much better company then most people give them credit for. As for this lawsuit, gameplay should not be copyrighted. By that logic, every 2D platformer should pay out to Activision for Pitfall and every 3D platformer should pay out to Nintendo for Mario 64. This lawsuit could set a very shitty precedent that is unfair. If Zynga were copying the Sims in a way beyond simple gameplay traits then I would be more inclined to agree with EA.
It's the combination of all of these elements assembled in an identical structure that's got EA so sue-happy. Don't worry, EA's not going to be suing Blizzard because the next WoW expansion includes classes.
Have you seen EA's "evidence"? It's like Zynga used the fucking eyedropper tool and copied those color pallets exactly. Not cool.
@Shivoa: In the tetris case, what lead to the clone's defeat was the fact the company admitted to be stealing stuff when making the game. With react OS, it's goal is to 100% compatablecompatable, not an exact replica. It's like the SNES clones. they are not violating copyright.
In Zynga's case, they replicated the exact same measurements for the world and the exact same rgb values. Add that some animations are exactly the same, Top part of HUD is literally a replica (when I played it months ago), and you got a rather good case. It's like with the great Gina sister case were the first level and a half were exactly the same both in design and in graphics. Many of the enemies looked similar too. If zynga didn't do those things then it would be much harder to make a case against them unless they admitted they were stealing design idea's like in Tetrises case.
Here's where the problem is with the OP's argument: this is a lawsuit about plagarism, not a lawsuit saying "hey, we own classes and virtual pets and gibberish". Not only do they offer very specific legal wording that pertains strictly to their game, but they also provide specific images taken directly from the game. You cannot put that against, say, Skyrim and have the same thing apply.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment