Why aren't there more games based off of public domain works, /v?/
Since no one owns the copyright to them, anyone is legally allowed to make a game out of old movies and short films, such as https://archive.org/details/BookRevue
Because then you can't own the game IP.
>>335694394
You can add whatever additions you give it, for example if you made Daffy Duck have a sidequest where he explores his sexuality with well-dressed Tom, that sidequest will be under your copyright.
>>335694801
No, that would all belong to Warner, who would sue the shit out of you.
>>335695854
>what is public domain
>>335695795
>more
>>335694170
Lovecraft?
>>335694170
isn't all that Sherlock Holmes stuff fitting this?
Pretty sure I also saw stuff about some sort of Lovecraft game
>>335695883
Tom of Tom and Jerry and Daffy Duck are both characters owned by Warner Bros., and will be for a considerable amount of time, thanks to Disney's lawyers.
>>335694170
Because game developers don't read literature.
It is a lowbrow industry full of self important people with extra chromosomes.
>>335696036
are /mu/ and /lit/ closed for the day or something
>>335694170
cause copy pasting a whole book in notepad doesn't make a game. You are still paying people to put rules around he setting you get nothing to use shit everybody already read.
>>335696000 (trips)
You could use the parts of the character which are public domain, but not the parts which aren't (i.e. you can reference other PD cartoons Daffy was in as part of your Daffy's backstory, but not any copyrighted cartoons)
Bear in mind that I'm not a lawyer but I do a lot of reading on this stuff, so if you turn out to be an actual copyright lawyer then obviously go with your own knowledge on this.
Someone should make a game based of Night of the Living Dead since it's public domain. Something like Alien: Isolation, but with zombies.
>>335696572
uhh...you mean Left 4 Dead? Pretty sure they already made that.
>>335696372
And what's to stop a WB lawyer from saying that you're actually using the Daffy Duck from Space Jam, The Looney Tunes Show, or the Tom from one of the numerous direct-to-video features he's been featured in?
>>335696321
>You are still paying people to put rules around he setting you get nothing to use shit everybody already read.
I'm having trouble parsing this sentence, what are you saying?
>>335696914
They'd have to prove it.
>>335696000
for all intents and purposes you were supposed to pretend that we were in a hypothetical world where daffy duck was public domain you autist
>>335697156
Regardless, you'd be violating their trademarks on Daffy Duck and Tom the Cat, which are still very much in effect.
>>335696372
This is a quick way to get sued.
You could replace Daffy with your own OC and have everything about him based on Book Revue (Like his costume and accent), but you can't use the character Daffy himself if you plan on modifying it.
Why do you think every fucking TV channel avoids playing Public Domain looney tunes cartoons unless they have the rights (CN)?
>>335694170
The same reason The Sci-fi Channel's team of million dollar lawyers were bitch-smacked for trying to copyright Sci-fi. It's overpowered and can cripple the desires of corporations.
>>335697242
>The key to federal trademark protection is that marks are protectable only to the extent that they are used to identify the source of certain products and/or services. Thus it is not merely having a description or depiction of a character, whether in text or graphic format, that matters. Instead, trademark rights depend upon having a character that is used in relationship to specific goods and/or services and which character is then deemed to be a “source identifier.” The latter term means that the character is considered in the minds of the public as identifying a particular source of the goods and/or services.
>>335697294
Probably because they have other sources to fill their time with, and even if they'd win a suit lodged against them, they'd still rather not deal with the lawyer costs.
>>335694170
Walt Disney was an antisemite so his company got taken over by Jews and then they Jewed all over copyright law.
>>335697674
So, yeah, from that text, you'd deliberately be creating market confusion between "your" Daffy and Tom, and WB's Daffy and Tom, both of which are still in active use today in programming, merchandising, and branding. People get the shit sued out of them for that.
>>335697924
You could clear it up by calling it "Muh Games Studio's Book Revue" and include disclaimers that this is not in fact a game by Warner Bro's, and you'd have much better chances.
There isn't much precedent about video games using PD cartoons and characters as a setting but still trademarked characters, so if you're lucky enough to actually be sued for making a meme game, you'd get the set the precedent one way or another.
>>335696823
L4D zombies are too cuh-razy to be Romero zombies. Dead Rising did Romero zombies pretty well, but it's little too cartoony for my taste.
>>335698367
>and you'd have much better chances
So instead of an ant's chance of lifting the sun, you'd have a beetle's chance.
>>335698754
>entire point of trademark law is to prevent confusion
>disclaim and clear up any potential confusion as to the source of the game
What argument could the prosecution use beside "b-but it's MINE?!"
>>335698914
That's literally all the argument they need.
>>335699006
It would be if Book Revue were still copyrighted.
>>335694801
>>335698914
Copyright would be "but it's mine"
Trademark is "but people will think it's mine"
>>335699112
Daffy duck is still copyrighted, all they would have to do is point at him and go LOOK ITS MY ORIGINAL CHARACTER
>>335696572
>zombies
Fuck you we have enough shit with zombies.
>Adam ruins everything
And he also ruins /v/ with autists who feel inspired after watching videos to flaunt their autism
You are not smarter for trying to fit in and act smart. You just copy the flavor of the week
Toby Fox included a Public Domain character in Undertale
>>335700247
are you OK?
>>335699770
Daffy Duck from Book Revue is not copyrighted, even if Daffy Duck from other works is.
Another example of this Tarzan vs. Disney's Tarzan. Tarzan from the book is not under copyright, but that doesn't mean Disney's Tarzan isn't. They're both the "same" character, but you can't use Disney's version. That doesn't mean you can't use the original version because Disney has a version.
I've been wondering, how come iD(and now Zenimax) have the rights to Wolfenstein?
I mean, as I understood it the company who made it went under so the IP became free, then the id guys made a game using the Wolfenstein brand for their FPS.
Like, since id was the first to nab it up since they went under does it belong to them now or could I make a game called "Castle Wolfenstein" if I wanted?
>people in this ITT chat getting confused
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What may be tripping you up is the idea of "intellectual property." Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as "intellectual property"—a term also applied to patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about "copyright," or about "patents," or about "trademarks."
The term "intellectual property" carries a hidden assumption—that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our conception of them as physical property.
When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be.
To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt a firm policy not to speak or even think in terms of “intellectual property”.
The hypocrisy of calling these powers "rights" is starting to make the World "Intellectual Property" Organization embarrassed.
>>335700609
I imagine Zenimax cleared up whatever incongruities that laid between the makers of the Castle Wolfenstein games and id kinda sneaking in during the wild west days of computer games with their own Wolfenstein game.
General concept of the original Castle Wolfenstein games seems ripe for "iteration", though. Procedurally generated prison castle, let's say MGS1-level stealth mechanics, stealing outfits from guards lets you take side missions from prisoners/other guards for a higher score/better items, and occasionally you shoot a box filled with grenades that blows up the entire castle.
>>335700609
Muse Software (the guys who made the first two Wolfenstein's) let the name's trademark lapse when they went under according to Masters of Doom.
>>335700609
>>335701110
fuck didn't read your post sorry
![JennyEverywhere_by_DianaNock[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/qVJsWDR.gif "JennyEverywhere_by_DianaNock[1].gif")
Jenny Everywhere exploring the Worlds of Public Domain game when?
>>335700762
The reason people are turned off by Free Software is this autist's black and white obsession with semantics and the other autists who just copypasta every word he says like its fucking gospel.
If you make something based on an existing work, it's probably one of the two things:
1) You want to make money. In which case you either want a popular license, or have someone else interested in exploiting theirs propose the idea to you. It's okay to use public domain, but it's far from the "optimal" choice.
2) It's a tribute to something you like. In which case, it's very likely something that was at least mildly popular to leave an impression on you, as someone went to an expense to make people pay attention to it. Things like that fighting game based on Les Misérables exist, but they are exceedingly rare. And even then, that game still had just as much influence from Guilty Gear as it did from the book.
And in case you don't feel tied by either of the above, why make a derivative work instead of something you have full creative and commercial control over?
>>335701638
An obsession, I might add, that he blatantly ignores to sound righteous when he's talking about shit like "Tivoization"
Why make a game based off a public domain thing when you can just make an original thing you have total control over?
Most of the stuff that's lapsed into the public domain usually isn't popular enough to be worth fighting for legal control over(e.g. Superman, Mickey Mouse), so why even bother trying to nab it for a pittance of promotion?
>>335694170
If I had to go that route I'd rather just borrow heavily from them rather than use the IP exactly, so instead of having the original fans bitch about how it's not right they'll be happy
