Grand Theftendo

[DrCrypt]

This is just incredibly righteous. Read the articles on how he put it together - far from just being technical geek babble, they are actually interesting and entertaining.

http://www.grandtheftendo.com/index.php

Can't wait for this to come out to play on my GBA flash cart.

[Dave Long]

Awesome! I'm sure it'll get Foxed within a couple weeks!

Why is it people who start these "fan projects" don't ever think about the fact that companies must protect their intellectual property rights and shut this kind of thing down? Why waste the time when you could be making your own game that you CAN SELL FOR REAL MONEY!

I guess it's just easier to rip other people off or "be a fan".

--Dave

[Cold Blooded]

Awesome! I'm sure it'll get Foxed within a couple weeks!

Why is it people who start these "fan projects" don't ever think about the fact that companies must protect their intellectual property rights and shut this kind of thing down? Why waste the time when you could be making your own game that you CAN SELL FOR REAL MONEY!

I guess it's just easier to rip other people off or "be a fan".

--Dave

Not to sound too negative here, but "Dave Long" is right, unfortunately. More publicity this project gets, the sooner Rockstar sends out the "cease & desist" order to stop making unlicensed use of their IP.

[Dirt]

Because they have the skills to technologically produce the game but no skills in creating a fun and dynamic concept.

[Gendal]

Wow. His own assembler, tools, and hardware dev machine... just wow.

Wow. :shock:

[Gary Whitta]

What's the point of this when the real GTA is coming out for Game Boy?

[mouselock]

What's the point of this when the real GTA is coming out for Game Boy?

What's the point of painting portraits when you can just buy a Picasso?

[Thomas Wilde]

Why is it people who start these "fan projects" don't ever think about the fact that companies must protect their intellectual property rights and shut this kind of thing down? Why waste the time when you could be making your own game that you CAN SELL FOR REAL MONEY!

I'd imagine it's an elaborate combination of youthful idealism and the desire to work, in some limited way, within the game industry.

Looking at what this guy did, it'd look decent on a resume.

[shift6]

Awesome! I'm sure it'll get Foxed within a couple weeks!

Why is it people who start these "fan projects" don't ever think about the fact that companies must protect their intellectual property rights and shut this kind of thing down? Why waste the time when you could be making your own game that you CAN SELL FOR REAL MONEY!

I guess it's just easier to rip other people off or "be a fan".
Besides, this isn't a trademark violating item (except the name may be diluting). It's a derivative work (like fan fiction) of a copyright. They don't HAVE to shut him down to retain their rights.

Why the nutty reaction? Just let the kid write a goofy little game for his own pleasure and experience. It's not like he installed a mod chip or something really heinous. :roll:

[Sanjuro]

If you ask me, the point of blantantly ripping off Rockstar's IP is free publicity. There's a million indie games out there that get no attention whatsoever, but this guy's project is making gaming news and metanews site headlines everywhere. He isn't making a dime, but his name (and essentially his resume) are going to be everywhere.

[dannimal]

Fan fiction is a copyright violation, so maybe that's not the best analogy (or maybe it is, depending on the point you're trying to make).

[Cold Blooded]

If you ask me, the point of blantantly ripping off Rockstar's IP is free publicity. There's a million indie games out there that get no attention whatsoever, but this guy's project is making gaming news and metanews site headlines everywhere. He isn't making a dime, but his name (and essentially his resume) are going to be everywhere.

That would by why companies issue cease-and-desist orders to enthusiasts who make unauthorized use of their IPs. Publicity isn't something you can easily quantify into a hard financial figure, but it's worth something as you state, and the fellow is getting it for free by using someone else's IP without permission.

Seems like a neat little project to me too, personally, but unless Rockstar decides to be "cool" and allow the thing to exist (though it seems to actually be competing with their Game Boy game), writing's on the wall.

[Quaro]

The impression I get is that he'd be working on this even if he never releases anything to the public. He just likes pushing old hardware.

[DrCrypt]

Why would this be Foxed? He's writing it for a platform that has been totally irrelevant and obsolete for the last fifteen years. This isn't some UT2004 mod. There's no way something like this can be Foxed without Rockstar looking like the bad guys. Heck, the name isn't even the same. I doubt Rockstar would have any valid reason to fox this - what, they own the right to wide-open games involving car robbery? That would be hard and irrelevant to enforce on a labor of love that a fan is designing for a console most of us are currently using to prop up short table legs.

As the guy says:

ust thought I would clarify that this game is not going to be for sale! It will be available for download for free when it is done. I am not making profit from this game. All of the code, graphics, etc. are done from scratch by me. The dialogue will be original as well when it's released to prevent infringement on that from GTA. I did not reverse engineer anything to create it, trace any graphics, convert any audio, it's all original. Grand Theftendo is simply a spare time, fan project for fun, and to pay tribute to Rockstar Games and Grand Theft Auto.

So, the name isn't the same, none of the assets are being stolen, it's on an 8-bit platform, it'll be released for free and everything is being created from scratch. Foxing this sort of fan tribute would be the worst sort of publicity Rockstar could manage.

It takes a special kind of asshole to come in and piss all over an effort like this. You really can't see how creating the modern GTA experience on a 2mhz processor is not only really cool but really creative? Especially when the guy involved coded all the tools himself and accurately NESified Portland to do it? This is really cool.

As another note, this guy is some sort of low-grade technical genius when it comes to obsolete hardware. He's also the guy who created the Sierra adventure games interpreter for the GBA and allowed me to play Manhunter II on a bus up to Glendalough.

[Gunmetal]

Don't they have to shut it down, if it indeed infringes on their intellectual property? Otherwise, doesn't it set a bad legal precedent for them? (I am not a lawyer though)

[Squirrel Killer]

Don't they have to shut it down, if it indeed infringes on their intellectual property? Otherwise, doesn't it set a bad legal precedent for them? (I am not a lawyer though)

What IP does it infringe? The game, although inspired by GTA, is from scratch. The code is obviously from scratch. The name is play on GTA name, but it doesn't really infringe on it, it's not like there's going to be any market confusion. The gameplay is about the only thing that could be considered infringing, but I was under the impression that notwithstanding the Pac-Man/KC Munchkin decision, most courts had found that similar gameplay was allowable.

[Erik]

I'm behind this guy 110%! But some of the screenshots and text imply that he's lifting mission descriptions, dialog, and character and vehicle names wholesale. I'm not a lawologist so much that I don't even know if that's the right word for it, but it seems like that might be sue-worthy.

[Brian Koontz]

So, the name isn't the same, none of the assets are being stolen, it's on an 8-bit platform, it'll be released for free and everything is being created from scratch. Foxing this sort of fan tribute would be the worst sort of publicity Rockstar could manage.

Heh... even my Inspiration Royalty plan doesn't work here (in the way I previously stated it) since the game isn't being made for profit.

The one issue I see is "released for free". Its very very easy to use this game to A: Act as advertising for future games that are NOT free or B: Be an "in" into the games industry. So the issue is not what the guy gets directly from this game, but what this game *causes* in terms of future revenue. For example, if this lands him a job in the industry, its only fair that part of his paycheck should go to Rockstar. If he makes more money off his future releases because of THIS release (which of course would occur), part of the revenue from those future releases should go to Rockstar. That's my solution, which is fair and still allows the guy to make the game.

I'd like to see Rockstar proceed... hopefully that will continue to let things progress in terms of the fair use of creation.

[Timemaster Tim]

If protecting IP is an issue, and Rockstar don't want to appear to be the heavies, then there seems to be a straightforward solution. Approach the guy in a nice way to let him know that he needs to license the material, and then give hime the license in return for promotional considerations or some such crap.

[DrCrypt]

I'm behind this guy 110%! But some of the screenshots and text imply that he's lifting mission descriptions, dialog, and character and vehicle names wholesale. I'm not a lawologist so much that I don't even know if that's the right word for it, but it seems like that might be sue-worthy.
I didn't notice that, but I didn't squint too heavy at the 240x120 screenshots either. Congratulation on a faculty for eye-sight straight out of X - The Man With X-Ray Eyes. Now the web site's down for bandwidth. Anyway, if he's just straight translating the missions, I'd say that's definitely suable (although maybe not - how many crappy UT2004 levels based off of Doom 2's Map 01 have been Foxed? If the answer to that question is "All of them", thank god). But the car names can be easily changed and as for their appearance, weren't all of GTA's vehicles straight clones of real-life cars? Unless we're already living in Brian Koontz' Krazy IP Doofus World, I think Rockstar's going to have a hard time protecting Ford and Chevrolet's IP from infringement. As an added note, did Rockstar trademark the vehicle name "Faggio"?

[RickH]

What I recall from law school:

Copyright is protection of a creative work (books, pictures, movies, and the audio-visual experiences known as videogames). Copyright rights are no longer contingent on application for a copyright registration; under recent (last 10-15 yrs) changes to the law, any artist who creates a work automatically owns a copyright interest in the work. Drew a doodle on a napkin ? Congrats, you now hold an intellectial property right in your doodle. What do you own ? The right to sell/license the work, reproduce the work, and create derivative works from the original work, and to prevent others from doing so. Unless you register your copyright, you won't have the full remedies of the law available to you, such as monetary damages for infringement.

Many things in the law are "use it or lose it," so if you make a habit of not defending your copyright interests, you will eventually lose the right to assert your IP rights with regard to the work. This is why the guys making the Aliens TC (i.e., making their own game explicitly set in the Alien universe [AU] using the AU IP) got "foxed," because once 20th century fox knew about the project (knowlegde of the infringement is the trigger) they had to choose between sending a cease and desist letter or allowing the project, knowing that its existence would diminish their ability to prevent others from creating their own derivative works from the [AU]. This is a big deal, since every licenced movie, comic book, novel, statue, etc., derived from the AU IP is money in their pocket. How does one avoid being "foxed"? Shut the hell up about your project until its done, then let the finished project make its way around the net as it will. You can be prevented from distributing it, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Copyright law protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. The GTA games themselves are copyrightable, but the idea of a game featuring a criminal in a free-form setting with the ability to use various vehicles & weapons is not. That's how you get Deep Impact and Armageddon released in the same year. Same (or at least similar) idea, different expressions.

Now, this guy looks like he's creating more of a "ripoff" than a translation of a particular GTA game. That's allowed. However, the name "GrandTheftendo" could be considered a violation of Rockstar's trademark (not copyright). Trademark's a different beast, it protects the right to sell a product in commerce under a certain trade name. Right now, "Grand Theft Auto" is a helluva valuable trademark. The name itself on the box could sell any number of horrible sequels. But, this guy isn't trying to sell anything, so there's no consumer to be confused (consumer confusion is one of the major factors dleading to a finding of trademark infringement). Still, it implies some sort of affiliation with Rockstar's TM, so it might be problematic. As far as I know, there's no "parody" protection for trademarks as contrasted with copyrighted works.

There. I'm that much closer to quittin' time.

[nutsak]

Could Rockstar notice this and instead of making him stop actually say "Hey , you've done a good job here, sign over the rights to us and we'll release it for nothing " ?
If he was going to release it for nothing anyway he wouldn't be losing out and he'd still get to see his project be played by fans. The only big issue I see with this is other people doing the same as him and expecting the same result then bitching when they get knocked back.

[Dave Long]

Listen, I work with computers every day in my regular job. I know what he's doing here is technically very sophisticated and yes, even cool. I'm just trying to point out that he's going to end up having the project stopped by Rockstar like I've watched a hundred or more other similar projects get "Foxed". Just recently some guy was trumpeting his fan-made 3D recreation of Chrono Trigger for the PC. It looked great! Absolutely high quality artwork and level design. Amazing stuff and not very different from this Grand Theftendo as it used completely original but deriviative art, etc.

Because he kept making a fuss about it (even mentioning it was dumb, starting work on it was the dumbest thing of all), it got Square-Enix to shut him and his buds down. It was inevitable and everyone at the GAF told the guy that he would be shut down. He didn't listen, said exactly the kinds of things this guy says about being a fan, giving it away, blah blah blah...

It's a waste of their time and I'd rather see someone with this kind of talent use it for something original where they can market it or at least let people eventually play it. What's the point of using someone else's IP in our current legal system where it's just not possible for the company to let it continue without allowing everyone and their brother to rip them off without any consequences?

If anyone reading this is starting something similar, just quit now and refocus on building something original. You'll be far happier with the outcome.

--Dave

[scharmers]

If anyone reading this is starting something similar, just quit now and refocus on building something original. You'll be far happier with the outcome.


Actually, no. I just piped up once, and now keep my mouth shut about my remake. (Shrug) BTW: your argument may make sense to you, but it's not followed very often, re: movies.

--scharmers

[Damien Falgoust]

Many things in the law are "use it or lose it," so if you make a habit of not defending your copyright interests, you will eventually lose the right to assert your IP rights with regard to the work.
You do not have to police your copyrights in order to preserve them. You retain your copyright for the statutory period (life plus 90 years for a non-corporate work) whether you exercise those rights regularly or not. Rockstar would not lose its copyright on the original GTA if it declined to shut this guy down.

You do, however, have to police your trademarks, and that what's Rockstar would be concerned about, and that's what Fox was concerned about when it shut down the Alien TC mod. Rockstar would be concerned about losing its rights to the GTA name (or diminishing the GTA name) and any other trademarks included in the game.

[Damien Falgoust]

Could Rockstar notice this and instead of making him stop actually say "Hey , you've done a good job here, sign over the rights to us and we'll release it for nothing " ?
More to the point, they could say "sign over the rights to us, cease and desist from continuing with your project, and we'll agree not to sue you into oblivion for copyright infringement and trademark violations." This is commonly known as "making him an offer he can't refuse."

And they could do it if they wanted to, because the law is squarely on their side in this case. They can't force him to give them the rights to his work, but they can persuade him it's in his best interests to do so to avoid litigation -- litigation, BTW, which they would assuredly win; this isn't a case of a big company with a meritless case shaking down a small guy who can't pay for lawyers.

[RickH]

Rockstar would not lose its copyright on the original GTA if it declined to shut this guy down.

That's correct, but I didn't say that the copyright would be lost. I said the ability to assert one's rights under copyright law, for example the ability to prohibit the production/dissemination of a derivative work. If the first, second and third instances of unauthorized DW production/dissemination are tacitly allowed by permitting them to exist openly and without challenge, it's going to be VERY difficult to assert a right to prohibit the fourth.

[Damien Falgoust]

Rockstar would not lose its copyright on the original GTA if it declined to shut this guy down.
That's correct, but I didn't say that the copyright would be lost. I said the ability to assert one's rights under copyright law, for example the ability to prohibit the production/dissemination of a derivative work.
Distinction without a difference. Losing one's rights under copyright law is the same as losing the copyright, since the copyright is nothing but that bundle of legal rights.

If the first, second and third instances of unauthorized DW production/dissemination are tacitly allowed by permitting them to exist openly and without challenge, it's going to be VERY difficult to assert a right to prohibit the fourth.
I'd love to see a cite to a case where this actually happened. Policing is not a necessary prerequisite to exercising your rights under copyright law. Indeed, I can think of examples where infringing uses were allowed for years (admittedly, usually through error) and the copyright remained enforceable.

A good example of this would be the soundtrack to It's a Wonderful Life: when the copyright on the film lapsed, the holders of the copyright on the soundtrack did not prevent the film's distribution, presumably because they didn't realize their copyright was still valid. After the film became a holiday favorite, those same copyright holders asserted their rights, which is why now you only see the film on NBC around Christmastime.

Similarly, I can think of tangible examples of companies that have lost trademark rights for failure to police. IIRC, Duncan lost the right to the trademark "yo-yo" on precisely those grounds. The same goes for aspirin, kerosene, and raisin bran. Xerox and Coke are constantly fighting to insure their trademarks don't become generic descriptors for photocopies and cola beverages for just that reason.

[RickH]

Interesting point, 45mins on WestLaw didn't turn up anything, but I'm not as familiar with CR terminology as I am w/ other areas. Certainly failure to police would not be characterized as either abandonment or forfeiture (not eve sure if forfieture is possible anymore), but I can't seem to lock into the right phrasing. But then, today's a federal holiday, and I ain't doing anything that even smells like work today.

I did notice that there's a 3-year statute of limitations to bring an infringement action, so there is a certain degree of "use it or lose it" in the law, for what it's worth.

[Terrence]

If anyone reading this is starting something similar, just quit now and refocus on building something original. You'll be far happier with the outcome.
--Dave

If by "original" you mean "highly derivative homage with coincidental similarities to an extremely popular existing game," then I'm all for it. Heck, True Crime sold more than 1 million copies that way ;)

Personally, I'd do a Final Fight clone with overhead driving sequences.