Skip to Content
2-11-2011 @ 3:13PM
The thing I'm curious about here is the other side of the coin: Warcraft, in it's constant need for content and penchant for lame pseudo-ironic pop culture references, seems to go right up to the line of infringement. Why hasn't, say, LucasArts come down on them? Or have they? Does Blizzard have lawyers vetting every quest? Or is there a bright line somewhere that's easy to steer clear of? Because, from a purely non-legal point of view, Uldum is egregious. It isn't parody, it's lack of originality.
2-11-2011 @ 3:25PM
Parody.There are entire games based off of other games, and parodying them. "Pyst" was a parody of Myst, and had you walking around environments from Myst which had been vandalized. It was ok in the court's eye."Deer Hunter Revenge" had a deer getting revenge for being hunted, a parody of "Deer Hunter".Unless they distinctly toss in names, like Lightsaber, or Indiana Jones, they aren't crossing the copyright infringement line.They have a "Very Light Sabre", and "Harrison Jones", and those qualify as parodies.Of course, there are times when a company does consult with other companies to make sure it was ok.In TF2, Valve accepts models from players. If the model is good enuf, and it fits a theme they want, they might implement it, and give it stats according to their design, and put it in a future update.Someone submitted a melee weapon for the Medic called the "Vita-Saw". The design clearly referenced and took inspiration from the ADAM harvester from BioShock.Valve sought and recieved permission from 2K Games to put the model in the game, and it was released.Vita-Saw.http://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/File:RED_%C3%9Cberneedle.pngADAM havester.http://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/File:Bioshock_Needle.png
2-11-2011 @ 5:56PM
Yes. Don't let your obvious distaste for the practice confuse the facts. Blizzard doesn't come anywhere close to "right up to the line of infringement". LucasArts doesn't come down on them because they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, legally, as nothing in Uldum comes even close to the infringement line. LucasArts would probably go after them if they came even close, even if they didn't technically cross the line -- this is the same company that tried to tradmark "Nazi" after all. lol. If LucasArts hasn't sued, it ain't anywhere close to legally questionable.
2-11-2011 @ 10:36PM
"Don't let your obvious distaste for the practice confuse the facts."That goes both ways, Artificial. LucasArts never tried to trademark the word Nazi. They released an RPG in 1984 that contained a reference to "NAZI(TM)", but that wasn't referring to the word Nazi on its own. It was referring to the word Nazi in addition to the associated artwork, for which the combination of the two was under trademark. They have never made any attempt to trademark the word "Nazi" on its own.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.