Ask your copyright questions here

I'm writing a Q&A article for PC Daily about copyright law as it pertains to rom hacks and fan games. I'll be collecting questions in this thread as well as in the #fangame-hub discord channel (tag me @jojobear13).

Both regular members and staff members are welcome to submit questions. Please do not be shy about repeat questions; I'll consolidate everything together.

Under which circumstances could a patch violate/not-violate copyright law? (It seems to me that there's a very obvious answer, and the answer implies that many hacks' patches are violating copyright, but IANAL).

Is it illegal to download ROMs, even if you only plan on using it for personal use?

If your work is legal as per a reasonable interpretation of the law, but receives an unlawful C&D anyway, what rights and resources do you have to protect your fangame or romhack from censorship?

Do hack takedowns have any legal consequences, other than the hacks getting removed from the site?

What if I refuse to stop working on a fangame that got a C&D, considering I live in a third world country where there are no specific laws against copyright?

jojobear13 said:

I'm writing a Q&A article for PC Daily about copyright law as it pertains to rom hacks and fan games. I'll be collecting questions in this thread as well as in the #fangame-hub discord channel (tag me @jojobear13).

Both regular members and staff members are welcome to submit questions. Please do not be shy about repeat questions; I'll consolidate everything together.

Click to expand...

Blah my post disappeared!

My question was whether the exception in copyright law for parody had any relevance here, given it is the case for films, songs, etc (e.g. Weird Al's career is based on this, and while he famously always asks for permission from the original artist, he apparently never needed to do this).

How's the article coming along, in the meantime?

bobandbill said:

Blah my post disappeared!

My question was whether the exception in copyright law for parody had any relevance here, given it is the case for films, songs, etc (e.g. Weird Al's career is based on this, and while he famously always asks for permission from the original artist, he apparently never needed to do this).

How's the article coming along, in the meantime?

Click to expand...

It's...coming alright. Over 3000 words and still about halfway done. I'm currently trying to pick apart and coherently explain "fair use". In particular, what it actually is when it really counts and not what legal scholars (or internet randos) wish it to be. The biggest problem I'm having is that the internet is full of articles on fair use that are frankly kind of BS: legal theories untested in court, propaganda opinions from lobbyists, and stuff that is just plain false. So I'm having to track down and read through court opinions as well as scholarly law publications. Lots of legalese to parse.

Parody is...interesting...to say the least. Without spoiling anything, Weird Al does need permission for many of his songs with the qualifier being the song's subject.

I'm currently reading through Google v. Oracle for any relevant or useful information. That supreme court decision came out last year. I'm also debating if I should hold off until the SCOTUS rules in Warhol v. Goldsmith; oral arguments are scheduled for this October and I have no idea what's going to happen.

Quick update. Been listening to Warhol v Goldsmith arguments at the SCOTUS. This is shaping up to be an absolute fuster cluck.