[Other✓] Legal Distribution?

[CoGuLaHnE]

I have this plan to hack the heck out of a 3rd generation game and sell them on mobile devices.

Crazy, right?

Statement from the U.S. Copyright Office:
Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

Material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container may be registrable.

Is the ROM acquired legally? Yes, I have a device that uploads game cartridges to my computer.

All names, music, and graphics will be changed.

So... am I missing anything?

 

[esperance]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is still illegal.

If you programmed your own custom game based on the ideas present in a Pokémon game, it would be okay. Simply replacing all images, music, etc. but keeping the game's core code and selling it as your own is what makes it illegal here.

Custom game similar to Pokémon -- okay.
A game using Pokémon's code but looking different -- not okay.

 

[CoGuLaHnE]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is still illegal.

If you programmed your own custom game based on the ideas present in a Pokémon game, it would be okay. Simply replacing all images, music, etc. but keeping the game's core code and selling it as your own is what makes it illegal here.

Custom game similar to Pokémon -- okay.
A game using Pokémon's code but looking different -- not okay.

I tend to think that your statement is valid. The only thing is that there has never been any legal issues exactly like this before that have set a precedent for how this would be ruled. I am pretty sure I have seen rulings in the past that say something like "Consumers use the good how they want to" or something along those lines.

In Galoob v. Nintendo, Galoob's game modifying system called "Game Genie" was ruled legal for the following reason:
After over a year of legal wrangling, the trial concluded in July of 1991, with District Judge Fern M. Smith ruling in favor of Galoob, declaring that the Game Genie did not violate Nintendo's copyrights. In her ruling, Smith compared usage of the Game Genie to "skipping portions of a book" or fast-forwarding through a purchased movie; thus the altered game content did not constitute the creation of a derivative work as Nintendo had argued.

Not sure how strongly this applies here, but I honestly cannot say for sure either way.

 

[esperance]

I think you may need to read a little further in that Wikipedia article:
After over a year of legal wrangling, the trial concluded in July of 1991, with District Judge Fern M. Smith ruling in favor of Galoob, declaring that the Game Genie did not violate Nintendo's copyrights. In her ruling, Smith compared usage of the Game Genie to "skipping portions of a book" or fast-forwarding through a purchased movie; thus the altered game content did not constitute the creation of a derivative work as Nintendo had argued. Smith wrote that "Having paid Nintendo a fair return, the consumer may experiment with the product and create new variations of play, for personal enjoyment, without creating a derivative work."

The thing I think you misunderstand is the "personal enjoyment" part of it, and you said it yourself, "Consumers use it how they want to." This means that you can modify the heck out of your game, and even share those modifications.

But, you cannot claim those things as a separate product, which is what you sound like you want to do. What you can do, however, is market it as a derivative work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

What I'm saying is that the way you are presenting your idea, it sounds like a form or plagiarism, which is obviously illegal. But, creating a derivative work is not.

 

[CoGuLaHnE]

Perhaps these questions sound naive since I could probably find the answers in your link, but what do I officially have to do or say to qualify as a derivative work? Also, is it legal to make money off of a derivative work?

 

[esperance]

Honestly, I'm not fully sure. I think you just go for it then..?

Perhaps this will shed some light on the money aspect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale

Also, you might wanna check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Enterprises,_Ltd._v._Accolade,_Inc.
Basically, this company called Accolade managed to disassemble and reverse engineer Sega's way of locking cartridges so that they could self-produce their own Genesis games. The end result was that it was determined that decompilation is legal even when used commercially. So, it may be somewhat similar to ROM hacking?

 

[Logan]

I don't really care what you come up with. We don't condone any monetisation of ROM Hacking on this website and if you attempt to sollicite money on this website then you will be duly sanctioned.

#closed