游戏邦注：本文原作者是游戏行业律师、游戏法律Gamer/Law博客撰稿人Jas Purewal。

如果你想要保护自己的游戏，那么就要更好的了解版权法。很多人经常因为版权法未能生效而恼羞成怒。所以我将通过这篇文章讲讲什么是真正的版权，版权能够做到什么以及不能够做到什么。

在这里，我必须提前申明在游戏产业中，版权是一个完全不同的概念。我想通过这篇文章概况关于版权法的一些关键问题，以此帮助游戏开发者更清楚地了解自己怎样做才是最正确、最合法。版权法并不是用于奖励现有的创新产品，也不是用于鼓励更多创新产品的诞生。

这篇文章并不是关于反盗版法也不是关于“用户生产内容”（游戏邦注：指网友将自己DIY的内容通过互联网平台进行展示或者提供给其他用户），尽管这两个内容都是源于版权法。

比起较早之前的Pong（游戏邦注：早期的街机视频游戏），如今的游戏产业存在着更严重的版权侵犯风险。我个人认为，版权侵犯问题日益严重，特别是在当今这个手机游戏和休闲游戏风行的时代。但是尽管如此，游戏开发者们也可以按照自己的想法制定出相关解决方法。

什么是版权？

版权法能够保护任何创造并（或）拥有属于自己作品（游戏邦注：包括书本，电影，数据库或者电脑程序等）的公民享有专属权利。

版权法是知识产权法的主要分支，主要用于保护创造性，这点区别于商标法（主要用于推动产品营销）和专利法（主要用于产业创新）。

游戏开发者需要掌握的关于版权的5大要点

1）版权能够赋予所有者权利，使其真正拥有自己所创造的作品；但是它却不会因此赋予版权所有者垄断这个作品的权利。

这点极其重要，版权法虽然能够保护你的劳动成果，但是却不会阻止其他人独立地制造类似的作品，同时它也会保护其他人独立创造的作品。换句话说，版权法能够保护任何观点的表达，但是不会保护这个观点本身。

例子：任天堂拥有Mario的人物形象和声音的版权，但却并未垄断所有以“意大利水管工”为主题的游戏形象。假设世嘉早在80年代就在自己的游戏平台上推出了意大利水管工形象的游戏，那么那时候任天堂便不能够反对世嘉使用这部作品。

如果一部作品并没有明显模仿已有作品的痕迹，那么在版权法控制下同时共存两部类似的作品是完全有可能的。

2）版权法将赋予你拥有版权作品的特殊权利

本质上来说，拥有版权作品的人有权利决定开发他的版权作品并制止其他没有版权的作品的开发或发行。

任何人都有买进，卖出，投资或许可自己或别人的版权作品的权利，而这些权利对于游戏开发者来说是非常有价值的。通过许可，游戏开发者能够在其他人的版权作品基础上开发游戏产品（游戏邦注：就像Bigpoint开发了Battlestar Galactica Online和TT Games开发了Lego Star Wars）。

3）一款游戏将有可能包含不同的版权内容

例如它可以包含代码，数据库，图片，电影，声音和书面等内容。而版权法则通过不同方法保护这些不同的内容。所以比起书本和图画，版权对于游戏的保护更困难。

4）不同的国家有不同的版权系统

例如：在英国，版权保护完全靠自觉，同时也不需要任何人去登记版权作品。但是在美国，如果一款作品并未登记在册，那么它将不能受到完全的保护（游戏邦注：虽然这听上去没什么大不了的，但是近年来网页游戏开发公司Jagex就遭遇过严重的版权问题）。同时，不同国家对于版权侵犯也拥有不同的应对策略：美国版权法中拥有“合理使用性”的合理判断，而英国则没有。游戏开发者应该针对自己所处的不同地区，采取相应措施，并听取专家关于版权的建议。

5）不同版权作品的生命周期不同

当版权所有者对于版权作品的专属权利到期时，这部作品将变成公共所有，并且能够被自由利用。

例如：当一部作品脚本的作者逝世后，版权法规定将持续保护该作品的版权长达70年。而对于电影作品来说，当它的最后一个制作团队成员逝世后，版权法对它的保护也是70年。一旦这个期限过后，所有作品都变成公共可利用的自由作品。

侵犯版权的行为

简述什么样的行为属于侵犯版权：

当一个开发者盗用了现有的版权作品并复制这个作品的“所有或者大部分”内容时；

当这个被复制的作品真正被生产出来时，

这时候，这个开发者就应该对该作品的版权所有者承担相应的赔偿责任。

然而版权侵犯并不意味着开发者不能基于与现有作品类似的观点创造作品，也不是说如果一个开发者这样做就是等于版权侵犯。版权侵犯是指对原作品的“所有或大部分”内容的复制。

但是还有一个必须注意的问题，即游戏开发者必须有足够的证据证明他人侵犯自己的版权。当两个类似的版权作品同时致力于建立起自己的差异性时，这种区分就更加困难了。所以游戏开发者必须做出合理判断，并分析是否对方的作品复制了“所有或大部分”自己的作品，以此断定对方是否违反了版权侵犯原则。

但是在现实中却很难以此做出判断：

如果所谓的侵权人宣称他不知道或并未看过你的版权作品，那么你将只能百口莫辩。

如果所谓的侵权人宣称他不知道你的版权作品，而你也没有证据证明他侵权，那么你将很难对其提出索赔。

如果所谓的侵权人承认他知道并侵犯了你的作品，那么你将能够提出索赔，但是，正如我之前所说的，你同样也需要拥有足够的证据证明对方复制了你的版权作品中的“所有或者大部分”内容。

接下来我将通过游戏产业中的一个案例分析确立版权侵犯的复杂性。

Nova与Mazoonma的游戏版权纠纷

Nova和Mazooma是英国的两家制作街机游戏的开发商。Nova与Mazooma发生了争执，因为Nova认为Mazooma的游戏Jackpot Pool和Trick Shot侵犯了他的Pocket Money的版权。这几款游戏都是以撞球为主题的街机游戏。但是有趣的是，Nova并未提及Mazooma复制了Pocket Money的代码，而只是控诉Mazooma侵犯了自己游戏中美术作品（如游戏界面、呈现给游戏玩家的图像）和文字作品（设计说明/程序等）的版权。

Nova输掉了这场官司，因为它未能提供足够的证据证明Mazooma侵犯了自己的版权（例如程序代码或图像等），同时他也不能够清楚地展示Mazooma游戏与它自己的作品在游戏界面上的相似之处。

这个案例使我们看到：

只有侵犯了游戏中的“全部或大部分”内容时才称得上是版权侵犯，如侵犯了游戏代码或者图像和游戏界面等。

游戏开发者必须找到足够的证据。

不能单从表面上的不同或者纯凭感觉去判断他人作品是否抄袭，因为观点本身是未受保护的，任何人都有可能想出与你类似的观点并制造游戏。

版权问题的解决并非前景渺茫

怀疑论者如果看了上面的案例也许会觉得版权问题已经得不到应有的保护了。但是这只是其中的一个案例，并非所有的案例都这般“凄惨”。以下我将列举一些较为正面的观点：

必须牢记版权本身是个有价值的资产，能够被买入，卖出，许可和投资。对于游戏开发者来说，版权是他们最重要的资产。

版权法与商标法密切相关。或许在某些情况下你不能够通过版权法制止别人掠取你的作品，但是商标法却能够帮你做到这点。

不要仅以上诉论断就给版权法和游戏下定论。事实上，如今在游戏产业还有很多人不懂如何使用版权法，而这种结果只能导致更多的游戏开发者步入Nova和Mazooma的后尘。但是如果这两个游戏公司争论的游戏是有名的叙事游戏而不是机器上的撞球街机游戏，那么情况是否会发生变化呢？我认为，未来的游戏产业对版权法的理解将会更加深刻。

给游戏开发者几点建议：

必须认清版权对于保护产业的重要性。开发者们必须清楚自己想通过版权保护自己作品的哪一个具体部分，并明确自己所处地区的版权保护规定。

必须牢记版权本身是个有价值的资产，能够被买入，卖出，许可和投资。

如果你与其他开发者存在游戏版权问题的争议，首先你必须明确自己想通过辨证获得什么。能否用友善的方法解决这个问题？如果对方一直盗用你的作品并抢走你的大量用户，那么冲突是否就不可避免了？同时你还需要考虑是否能通过第三方应用，如苹果这样的平台，要求移除对方的“盗版”游戏，更简单地解决问题。还有你是否能够召集用户群和游戏媒体前来帮忙？你是否有一个可靠的律师能够帮你赢得诉讼？

但是，不要单纯受制于法律因素。开发者同时也要思考法律诉讼会耗费你多少成本，多少时间，以及你的用户和合伙人会如何看待这件事等。通常，比起法律诉讼，和平协商能更好地解决问题。

同时开发者们更应记住，好的游戏产品才是赢得对手的有力武器。因为只有好的游戏产品，才能让你的公司更好地发展；只有好的游戏产品，才能让用户群坚定地与你并肩作战。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，转载请注明来源：游戏邦）

Demystifying copyright and games

By Jas Purewal

If you want to protect your games, you need to understand copyright law.  It’s that simple.  The problem is that many people get pretty hot under the collar about copyright law and think it does a lot more than it actually does.  So, this post is about what copyright really is, what it does and what it doesn’t.

Before I get started though, it’s worth making a few initial points, since copyright in the games industry can be a pretty divisive subject:

This post is intended to summarise some key points about copyright law as it is, to help developers to understand where they stand legally.  It isn’t about what the proper balance of copyright law should be between rewarding existing innovation and not discouraging new innovation.

This post isn’t about anti-piracy laws or UGC, though they do derive largely from copyright law.  Those are posts for another day.

This post isn’t claiming that copyright infringement is any more or less of a risk for the games industry than it was back in the days of Pong.  Personally, I think copyright infringement issues are on the rise, particularly in an era of mobile and casual games borrowing from established IP elsewhere in the industry (look at say Gameloft’s N.O.V.A. vs HALO or Desktop Dungeons vs League of Epic Heroes), but you can make your own mind up about that.

What is copyright?

Copyright law protects the rights of anyone who creates and/or owns a piece of work – such as a book, a film, a database or a computer program (I’ll call them “works”). To the right is an example of copyright work from one of my favourite games:

Copyright law is the main branch of IP law which protects creativity, as opposed to say trade mark law (more on that here), which is essentially about marketing your products, or patent law, which protects industrial innovation.

Five key points you need to know about copyright

(1) Copyright only gives you rights over the actual work you’ve created; it doesn’t give you a monopoly over the idea underlying the work.
This is critical: copyright law is meant to protect the fruit of your work, but it doesn’t stop people independently carrying out the same work and also enjoying legal protection of the fruit of that independent work.  Legally, we say that copyright law protects the expression of an idea but not the idea itself.
Example: the fact that Nintendo owns copyright over the way that Mario looks and sounds does not give it a monopoly over all Italian plumber-themed games characters.  If hypothetically Sega had entirely separately a similar Italian plumber for their own platformer back in the 80s, then Nintendo could not have objected to Sega using that work, or vice versa.

Therefore, it is entirely possible to have two very similar works both co-existing under copyright law, provided one has not substantially copied the other of course (more on that later).

(2) Copyright law gives you specific rights over your copyright work.

Essentially, you have the right to exploit the copyright work and stop others from exploiting/distributing it without your authorisation (the latter category starts straying into anti-piracy laws, which as I said is a post for another day).

These rights are valuable: you can buy/sell, leverage and license your or someone else’s copyrights.  Licensing is key in the modern games industry: it is through licensing that a developer is able to make a game based on a copyright work owned by someone else (e.g. Bigpoint developed Battlestar Galactica Online or TT Games developed Lego Star Wars).

3) A game will contain lots of different copyright elements at the same time.

For example, it could contain code, databases, pictures, films, sounds and written materials.  Each of these elements is separately protectable by copyright law in different ways.  This makes the copyright protection of games more difficult than, say, a book or a painting.

(4) Different countries have different copyright systems.

Example: in the UK copyright protection is automatic and there is no need to register the work.  In the US, a work is not fully protected unless it is registered.  (This might not sound that important, but in the recent past it’s caused real problems for Jagex, for example).  Similarly, different countries have different defences to copyright infringement: the US has a wide ‘fair use’ defence, whereas the UK does not (not yet, anyway).  Depending on the territories in which you operate, you may need to take specialist copyright advice (NB this post is based on UK law).

(5) Different copyright works last for different time periods.

When that time period expires, generally the work enters the public domain and becomes freely exploitable.

Example: copyright protection for a script lasts 70 years after the death of the author.  However, for a film it is 70 years effectively after the death of the last of its creative team.    Once that protection has expired, the work will in principle become freely exploitable in the public domain.  (Here’s some food for thought: as a result, valuable IP will fall out of copyright protection in the first half of this century.  For example, what happens when Mickey Mouse enters the public domain?)

Copyright infringement

As a broad summary:

If a developer takes an existing copyright work and copies “all or a substantial part” of it, and

That copying can be established factually,

Then that developer may in principle be liable for copyright infringement to the owner of the original copyright work.

So copyright infringement DOESN’T mean that if a developer bases a work on the same source or idea as your existing work, or even if his/her new work copies your existing work, that he/she is automatically infringing your copyright. There has to be copying of ‘all or a substantial part’ for there to be copyright infringement.

Copying of a ‘substantial part’ is a test of quality but also quantity: the developer could be liable for copyright infringement if he/she has copied very significant portions of your work or if he/she has copied one small but very significant part of that work.

BUT – there’s a catch.  It has to be shown on the facts that the other guy has copied your work.  This is done by a painstaking examination of the two copyright works next to each other in order to establish every similarity and dissimilarity between them.  The judge will then take that analysis and decide whether he/she considers that there has been copying of “all or a substantial part” of the original work and therefore if there has been copyright infringement.

In practice, this can be a hard test to meet:

If the alleged infringer in fact did not even know about or see your work, then you’ll have no claim.

If the alleged infringer did know about your work, but you can’t prove that he/she had any access to it, then you’ll have difficult making a claim.

If the alleged infringer did know and have access to your work, then you may have a claim – but, as I said, you’ll need to show that there are sufficient similarities between the works for the judge to find copying of “all or a substantial part” of your work.

This is where it can get very murky indeed.  I’m going to discuss the difficulties of establishing copyright infringement through two examples – one outside the games industry and one from within it.

Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail

Back in 1982, three authors wrote a controversial book entitled The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, the central theory of which was that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that ‘the Holy Grail’ was both her womb and the resulting bloodline from that marriage.  In 2003, Dan Brown’s best-selling The Da Vinci Code essentially turned the same theory into a novel.

Two of the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail then sued Brown and his publisher in 2006 for copyright infringement.  The judge found that Brown had quite clearly recycled large parts of the “central theme” of their book when writing The Da Vinci Code.  BUT the judge still ruled that there had been no copyright infringement, on the basis that there had not been copying of “all or a substantial part” of the actual contents of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.  Any similarities, the judge found, were at so high a level that it could not be shown that sufficient copying of the actual text of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail had occurred.  Thus, Dan Brown, who quite clearly had taken his inspiration from someone else’s earlier work, was not liable for copyright infringement.  (Incidentally, this case became infamous in legal circles because the judge incorporated his own code into his written judgment – seriously).

Let’s apply that in a games context.  You create a game called Doom featuring innovative first person perspective action set on a future Mars against hordes of hostile aliens.  A rival developer then creates a highly similar game called Gloom.  Can you sue successfully for copyright infringement?

Answer: you will only succeed if you can show actual copying of the actual contents of your game – the artwork, sound, code etc.  But it’s not enough for you to just argue that the other guy sat down in front of your game and thought “right, how can I make a game that looks and plays just like that?”

Let’s explore that further in the next example…

Nova Productions v Mazooma Games

Nova and Mazooma were both UK developers who created arcade machine games.  Nova sued Mazooma and others, arguing that Mazooma’s games Jackpot Pool and Trick Shot infringed copyright in Nova’s game Pocket Money.  All of them were pool-themed arcade machine games.  BUT, Nova didn’t argue that Mazooma had actually copied Pocket Money’s underlying code.  Instead, Nova argued that Mazooma had copied the user interface, or ‘look and feel’, of its game (you can see examples of the alleged similarities here).  Nova also argued that Mazooma had copied key game mechanisms such as a cue aiming interface and power meter.

Nova lost the case, because it couldn’t show that there had been actual copying of its actual copyright works (e.g. the program code or its graphics) and it just wasn’t enough to show some similarities in the user interfaces of the games.  (There’s more on the case here for those who are interested in the detail.)

This case shows us again that:

Copyright infringement depends on copying of ‘all or a substantial part’ of actual copyright works within a game – such as its code, graphics or sound;
You have to be able to show factual evidence of the copying; and

It’s not enough to point to superficial similarities or the ‘look and feel’ of the game – because that could just as easily have derived from the (unprotected) ideas which you yourself based your game on.  Just because you develop a pool arcade game (or an FPS like Doom) first and then another guy makes a similar game, it doesn’t automatically entitle you to sue for copyright infringement.

It’s not all doom and gloom

A sceptic might be thinking at this point that there’s no point in having copyright protection.  That’s not the case at all.  Here’s some more positive points to think about:

Remember that copyright is a valuable asset in its own right, which can be bought/sold, licensed and leveraged.  In fact, for games developers it is often their main asset.

Copyright law goes hand in hand with trade mark law.  You may not in some cases be able to stop a rival from poaching aspects of your game via copyright law, but you might be able to use trade mark law instead.  You can read more about that here: Demystifying Trademarks and Games.

Don’t take the above as the last word on copyright law and games.  In fact, copyright law as it applies to games is not very well understood at the moment – would the same result in Nova v Mazooma happen if it was a popular narrative game rather than an essentially mechanical pool arcade game?  There is I think scope for a more favourable interpretation of copyright law for the games industry in the future.

In the meantime, here’s some practical tips…

Top copyright tips for developers

Be realistic about how important copyright protection is to your business.  What resources do you want to put towards it and in which territories?  What can you do to read up on copyright law? (Tip: for the UK, have a look here for starters.)

Remember that copyright is a valuable asset in its own right, which can be bought/sold, licensed and leveraged.

If you have a dispute with another developer, think about what you want to achieve.  Can you reach an amicable resolution with the other developer?  Or are they actively trying to copy your product and take your customers such that a fight is inevitable? Can you use third parties, like Apple, to make your life easier via takedown requests? Can you enlist your player base or the games press to help?  Have you had a word with a friendly games lawyer?

BUT, don’t just be guided by legal factors alone. Think about how much a legal fight would cost, how much time you have to devote to it, what your player base or partners would think of you. It may be that a negotiated settlement is better than an all out fight.

Don’t forget your safest bet is to make sure your games are better than your rivals’. Ultimately, only good products can grow your business and ensure your players stay with you rather than go to a rival. （source:gamesbrief）