作者：Josh Bycer

最近，版权与授权作品所有权问题又让一款游戏遭殃了。即最近迪士尼的《米老鼠：幻影城堡》因为授权问题被迫从数字商店中下架了。这绝非第一款受到授权影响的游戏，也绝非最后一款，所以我们需要真正重视这一问题。尽管我知道你们中的大多数人并不关心授权问题，但这却是你们必须纠正的观点。

Castle-of-Illusion(from gamasutra)

现状：

基于授权IP与基于原创作品是截然不同的。授权者将与那些想要使用他们知识产权的公司签订协议。这种协议的结果便是某一游戏/电影等等能够在自己的项目中使用该知识产权。

在这里非常重要的一点便是，尽管公司有权使用授权者的知识产权，但却不能拥有它。也就是虽然我获得授权去创造米老鼠的图片，但是我却不能让别人去创造米老鼠杯架。同样地，如果我想创造米老鼠海报，我便需要与授权者重新协商。这便意味着我不能随意使用该知识产权。而在协商时间期限后我也将失去使用该知识产权的权利。

到那时候我将面对两个选择：要么与授权者进行协商去延长使用时间，要么放开它。像GOG等数字商店或像Farsight Studios等公司便经常在处理有关授权的法律问题。

在与Farsight的交谈中我便了解到该公司对于授权作品的使用拥有明确的时间限制，如果对方想要继续使用授权作品就必须再次进行协商。

对于那些从GOG购买了游戏的消费者来说，这些倒是没有影响。这些合同是关于使用知识产权进行创造并销售的产品。

虽然版权和授权法已经诞生很多年了，但是那些IP法似乎还只是停留在过去。

问题：

当电子游戏的授权期限结束时，不管游戏处于什么状态都将被终止。发行商和商店只能在授权的使用期限内销售游戏，而授权便是游戏的最终状态。

然而随着数字分销的崛起，游戏保存便出现了问题。为了仍然能够运行于之后的平台上，游戏必须打上补丁。其次开发者需要公开代码或发行一个全新版本的游戏，但这却是违反合同规定的。

如果开发者只是更新标题画面或重建引擎倒是没关系。但不幸的是这并不是那么简单的事。如果你的游戏未添加任何内容便不能出现在数字商店中，那么你便不可能继续销售它。《幻影城堡》的情况更糟糕，即开发者完全失去销售游戏的权利了。

尽管从技术层面来看那是你的游戏（或者发行商的游戏），但你们仍然是在使用别人的IP。

任何处理过IP授权的人在提到这些问题时都会觉得头大。而尝试着进行协商其实也是存在自身问题的。

即IP所有者可能会向你开口要更多钱或根据产品的受欢迎程度提出更加苛刻的要求。在某种程度上这可能会超过开发者/发行商能够承担或愿意支付的范围。

维修工作：

当提到授权作品的使用时，电子游戏其实和其它媒体有所不同。平台拥有自己的生命周期，软件又是不断发展的。所以移植一款游戏或确保游戏的兼容性都需要开发者投入巨大的工作。

不可能存在一款拥有完美代码或兼容性的游戏。除非你希望永久保持你的硬件或软件不变，否则游戏都需要你投入更多修复工作。

我知道有些人并不认为音乐或《幻影城堡》有什么问题，但事实上这里还是存在风险的。其实有关授权的任何内容都有可能影响玩家体验或购买自己想要的游戏的能力。就像《蝙蝠侠》便是个例外，因为其开发者WB Games是Warner Brothers旗下的公司，而Warner Brothers恰恰又拥有着DC Comics。但不管怎样，对于今天大多数游戏来说授权音乐，角色等等都像定时炸弹一般，随时都有可能爆炸。

我也非常好奇漫威和Capcom在未来的合作会是这样的。但不管怎样，和所有的游戏一样如果不进行更新它们便不可能继续运行下去。

几年前，基于Deadpool（游戏邦注：漫威漫画旗下的反英雄角色）的游戏便因为动视失去销售游戏的权利并且不想延续合作而从数字商店下架了。

有很多游戏选择在电影大获成功后再次发行去利用品牌的热度。虽然这么做是不错，但却不是常规发展方式。

现在我们必须正视这个大问题了：是否存在真正的解决方法？我认为电子游戏授权需要推出全新条款。

就像“持续维护条款”，即如果游戏处于可继续出售状态，那就能够延伸开发者/发行商继续致力于一款授权游戏的能力。这时候，开发者最有可能的情况便是不去碰触与授权相关的游戏内容。

这对于所有人来说是一种双赢的局面：开发者能够继续保持游戏的销售，消费者也仍然能够玩他们所购买的游戏，并且不需要担心游戏被下架，而授权者也能够继续从出售副本中赚取利益。

关于未来：

因为所有一切的快速发展，游戏产业总是不善于发挥超前思维。看看过去十年的技术和分销游戏的发展你便能够领悟到这点。而维持游戏与确保游戏兼容性是非常重要的一部分。我们仍然很难去保存那些早前的游戏。我希望那些致力于研究游戏设计或对历史感兴趣的人都不要忽视这一问题。

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转发，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

How Licensing Laws are Threatening Your Video Games

by Josh Bycer

Copyright and licensed work ownership has recently impacted another game. Disney’s Castle of Illusion Starring Mickey Mouse was pulled from digital stores with its fate unknown at the moment. This isn’t the first time licensed work has affected a game, or the last, but it’s a case that is going to become more serious as time goes on. While I know most of you don’t care about licensing problems, this is an issue you need to care about.

The Situation:

Working with a licensed IP is different from working with an original property. The license holder enters a contract with the company who wants to use their property for whatever medium. This kind of negotiation happily ends with the game/movie/so on being able to use the property for the creation of the project.

The important part is that even though the company has the rights to use the property, they don’t own it. If I get the licensing to make Mickey Mouse thumbnails, that doesn’t mean I can give someone the okay to make Mickey Mouse cup holders. Also, if I want to switch gears and make Mickey Mouse posters, I would need to renegotiate the contract. It also means that I don’t have access to the property for the rest of time. Eventually, I will lose my right to continue using said property after the discussed period.

At that point I have two options: I can either renegotiate to extend the rights, or I let it drop and lose access to it. For digital stores like GOG or companies like Farsight Studios who deal with licensed properties, they have to deal with these legal issues constantly.

In an interview with Farsight, I learned how they have a limit on how long they can sell their licensed tables for unless they negotiate again.

For the consumers who bought those tables or games from GOG, none of that matters to them. The contract basically controls the selling and work done using the property. Here is a Gamasutra article that goes into the basics of licensing IPs for video game use as reference.

Copyright and licensing law has worked that way for years, but those IP laws are stuck in the past and are threatening our ability to play video games.

Going, Going, Gone:

When the licensing period ends on a video game, whatever state that game is in essentially becomes locked in stone. The publisher and storefront are allowed to sell that exact version of the game for as long as they have the right to it, because the licensing is set with the final state of the game.

However, the rise of digital distribution and preserving games has caused a problem. Games have to be patched in order to still work on future platforms. The second a developer opens up that code or releases a new version of the game, they are in violation of their contract. Any work on a game after the contract ends is considered a violation by the developer.

It doesn’t matter if the developer is simply updating the title screen or rebuilding the engine. Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as just rolling things back. If your game doesn’t work on a digital store without that additional work, then you cannot keep selling it. To make things worse as with Castle of Illusion, you can actually lose your right to sell your own game.

Even though it’s technically your game (or the publisher’s game), it’s still using someone else’s IP.

Anyone who has dealt with IP licensing can tell you of the headaches when these issues come up. Trying to renegotiate has its own problems as well.

The IP holder may ask for more money or a stricter deal depending on the popularity of the product. In some cases, this could be far more than the publisher/developer can afford or want to spend.

While losing songs from GTA San Andreas isn’t as serious, it’s still part of the same problem. The Video Game Industry has moved ahead of licensing law, and that’s a huge concern for everyone.

Maintenance Work:

Video games are not like other mediums when it comes to using licensed work. Platforms have their life cycles and hardware is constantly evolving. The act of porting a game or making it compatible requires hard work by the developer.

There is no such thing as a game with perfect code or compatibility. Unless you want to keep your old hardware and software forever, games will need work done.

I know that some of you don’t think that music or Castle of Illusion are hills worth dying on, but there’s more at stake. Any part of licensing can affect your ability to play or buy the games you want. The Batman games are protected, because of WB Games who are a part of Warner Brothers who owns DC Comics. However, any licensed music, characters, or references are ticking time bombs for many games today.

There’s a part of me that wonders what will become of the Marvel vs. Capcom games at some point in the future. Like all games, they will need to be updated to keep working.

A few years ago, the game based on Deadpool was removed from digital stores, due to Activision losing the right to sell it and not wanting to renew.

After the success of the movie, the game was re-released again to capitalize on the renewed interest in the brand. While that’s great, that is a fringe case and not how things normally go.

It’s time for the big question: Is there a solution? I think there needs to be a new clause for video game licensing.

Something like a “Continued Maintenance Clause” that extends the ability to work on a licensed game if it is for keeping the game in a sell-able condition. In these cases, the developer is most likely not even touching the parts of the game that are dealing with the licensed property.

It would be a win-win for everyone: The developer gets to keep their game available, the consumer can still play the games they bought and not have to buy games in fear of them being removed, and the licensed holder continues to get their residuals for copies sold.

Thinking Ahead:

The game industry is quite poor at thinking ahead thanks to how rapidly things move. Hell, look at the jump in technology and distributing games in the last 10 years. The issue of keeping games maintained and compatible is serious business. We are still having problems with preserving older games. I urge anyone who studies game design or interested in the history to not let this matter go.

And as a final note, I am annoyed at Game Journalism right now. Checking a lot of the mainstream sites (you know who you are), not one of them is talking about why this is a developing issue for the game industry. At least Game Informer was the first one to report on it. As for the rest of you, for sites claiming to care about video games and the medium, you’re doing a horrible job of showing it.（source：Gamasutra）