Hello
I was wondering, if any of you authors/submitters would allow me to use your movies in a retro section on a dvd for a danish gaming magazine?
regards
/jpt
I have been wondering about the copyright of these videos in the legal sense.
If the definition of copyrighted art extends to these videos, who exactly owns it? The original game is copyrighted by its creators (admittedly we are on shaking grounds in this matter, but that's another matter). One could argue that the contents of an fmv file have automatically a copyright by its creator because, even though it's not an usual form of art, it's still a piece of original work. However, an AVI video made from the fmv does not contain any of the information contained in the fmv. Does the author of the fmv have copyrights on the AVI video created by someone else?
Think about someone taking a photograph of a statue: The author of the statue has copyrights on the statue itself, but he certainly doesn't have copyrights on this photograph made by someone else. Can this same analogy be used with the AVI files? An AVI is just video footage of what the fmv file causes the emulator program to do, but in itself does not contain even a single byte of the fmv file itself.
So, who owns the copyright to the AVI file? My best bet is the creator of the AVI file.
So if you use a videocamera in a movie theater to record the movie, do you have all rights to distribute your tape?
That's what these AVI files are.
In that case it's the author(s) of the game who owns the copyright to the AVI files?
After all, you are distributing video footage of the game.
If this is the case, if you want to go the legal way, you'd have to ask the author(s) of the game for permission to use the AVIs.
Japanese copyright law allows for derivative works (demo videos, fancomics, fangames, etc).
Instead of a recording of a movie, I think the AVI situation is more like the recording of a piece of music. In such a case, the copyright of the song (the gameplay) is to the original author and the copyright of that particular performance (the AVI file) is to the recorder.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
IF Nintendo says anything official regarding runs such as these, it will almost certainly be that they are illegal.
The AVI is made up of two parts...
1) The FMV (a set of button presses), and
2) The Rom (a set of game data, including sound and graphics).
The FMV is clearly owned by the creator; any FMV is theoretically compatible with any other game -- it just so happens that it's only a recording of keypresses. You could play a Zelda 2 FMV on a Rockman 2 rom, or a Batman FMV with a Super Mario Bros rom. Therefore, the FMV is clearly an independent creation by the player, that theoretically might even be able to be used to play another game independent of the one that it was made for.
The legal difficulty is related to the ROM itself.
First of all, the sound and graphics of the ROM are owned by Nintendo (as they licensed basically all of the games) or by their parent company (in the case of expired licenses, and unlicensed games, such as those from Tengen).
As the AVIs are entirely made up of sounds and graphics from a single source (i.e. the Legend of Zelda speed-run is entirely made up from the Legend of Zelda video game), it's hard to support its claim as a qualified "derivative work".
When Boco suggested "derivative work", she's probably thinking of the largely unregulated Japanese doujinshi (roughly analogous to a "fan comic") markets. For those not "in the know", Japan has a thriving trade of underground comics, some of which are based off of characters produced by major studios. For instance, it's not hard to find doujinshi of characters from Sailor Moon, Dragon Ball Z, the various Final Fantasy games, and so forth. However, as evidenced by Nintendo and several court cases in Japan, companies -do- retain their character rights, and as such the wholescale lifting of characters and remolding them into ones own story is probably illegal.
Derivative works are more likely to be protected when there's a significant amount of personal creation involved. However, any time any story, thematic elements, or characters are used, it's a potential violation of copyright.
An example of a derivative work might be, for instance, some of the hacked roms floating around. Games that have been retooled (new graphics, new sounds, new maps, etc... leaving only the basic engine) are more likely to withstand a legal assult regarding their derivative nature.
This is ignoring, of course, the fact that the ROM is clearly illegal -- the only legal ROMs are "Public Domain" ROMs, and ROMs made by someone for the sole purpose of backing up the data for archival (and thus restoration) purposes. ROMs that are downloaded or made for any purpose other than back-up storage and restoration are illegal.
The AVIs are just video reproductions of a ROM in synch with a FMV. Because the ROM is illegal, and the video reproduction is not a new creation (or a derivative work), thus the AVI is probably illegal, too. Furthermore, the AVIs record a direct "win" of the game, thus accomplishing exactly what one would normally buy a video game for (or at least, such could probably be argued in a court of law when supported by sociological/economic evidence about video game purchasing and playing trends)...
At least, that's my two not-a-lawyer cents on the situation, at least for those of us based in America. Your laws may vary by country.
What if you record from a real NES, would that be illegal as well? From the avi alone it is difficult to tell sometimes whether the recording is from an emulator+rom or the actual system.
Ok. I just received a brief comment from the Nintendo/Bergsala in Sweden, stating:
"It's ok to use video captures of old NES games"
Hope someone will let me use their movies then =)
Regards
jpt
Movies played by me (Bisqwit) can be used.
For other authors, you have to ask them.
If there is an article associated with the files, I request that the address of the nesvideos website is included (unmodified - don't add or delete parts of the address).
http://tasvideos.org/
I wouldn't care, but mo only video cureently isn't really a classic.......
When is the DVD going to be published? If it is going to be done before May15, then you won't be able to use my super fast Castlevania II video because it won't be completed by then (Im still trying to perform the glitch more than once. I already accomplished performing the fall through floors mutiply times and it takes me less than 20 tries to get it right [most of the time])
Joined: 4/16/2004
Posts: 1276
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
This topic is kinda old by now but I read it again because this subject is interresting.
Now to my question: Do we players have anything to say really? I mean, If I play a game, sending it to Bisqwit whos encoding it to an .AVI file, and then distributes it. Can I claim something for that? I mean just theoretical. I don´t wanna make profit of this. Im just happy that people actually watch my movies and even more happy that there is such a great interest in NES games (which are my favourite console of all times!!).
But, Jpt asked (and he has my respect for that!) and others doesn´t. So where´s the difference? I realize that the moment these .AVIs is published they are free for the whole internet. But besides the creator of the game (Nintendo, Capcom etc etc) is there anything we can do? Of course everything is illegaly spread to the internet, mp3s, movies, stuffs, you name it, but im just curious.
Anyways, to get it right! These are just thoughts, I _DON´T_ wanna make a profit of my time attacks. Im just happy to see people enjoying them ;)
Enough babbling from me for now. Good night.
Uhm and btw, Jpt, if you read this you have my permission to use my movies. Just send me a note or something if you decide to do it.
Yes, you do. Bisqwit is converting the player's work to AVI (not "creating" anything new, just changing between). The original creative work was done by the player, and so the player holds the rights to that FMV. I don't think Bisqwit holds any copyright over the video, excepting possibly the subtitles.
Can I claim something for that? I mean just theoretical.
Sure. You could make a bunch of FMVs, burn them to CD and sell them online, or in a store, or whatever. The FMVs (and thus any redistribution thereof) belong to the player.
So where´s the difference?
The difference is the use for non-profit purposes versus for-profit purposes. By giving the FMV to Bisqwit, it's fairly clear that you don't mind _non-profit_ distribution, because that's how Bisqwit distributes the AVIs and FMVs.
However, that implicit agreement only exists between you and Bisqwit. Because you're giving them away for free, I'm not sure if it's possible to legally demand that others not distribute.. I assume it is, but I'm not aware of any court cases between sites that host older demo/shareware versions of software and the original software manufacturers.
Likewise, it's possible that you could release the FMV for non-commercial purposes for free, and yet still demand a licensing fee from anyone who wishes to use it for commercial purposes (such as inclusion with this magazine).. in other words, you can demand a "cut of the profits" if anyone wishes to use it for commercial gains.
Heck, you could even demand that Bisqwit pay you to distribute your FMVs/AVIs, to which he would probably delete them and tell you to host your own files. ;)
I don't know if you guys knew, but its not actually illegal to own roms, as long as you own a copy of the cartridge they are an image of. Its part of the 'fair use' thing. That's one of the reasons I chose to do blaster master :).
I don't know if you guys knew, but its not actually illegal to own roms, as long as you own a copy of the cartridge they are an image of.
Yes, but you have to dump the ROMs yourself. Nothing you download from the internet is legal unless the authors themselves have released the copyright under some kind of public liscense (such as in the case of Elite).
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
Also, as I posted in the other thread, if this were brought up in court (which it never will be), it is almost 100% certain none of you would be found to have any rights concerning the FMVs.
An FMV is not, in the legal sense of the word, art. It is a procedural document, the copyright of which is strictly prohibited under copyright law. It cannot be compared to, say, sheet music, for obvious reasons.
It is a procedural document, the copyright of which is strictly prohibited under copyright law.
I call BS.
Relevant quotes from the U.S. Copyright Office website:
computer programs ... may be registered as "literary works"
I would daresay computer programs are far more easily identified as a "procedural document" yet they're protected by copyright.
Mere listings of ingredients, as in recipes, labels, or formulas [are not protected by copyright]. When a recipe or formula is accompanied by explanation or directions, the text directions may be copyrightable, but the recipe or formula itself remains uncopyrightable.
(emphasis mine)
Sheet music tells someone both what's involved in doing something as well as how to do something; play X note at time Y. Recipes only tell you what's involved. Sheet music as a recipe would be a list of notes, each void of context of the others.
FMV's are more like sheet music than recipes: press X button at time Y. The button presses are arranged in a definite sequence as determined by the author. FMV-as-recipe would look something like this:
The A button is pressed for 467 frames.
The B button is pressed for 790 frames.
The Start button is pressed for 151 frames..
etc.
Such a list is all well and good but it doesn't tell you the thing that distinguishes an SMB3 FMV from a Maniac Mansion FMV: when each button is pressed.
Hypothetical situation: Suppose I were to acquire an NES rom where each button I pressed played a different note. If I were to make an FMV of me playing an original work, said FMV would be copyrighted because it's just a music sheet in a different format.
So no, there is no obvious difference between a music sheet and an FMV, while there is a difference between both of those and a recipe (defined as a mere list of ingredients, not the full set of directions that tell you how to put the ingredients together)
Joined: 5/17/2004
Posts: 106
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Arguments are fun, so I'll delurk and throw some fuel on the fire . . . nope, I don't know any actual law, so feel free to confuse me with more legalese and be on your merry way if these points seem silly.
1) I doubt there's any set praxis in any court of law for the copyrightable status of recorded button presses in computer games. Personally, I'd assume that copyright holds and if I had to argue that I'd resort to a poignant allegory on books written on computers and music recorded on computers being copyrighted. Fortunately, I don't have to argue that, as no one really knows what a court'd decide.
b) Also, if ever this went to court, I would assume that thos court would be finnish, since that is the country from which the files are being distributed and in which their distributor lives. US copyright law would have little to do with things.
iii) Regardless of what we think courts anywhere would do, big N has bigger fish to fry with its mighty legalese subpoena launchers of doom than small, non-profit websites with video links on them.
(This, by the way, strikes me as a good reason not to ever try selling time attacks for profit - companies are known to grow irked at people selling their things without permission and if you guys do so, or decide to approve of someone else doing so, you're heading into murkier waters than I think would be comfortable)
四) Even if they do take action, the distributed nature of bittorrent seemingly provides some protection. With a torrent, you are not personally doing the sharing and uploading - other, less easily tracked people are and you are just linking to their files. I have no actual idea how well this holds in court, but if the number of bittorrent sites offering blatantly illegal downloads around is an indicator, it works fairly well. ('course, I think bisqwit is currently handling base distro duties himself. That'll complicate things)
Sorry for bringing this old topic back up, but I just realized one thing while reading Ogg Vorbis FAQ.
If someone wants to sell the AVI files made on this site, he would have to pay royalties to Fraunhofer, the patent owner of the MP3 format.
