All,
From time to time I see some concerns about how copyrights work. To help alleviate some of the confusion, I've decided to rework an explanation I provided in a previous discussion. I'll also add an FAQ. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
Trademark law works differently, and this is where many myths originate. Trademarks exist to identify the source of goods and services. Failure to police a trademark can weaken or even destroy it through dilution or genericization. Copyright has no equivalent requirement. Letting infringement slide may be a business decision, a public relations choice, or simple ignorance, yet ownership remains intact.
Why, then, do companies still shut down fan projects? Risk management and leverage explain most of it. Allowing widespread, visible infringement can complicate later lawsuits, muddy damages calculations, and create bad facts in court even if it does not technically forfeit copyright. Large companies also prefer predictable enforcement policies over case by case judgment calls.
Because of that messiness, creators generally choose to enforce early and consistently. Caution beats cleverness when millions of dollars and long lived franchises are involved.
C&D is a request to "Cease and Desist" some offending activity. Anyone can issue a C&D for pretty much anything, but that doesn't mean it's enforceable. In the case of copyright protection, a C&D from the intellectual property holder is enforceable by civil and criminal law. The C&D is usually a first step before litigation.
This has never happened to date, but it is possible and would depend on the situation.
Copyright law does not recognize adbandonware. Copyrights are technically still in force. That said, if there is no entity to claim the rights then you are free to do whatever your morality allows.
See above. Intellectual property owners aren't interested in hearing that you don't make money, won't hurt them, or any other anecdotal argument. They are compelled to enforce their ownership to minimize risk.
Recent amendments to United States copyright laws actually do protect small creators. Essentially the creation of any new IP is enough to ensure its protection. It's unlikely you will have the resources to sue the encroaching entity out of existence, but any legitimate distribution medium will remove the encroaching property if you send a C&D request. Just make sure to thoroughly document your ownership at all stages of creation.
This is a common issue in disputed copyrights, comprising hundreds of cases all with varying results. The question is at what point does the edit cease being derivative and becomes an original work? In the real world, this answer almost always comes down to "Who has the better lawyers?" That probably isn't you. See above - most content creators are more concerned with the property than the assets. However, if they do choose to enforce a claim, don't expect citing fair use or any amount of editing to protect you.
Absolutely. Code is among the most valuable intellectual assets on Earth, often superseding the value of a franchise property. Whereas assets like sprites and sounds are interchangeable, code is the heart of an application's functionality. Moreover code typically represents the entity's largest investment of time, money, and expertise. This is why we will never host or allow links to .rom files, rom hacking tools, or any other illicit code.
To put more simply - legally every part of an application or device is identically protected, but in practice code is much more strictly enforced. Using any unlicensed code is seriously asking for trouble.
OpenBOR modules are similar to any other application in that they often contain a mix of scripts and text assets from various creators. Each creator in turn may elect to separately license these portions. As an example, most of my own code is provided with a license that basically says use it however you like, just don't take credit for writing it. If you are unsure about something, just ask the original creator. Most of us here are more than happy to share freely.
From time to time I see some concerns about how copyrights work. To help alleviate some of the confusion, I've decided to rework an explanation I provided in a previous discussion. I'll also add an FAQ. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
Synopsis
Under United States copyright law (which most reputable states emulate or honor), creators automatically own the rights to their original works the moment those works are fixed in a tangible form. No registration, notice, or enforcement campaign is required to keep that ownership. Copyright does not evaporate just because infringement goes unchallenged.Trademark law works differently, and this is where many myths originate. Trademarks exist to identify the source of goods and services. Failure to police a trademark can weaken or even destroy it through dilution or genericization. Copyright has no equivalent requirement. Letting infringement slide may be a business decision, a public relations choice, or simple ignorance, yet ownership remains intact.
Why, then, do companies still shut down fan projects? Risk management and leverage explain most of it. Allowing widespread, visible infringement can complicate later lawsuits, muddy damages calculations, and create bad facts in court even if it does not technically forfeit copyright. Large companies also prefer predictable enforcement policies over case by case judgment calls.
Because of that messiness, creators generally choose to enforce early and consistently. Caution beats cleverness when millions of dollars and long lived franchises are involved.
FAQ
What is a C&D?
C&D is a request to "Cease and Desist" some offending activity. Anyone can issue a C&D for pretty much anything, but that doesn't mean it's enforceable. In the case of copyright protection, a C&D from the intellectual property holder is enforceable by civil and criminal law. The C&D is usually a first step before litigation.
What if Chronocrash gets a C&D?
This has never happened to date, but it is possible and would depend on the situation.
- If, and only if we receive a C&D request from the rightful owner of a property, we will comply by removing all download links and other offending content.
- Any other C&D requests are invalid, and we will treat them as spam (in fact, the sender may receive a C&D in return for attempted infringement). Examples might include the following:
- Other fan creators - Fan creators do not have any authority over an intellectual property.
- Against ChronoCrash website - I (@DCurrent) am the sole owner and copyright holder of ChronoCrash.
- OpenBOR engine - OpenBOR is an open source gaming engine with a license explicitly protecting it from ownership infringement.
What about abandonware?
Copyright law does not recognize adbandonware. Copyrights are technically still in force. That said, if there is no entity to claim the rights then you are free to do whatever your morality allows.
I'm not hurting anybody. Why did I get a C&D?
See above. Intellectual property owners aren't interested in hearing that you don't make money, won't hurt them, or any other anecdotal argument. They are compelled to enforce their ownership to minimize risk.
This sucks, who protects us!
Recent amendments to United States copyright laws actually do protect small creators. Essentially the creation of any new IP is enough to ensure its protection. It's unlikely you will have the resources to sue the encroaching entity out of existence, but any legitimate distribution medium will remove the encroaching property if you send a C&D request. Just make sure to thoroughly document your ownership at all stages of creation.
What about edited sprites?
This is a common issue in disputed copyrights, comprising hundreds of cases all with varying results. The question is at what point does the edit cease being derivative and becomes an original work? In the real world, this answer almost always comes down to "Who has the better lawyers?" That probably isn't you. See above - most content creators are more concerned with the property than the assets. However, if they do choose to enforce a claim, don't expect citing fair use or any amount of editing to protect you.
Is code protected?
Absolutely. Code is among the most valuable intellectual assets on Earth, often superseding the value of a franchise property. Whereas assets like sprites and sounds are interchangeable, code is the heart of an application's functionality. Moreover code typically represents the entity's largest investment of time, money, and expertise. This is why we will never host or allow links to .rom files, rom hacking tools, or any other illicit code.
To put more simply - legally every part of an application or device is identically protected, but in practice code is much more strictly enforced. Using any unlicensed code is seriously asking for trouble.
OpenBOR modules are similar to any other application in that they often contain a mix of scripts and text assets from various creators. Each creator in turn may elect to separately license these portions. As an example, most of my own code is provided with a license that basically says use it however you like, just don't take credit for writing it. If you are unsure about something, just ask the original creator. Most of us here are more than happy to share freely.
Last edited: