In the Nova v Mazooma and Bellfruits case, found via Bailli and IPKat, is an interesting paragraph 106:
“Before leaving this topic there is one further complexity I must consider and that is the effect of player input. The appearance of any particular screen depends to some extent [on player input to the game]. The player is not, however, an author of any of the artistic works created in the successive frame images. His input is not artistic in nature and he has contributed no skill or labour of an artistic kind. Nor has he undertaken any of the arrangements necessary for the creation of the frame images. All he has done is to play the game.”
Geeklawyer will probably be mocked but was unaware of any other UK case that dealt with this particular aspect of the ownership in computer generated works.
The relevant legislation is s. 9(3) of the Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988 which says:
“3â€In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”
And by s.178:
“”Computer-generated”, in relation to a work, means that the work is generated by computer in circumstances such that there is no human author of the work;”
Justice Kitchin seems to be broadly right in principle. The input should be artistic for the player to be the author and in yer average Playstation 2 game this will manifestly not be the case, particularly since the graphical permutations created by user input will be somewhat limited.
What, however, would be the result in a more creative type of computer game? There are some weird Japanese games where the user interacts in bizarre and novel ways to generate music and graphics; indeed rather artistic ways. So Nova may be good law for the broad proposition one suspects, but not entirely conclusive.
Good call Dave.
I wouldn’t normally leave comments, but this might be edifying for others. I can’t really agree that in any other mode than purely technical is it fair to say that if you produce ‘creative’ or ‘artistic’ work by using a dynamically created environment in a game, you aren’t actually either responsible for producing a work of art (a disturbing implication in this I think) or capable of owning any part of this ‘creation’.
For example, the infamous redsvsblues movies created using the Halo game environment to make a scifi ’series’. Do they lose all rights to their artistic ‘creations’ just because the visual elements were created by Bungie? You might as well try to say that I don’t own any elements of my ‘real’ movies if I’ve set them in beautiful surroundings created by architects…
Anyway, RedsvsBlues is geeky, (very) occasionally as funny as they think they are, and signs if signs were needed that with imagination you can take a world designed simply to allow you to play games and make something really creative, on the cheap. When did you last do that with your TV?
I’m curious. Do the judges play the games?
” For this purpose I was provided with a number of videos and also with the opportunity to play each of the games in court during the period of the trial. “
Yes it would seem. The thought of the judge hunched over a fruit machine is rather amusing.
Rupert,
We are, I think, agreeing to some extent. All copyright cases pivot on their facts and the scope of this decision must be understood in terms of the particular games played. These were, it seems, unsophisticated games with limited graphics (ala 1980’s).
The point you make is a good one: modern games engines such as the Quake Unreal and Half-Life ones are sophisticated environments where movies documentaries and other multimedia works can be created. If you make a movie such as RedsvsBlues then clearly this is an artistic work which is yours & that is precisely so because as Justice Kitchin said you are providing artistic input in the form of a plot: you decide who is in it what is done where. The engine is little more than a combined electronic camera and set maker. However when you play the game, as opposed to using the engine, and as you run around fragging other player or the AI opponents are you providing any creative input? is your gorefest an artistic work? I rather doubt it.
My point was that if your game, and not your games engine, created characters backrounds environments music to your design your plot and your input would that be artistic? I think possibly it is.
Is games design ‘art’? Probably. Is a game a work of ‘art’? Probably not. Where’s the switch? No idea. Is filmaking ‘art’? Probably. Is a film ‘art’? Most likely.
While we’re trying to pin this down, Bungie (the studio that created Halo for Microsoft) is just a heck of a lot more clued in (c.f. The Cluetrain Manifesto) to being ‘at one’ with their customers that some are, for example.
And so, when Halo players created videos of gameplay trickery (not plotted, but not just snaps of ‘normal’ gameplay) that used the environment’s ‘physics’ to create Cirque de Soleil-style micromovies, Bungie embraced this as great marketing. Which it is. Is Cirque de Soleil art? Dunno.
As we’re talking about IP and rights, I wonder what would happen if you made a cut-up of a Bond or Star Wars movie (or a LucasArts Star Wars game) in the same way as RvB…
Keep up the good work