VBGamer
Re: Adventures of Lolo 
hotrodx (0 replies, 1190 views) (2005-May-4)
hotrodx (0 replies, 1190 views) (2005-May-4) It's not enough just to have a different source code. A problem may arise if a remaker claims copyright of a the game being remade. If masterbooda would say that "Adventures of Lolo (C)2005 Masterbooda", then there would be a problem, because even though it's his version, "Adventures of Lolo" (the concept, title, and characters-- not just A particular version) is a property of Hal. The original copyright holder should be acknowledged.
This does not guarantee that the original copyright holders will not make legal action, as Nintendo is infamously known for. However, because you are acknowledging their copyright ownership, you are yielding that they have the ultimate decision to invoke the right to keep or remove it. This "respect" is usually enough for the copyright holders to turn a blind eye.
Also, Linux, while may be a clone of Unix, is distinguishable in terms of name. "Adventures of Lolo" (by Hal) and "Adventures of Lolo" (by booda) isn't. So booda can't really say "Adventures of Lolo (C)2005, Masterbooda" because it is a registered trademark.
I made a Space Harrier game quite a while back. It features shamelessly ripped sprites and sounds. But I acknowledged the original copyright owners, and that my remake is never intended to pass off as an original. Does this make my remake any "legal"? No. Can Sega remove it if they choose to do so? Yes.
I provided a link to my remake to Sega's own official messageboards. Now was I greeted by replies about copyright infringement? Nope. I think some even liked it.
The remakes scene has been alive for quite some time now. It wouldn't have been that way if game companies just think in purely legal ways. These "gray areas" illustrate the somewhat symbiotic relationships between game publishers and gamefans.
Finally, a remake can never really surpass the original, because only the original can drive you to make a remake.
This does not guarantee that the original copyright holders will not make legal action, as Nintendo is infamously known for. However, because you are acknowledging their copyright ownership, you are yielding that they have the ultimate decision to invoke the right to keep or remove it. This "respect" is usually enough for the copyright holders to turn a blind eye.
Also, Linux, while may be a clone of Unix, is distinguishable in terms of name. "Adventures of Lolo" (by Hal) and "Adventures of Lolo" (by booda) isn't. So booda can't really say "Adventures of Lolo (C)2005, Masterbooda" because it is a registered trademark.
I made a Space Harrier game quite a while back. It features shamelessly ripped sprites and sounds. But I acknowledged the original copyright owners, and that my remake is never intended to pass off as an original. Does this make my remake any "legal"? No. Can Sega remove it if they choose to do so? Yes.
I provided a link to my remake to Sega's own official messageboards. Now was I greeted by replies about copyright infringement? Nope. I think some even liked it.
The remakes scene has been alive for quite some time now. It wouldn't have been that way if game companies just think in purely legal ways. These "gray areas" illustrate the somewhat symbiotic relationships between game publishers and gamefans.
Finally, a remake can never really surpass the original, because only the original can drive you to make a remake.
