I am about to review the BlockBUSTER game, but its description is referencing other games:

"Inspired by the old classics of the 70s such as Atari Breakout Arkanoid Galaxion Space Invaders and many other similar classics now modernized for todays systems"

Since this is a very new process, I want to know if a reference to Atari or Space Invaders is considered valid. This references also happen inside the game, it even shows a screenshot of the original Breakout as an intro.

When I did some simple starter games for MSDN a couplle of years ago we had to call them Tiny Tennis and Space Blitz to keep the lawyers happy. However they were quite OK with us describing them as 'games similar to pong and space invaders'. So I don't think referencing them in the description in an issue.

Using the screen shot inside the game is something I'm just not sure about and I doubt we will get a straight answer here. Personally I would prefer the author removed it to remove the chance. Last time it came up for review I did NOT reject it becuase of that since it wasn't part of the game play.

Using the screen shot inside the game is something I'm just not sure about and I doubt we will get a straight answer here. Personally I would prefer the author removed it to remove the chance.

 

We are not lawyers. We can't make that determination. If it's unclear like this, then we should let it through. IMO, of course.

jwatte:

Using the screen shot inside the game is something I'm just not sure about and I doubt we will get a straight answer here. Personally I would prefer the author removed it to remove the chance.

 

We are not lawyers. We can't make that determination. If it's unclear like this, then we should let it through. IMO, of course.

I totally agree with you Jon... however game authors should remember that some people (there are lots of armchair lawyers remember) *will* decide that such things are IP violations so those people may well reject. In general authors should err on the side of caution - is it really worth the risk of debate and rejection just to put a screen shot of somebody elses game in your intro?

Just a warning, since I had to delete a post... no absolute statements on legal matters unless you are a lawyer who is prepared to help anyone affected by taking your advice.

 

Which brings up the question: what if the reviewer is just wrong? What if someone decides to be a "griefer" reviewer?

 

Firstly it takes more than one bad review to reject a game. Secondly MS assure us that they have (or will have) methods in place to detect this and/or accept feedback about invalid rejections and give warnings and possible CC bans. So I think the message is that as long as you keep paying $99 you can be as much of a griefer as you like ;-) Eventually though we hope you will run out of money...

 

I'm saving up all year to sabotage all other games this coming holiday. Bwahahaha.

The ZMan:

Firstly it takes more than one bad review to reject a game. Secondly MS assure us that they have (or will have) methods in place to detect this and/or accept feedback about invalid rejections and give warnings and possible CC bans. So I think the message is that as long as you keep paying $99 you can be as much of a griefer as you like ;-) Eventually though we hope you will run out of money...

Actually, the system is in place. :) We have a team of folks who will review rejections or abuse reports as appropriate. They have the hammer if needed to ban creators or to reinstate games back into peer review. Also, right now, all creators have the same "review rating" power. We would like to implement a system where reviewers who are good at reviewing games get more "review rating" power and those that aren't, lose some "review rating" power. Hey, we might even one day get around to spotlighting great creators and great reviewers.... oh so much work to do... :)

Jenkmeister:

We would like to implement a system where reviewers who are good at reviewing games get more "review rating" power and those that aren't, lose some "review rating" power. Hey, we might even one day get around to spotlighting great creators and great reviewers.... oh so much work to do... :)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[note I was about to delete the post for non English but I decided to google instead.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F]

I think the answer is Microsoft.... its their property to guard so they can protect it as they see fit and we can vote to leave by not playing the games, paying our $99 or participating in the process if we dont like it. So I dont think this is quite the same issue.

Here's a nice way to determine if it's legal.

If you're pulling the game screen from the game itself, either through a ROM or a screenshot or some other means, it's *likely* an IP violation. It largely depends on if said game is even properly copyrighted.

It's one thing to *recreate* a screen. It's another to flat out inject it to your game from the original.

Of course I'm no lawyer but the debate can be boiled down to "are you recreating the experience, or are you stealing it from the original source"? The former's a little more acceptable than the latter. Recreating the experience is *your work*. Taking a screenshot is *their work* despite the "work" you did lifting it.