If You Duplicate That Virtual Sword In The Real World... Is It Copyright Infringement?
from the question,-questions,-questions... dept
Three years ago, in trying to discuss some of the thorny copyright issues that arise in virtual worlds where any "good" is easily copied, we questioned whether copying a magic sword in a virtual world was copyright infringement. Perhaps we should have taken the question a bit further. Reader Cap'n Jack points us to the news that video game company Square-Enix has sued four retailers for $600,000, not for creating a digital replica of a magic sword, but a real world costume replica of a sword from within the game Final Fantasy. The retailers have agreed to stop selling any Final Fantasy gear, but it does raise some questions about whether creating such material is copyright infringement... and what that means for folks making Halloween costumes every year...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, magic swords, virtual worlds
Companies: square enix
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm sorry techdirt
I have a small penis, and my boyfriend just left me, so I am going through a tough time. I also spilled chocolate milk on my favorite dress and ruined the pink ruffles.
I am sorry that I call everyone names. I get so angry about being a complete failure that I can't help myself.
Please forgive me. Maybe we can be friends and get a beer together? I like to suck dicks, will you let me suck yours, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm sorry techdirt
you didn't even spell "angry dude" correctly.
I guess I know who's getting a debug tonight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm sorry techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And, any Halloween costume with recognizable (copyrighted) characters or other elements is going to be either licensed or subject to such a claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well established? It's a relatively recent development. Used to be that using your art to create something derived from a different art (say, novel to play) was considered promoting the progress of useful arts.
You know, the nominal point of copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There are tons of knitting books sold and in many of them there is a notice that you are granted the rights to make the patterns for your own personal use but commercial rights to any derivative of their pattern is strictly forbidden.
This only came up when my wife was knitting a pattern that everyone seemed to like so I discussed selling them to which she said it was forbidden according to that notice. I questioned it and told her to ask if anyone had any experience with it. As luck would have it one of her friend's husband was a copyright attorney and he said that they actually can sue your pants off for making and selling a derivative work. The notice was granting rights to the buyer of the book while reserving rights for the artist. This stuff was decided years ago for these types of books and there apparently were plenty of citations to back it up.
So yeah, the case is pretty open and shut at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps not copyright....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's the sword in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmdCbywFBGw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's the sword in action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
doh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: doh
Or you could think of it another way. If you made Cloud popular and now don't want to give fans the products they want, get out of the way and let someone else do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At any rate, the 'virtual' sword is a piece of design. It being copied into a product of any type and sold for profit is precisely what trademark and copyright law is supposed to prevent.
Its not like they can get it wrong all of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Possibly yes, but more than likely TRADEMARK infringement. Mike, you really need to learn the difference. I know you are trying to SEO copyright infringement into your site, but it isn't the right term, at least from what I can see in the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The site wasn't passing this off as their own unique conception and there was no trademark confusion here. I don't see how it's Trademark infringement if you're not actually causing consumers to get confused about Trademarks.
The more I read Techdirt, the more I realize that copyright and trademark laws are not made to protect artists or inventors - they're made so that major corporations can monopolize on content made by such artists/inventors. It's frightening how much power we're giving to these companies... I think it's time for people to wake up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content and such
This is what kills the argument of "make one yourself"- the company may very well have made their own sword, but it won't sell nearly as well as a replica of the one from the game.
The difference in products is: one is a "big generic sword" and the other is "replica/ based on the design of the sword used by character X to kill bad guy Y and free the world, in the Final Fantasy game".
Basically, this is a case of the sword company using the Final Fantasy name to boost sales of their own products... whether for right or wrong. Yes, Square Enix isn't "hurt", but do customers get the impression that Square Enix has licensed or approved the sword? If people think the sword is shoddy, will they complain to Square Enix for using that sword company to make the sword?
And the argument of "Square Enix wasn't going to make a real sword anyway" doesn't hold any water either. If I make a "Jar-Jar Binks with lightsaber" action figure, am I allowed to sell and market it, and then defend myself by saying Lucas wasn't going to make one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for your this act of kindness.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Golf equipment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to Choose a TV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Find people
Good information,i saved this page as my bookmark waiting to watch next posts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quiz Maker
Thanks for sharing this with us. I am researching this topic for use in a future business I am thinking about starting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
electricity
Excellent information on your blog, thank you for taking the time to share with us. Amazing insight you have on this, it’s nice to find a website that details so much information about different artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]