Video about why you should give appropriate credit

jasonrohrer · 2019-03-09 18:36:08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPtH2KPuQbs

Their solution for people who do not? Call them liars in public.

InSpace · 2019-03-09 19:45:03

did you just compare yourself to beethoven? xD

UnnoticedShadow · 2019-03-09 20:09:09

I get the point you are trying to make, but not giving credit is not the same thing as taking credit, and although I think they should credit you a bit more, calling them Liars is very much overboard, and not their intention, at least that's how it seems like. I understand wanting them to label their version of the game "Unofficial" so people are aware of that much but "Unauthorized" is understandably hurtful to a company's name, and they should not need to put in your name anymore than it already may be provided they give you credit whenever they mention themselves.

Honestly I think your taking this too far, and it should really not be stressed over too much unless it's affecting your profits. Although it's taking away "credit" from you, it's not that big of an issue, as without them making these copies you would have never been shouted out at all, so ultimately they're doing you a favor, but your annoyed because they should be doing more for you. Ultimately, this has been taken too far, and the last thing we need is another forum post on this topic.

(From what I understand this is not a matter of people buying mobile vs. PC, as this was not an issue beforehand, unless something has changed in that area.)

Last edited by UnnoticedShadow (2019-03-09 20:21:41)

Shallotte · 2019-03-09 22:53:13

jasonrohrer wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPtH2KPuQbs
Their solution for people who do not? Call them liars in public.

It isn't very professional to be saying things like that about them . Like, we understand you. But the fact remains...You declared the game was BOTH copyright free and in the public domain(which I just found out about) within the text document itself after downloading it.

Again, you need to copyright your future builds of the game. And leave the current build as it is(because you can't go back on that). Or this will keep happening to you. No amount of trash talk is going to fix this situation.

You need to talk to a lawyer and actually learn about what copyright law is. Because at this time; your misunderstanding of copyright law may have sold your game, ownership and creative rights to that mobile developer(and everyone on the internet) for next to no money.

Don't put future builds of the game in public domain, stop throwing away your legal rights to it only to complain about those rights being gone later- and talk to an actual lawyer.

We already advised you on what to do, and we can't force you to listen to us.

Last edited by Shallotte (2019-03-10 00:38:30)

InSpace · 2019-03-09 22:59:06

Let him call people liars if he wants to. Devs need more balls, or they become stale af like blizzard activision who can't do anything because of corporate stuff.

Léonard · 2019-03-09 23:37:00

Seems like you didn't read all of the threads regarding this considering you only JUST learned the game is copyright free.
I would suggest doing so before you continue on saying nonsense.

Jason's accusation of fraud are founded and asking for reparation can hardly be considered harassment.

Shallotte · 2019-03-10 00:11:24

Léonard wrote:

Seems like you didn't read all of the threads regarding this considering you only JUST learned the game is copyright free.
I would suggest doing so before you continue on saying nonsense.
Jason's accusation of fraud are founded and asking for reparation can hardly be considered harassment.

I did read it all. And posted in all of them. It isn't fraud because he signed all his rights away.

Here is an actual lawyer talking about what happened to him;

https://legalinspiration.com/?p=682#more-682

And I quote:

"Everybody hates cops until it’s their house being burgled, sort of thing. His post above details his issues and complaints, and contemplates various things he might to do deal with them. The thing is, we have systems for this. He just doesn’t want to participate in them. Again, his right. But he can’t have it both ways. “I don’t believe in trademarks, but you’re confusing people as to the source of these goods.” “I don’t believe in copyrights, but you’re changing my game to the point where it’s bringing my creation into artistic disrepute.”

He uses the word “fraud” a lot to distinguish his complaint from traditional trademark usage. But fraud, legally, requires intent. He doesn’t seem to believe that anybody intends to deceive anyone, other than leaving some verbiage out of some of the mobile game release descriptions which is iffy at most. So there’s nothing fraudulent, as lawyers use the word, going on.

Another term he uses is “plagiarism.” Plagiarism is a scholarly term: it’s not a legal term. Sometimes plagiarism involves copyright infringement, but something can be plagiarism without being copyright infringement, and vice versa. Since he’s not making a complaint to an academic or professional body, while he is entitled to be upset about it, saying something is “plagiarism” doesn’t give him any enforceable rights or legal claim.

If he doesn’t want to participate in the copyright and trademark system, another option he may have is to exercise his right of publicity. This is the right to control one’s name and likeness, especially in relation to commercial activity like selling video games. However, at most, what that will get him is… making them take his name off the descriptions. That might help a little, but by and large the problem seems to be confusion with the game itself, and all the issues with the mobile port will still lead people back to him as the originator and, rightly or wrongly, assuming that he is involved and can help address their concerns.

So, from my general understanding of what’s happening, here’s my non-legal opinion as to what he can do about this:

Nothing.

From a legal perspective, of course. From a moral/ethical/public opinion perspective, he can do exactly what he is doing – try to make people aware of the situation and try to pressure the mobile developer into helping to reduce the harm. Perfectly viable approach in many respects. But we have a system for dealing with just this problem: namely, consumer confusion as to the origin of a good or service. It’s called trademark law. He doesn’t want to use it. Mr. Rohrer is a gifted artist and a very smart man, but he’s not smarter than the cumulative efforts of hundreds of years of brilliant legal and commercial minds which created our current system. If he tries to create some sort of new approach, what he will do is recreate trademark law, because this is how we got trademark law in the first place."

" You can copyright artistic creations. You can use specific distinctive names and other identifications as marks to identify your particular embodiments in trade (i.e., trademarks.) But once an idea is out, it’s out. It’s like the wind. No one can catch the wind for themselves: the wind blows, or doesn’t blow, for everyone. Once something is in the wind, it will flow to everyone in time.

By releasing his work into the public domain, Mr. Rohrer has put it into the wind. He has every right to complain, morally speaking, if people are acting in ways he finds objectionable and/or cause him to have to deal with problems he did not create. But he doesn’t believe in the systems we’ve evolved to help address exactly these questions."

Last edited by Shallotte (2019-03-10 00:29:13)

jasonrohrer · 2019-03-10 00:13:55

They did, perhaps by mistake, EXACTLY what is shown in this video.

For 40+ days in China, they had a version of the game posted where they "erased" my name from it and "wrote" their name on it, just like in the video where they erased Beethoven's name and wrote Eunice.

I had an agreement with them that I didn't need/want my name used on their splash screen, as long as they were acknowledging that it was an unofficial adaptation. In China, they "forgot" about any of this, and used a splash screen that gave themselves sole credit, while not mentioning that it was an adaptation at all. China just happened to be the biggest market their version was ever exposed to (because it was a free demo to boot).

In the video, Eunice does this on purpose. In this case, they claim it was an accident (even though their programmer is a native Chinese speaker who could clearly read the splash screen, and obviously must have looked at it during that 40 day window, and obviously would know that the other correct wording was there for a very important reason).

Regardless of intent, a false statement of sole authorship was made. So maybe they are "unintentional liars." Okay. But the idea that I'm "unfairly ruining their reputation" is nonsense.

Shallotte · 2019-03-10 00:16:43

jasonrohrer wrote:

Regardless of intent, a false statement of sole authorship was made. So maybe they are "unintentional liars." Okay. But the idea that I'm "unfairly ruining their reputation" is nonsense.

I never said you were ruining their reputation. I mean there is nothing forcing them to do what you say, as they are operating under the legal rights you have given them(under the .txt doc that states there is no copyright and the entire game is in the public domain. As well as stating on the forums that you are okay with the game being republished for retail sale). I don't know how else to say it.

Of course they did it on purpose. It's China. The problem is you can't prove it was purposeful.

The permissions you gave are as follows:

---

no_copyright.txt
This work is not copyrighted. I place it into the public domain.

Do whatever you want with it, absolutely no restrictions, and no permission
necessary.

Jason Rohrer
Davis, California
March 2018

---

Nothing in there says they have to put your name on the game. In your own words you said anyone can do whatever they wish with it, without permissions.

But, I won't comment on this anymore. There isn't anything else I can do other than to express concern or repeat what others have already said in other threads.

Last edited by Shallotte (2019-03-10 01:02:52)

Lily · 2019-03-10 00:31:43

Yeah, he should of just made it open sourced with generous licence rules rather than open sourced and public domain. Though there are two things that may be salvageable here for going forward in the future. The first is that Jason can choose to change the rules on future updates. The public domain stuff only applies to the game as is now. Updates to the game can be copyrighted and protected.

Since it is to other people's benefit to have access to newer releases, you can use that to your benefit. Basically people can do anything they want with the game as it is now, and make their own changes, but if they want to use your future updates then you want credit or whatever. If the game is updated for several more years, then by the time the game is finished the protected part of the game will be very sizable. So it would be wise for them to follow the agreement to get the full game with all updates, rather than use the public domain version.

The second thing that may help, is that Jason is the owner of the website. The game and the website are two different things, so it may be possible to argue that while the game is public domain the website isn't. So someone using the name to sell copies of the game infringes on your website which sells copies of the game under the same name and was created first. You might need a lawyer to work out the details but I think it is a valid argument.

Léonard · 2019-03-10 01:10:13

Shallotte wrote:

Here is an actual lawyer talking about what happened to him;
https://legalinspiration.com/?p=682#more-682

Okay so the only thing making this "not fraud" and as such "legal" according to him and you is that they did not intend to cause harm to Jason.

Well, at what point does something become "intended" once you alert and explain to the person that they're doing something wrong?

Jason has contacted them and they have read his explanation. So they are "aware". Can they still use that excuse to do bad things? I don't think so.

jasonrohrer wrote:

Furthermore, they asked for clarification along the way, and I gave it, explaining that claiming sole authorship would be fraud. They they claimed sole authorship anyway for 40+ days in China, the largest market the game has ever been exposed to.
So not only did they go against common sense, libel law, etc. They also went against the specific clarification that I gave them, early and often, while they were working on their version of the game.
In fact, my clarification was that they didn't have to give me credit---BUT that they couldn't take sole credit themselves. From May 2018:
So, just be sure to make this clear. Same game, but an unofficial port, by you guys, but based on my work. You don't HAVE to say that it is based on my work, by the way (there is no attribution license in place here), but if you're claiming authorship yourselves, you'd better mention this so as not to commit fraud.

They were perfectly aware of this fact.
The mere fact that there was an "agreement" (which they confirmed was real) in the first place proves this.

And, as Jason points out, something seems fishy:

jasonrohrer wrote:

(even though their programmer is a native Chinese speaker who could clearly read the splash screen, and obviously must have looked at it during that 40 day window, and obviously would know that the other correct wording was there for a very important reason)

Let's also put two and two together here.
The only reason this all came to be is due to the fact that the mobile devs were using the same title that Jason used.
But not out of laziness. It was because (and they confirmed this) they initially intended to be the "official" mobile port of the game affiliated with Jason and all of that.
They didn't want to be like any other copycat who could quickly port the game to mobile. They wanted a stamp of "approval" or "authenticity".
Which, as you may have deduced, could have been obtained by claiming authorship.

Chard · 2019-03-10 04:02:27

Isn't the message of this video drastically undercut but them using the first two bars of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony without attribution? On a title screen saying the song was by Nina Paley no less.

jasonrohrer · 2019-03-10 19:05:17

Yes, she did that on purpose to make an important point. See the full explanation on this page:

https://questioncopyright.org/minute_me … dit_is_due

CrazyEddie · 2019-03-10 19:24:58

jasonrohrer wrote:

Regardless of intent, a false statement of sole authorship was made. So maybe they are "unintentional liars."

Intent matters, Jason! You can't be an unintentional liar! The word "liar" implies intent!

THIS SHIT MATTERS, JASON.

Peremptive · 2019-03-10 19:55:55

as the video says, a simple web search reveals the truth. The people being confused and misinformed are people who play on mobile, therefore "casuals". You can't expect them to do an internet search, understand what open domain is, that a no copyright movement or philosophy even exists. Caring about what the casuals think is a losing battle.

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2019-03-09 18:36:08

Video about why you should give appropriate credit

#2 2019-03-09 19:45:03

Re: Video about why you should give appropriate credit

#3 2019-03-09 20:09:09

Re: Video about why you should give appropriate credit

#4 2019-03-09 22:53:13

Re: Video about why you should give appropriate credit

#5 2019-03-09 22:59:06

Re: Video about why you should give appropriate credit

#6 2019-03-09 23:37:00

Re: Video about why you should give appropriate credit

#7 2019-03-10 00:11:24

Re: Video about why you should give appropriate credit

#8 2019-03-10 00:13:55

Re: Video about why you should give appropriate credit

#9 2019-03-10 00:16:43

Re: Video about why you should give appropriate credit

#10 2019-03-10 00:31:43

Re: Video about why you should give appropriate credit

#11 2019-03-10 01:10:13

Re: Video about why you should give appropriate credit

#12 2019-03-10 04:02:27

Re: Video about why you should give appropriate credit

#13 2019-03-10 19:05:17

Re: Video about why you should give appropriate credit

#14 2019-03-10 19:24:58

Re: Video about why you should give appropriate credit

#15 2019-03-10 19:55:55

Re: Video about why you should give appropriate credit

Board footer