Turning Game Players into Game Developers

Gamasutra has a great article on why it makes good business sense to utilize players as developers of new content.  It can be a new revenue stream for the publisher, it can build brand loyalty, it can increase the game's long tail, and it can mean fresh content without having to build it yourself.  So pretty much all positives and very few, if any, negatives.

At least, there are very few negatives so long as you build the legal structure appropriately.  There is a ton to consider when developing a means by which players can build, distribute, and monetize their own content - a typical development agreement between a publisher and a developer can span dozens of pages of dense, legalese print. Is this something you think you can implement in the context of a player/developer relationship?  Doubtful.

So what are the issues that should be considered?  This post will by no means cover them all, but here are a few key highlights:

Intellectual Property

The grand poobah of the issues bucket list.

  1. You as the "publisher" (note the use of quotes here, since that distinction is becoming less relevant in this context) need to have in order to distribute and exploit the player-created content.  But there can be a tendancy to take more than what you need in order to "lock down" these rights.  I challenge my clients to constantly ask themselves whether they need all of the rights they are seeking, or whether something less would work just as well, and be easier to monitor.  After all, licenses can be perpetual; grants of ownership may be subject to reversionary rights later in life.

    The question of license-vs.-own becomes even more important if you want to take the content and exploit it internationally.  For example, do you know your requirements as publisher for comply with various countries' moral rights laws?  Does the country you seek to exploit the work in even allow you to do what you want to do?
     
  2. Consider the kinds of content you are allowing players to create, and whether ancillary IP laws like VARA may apply.  (How this could happen is a fascinating question, but that's another post).
     
  3. When players create content, publishers have no way of knowing whether the content is original or not.  There's no clearance process to speak of, so taking advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA is incredibly important.  For example, have you appointed a copyright agent, or are you at risk for a Righthaven-like troll coming after you?  Do you have an appropriate notice-and-takedown regime in place?
     
  4. Aside from copyright issue, have you considered the impact of trademark laws in the player-created content?  After all, the DMCA doesn't apply to trademark issues so how will you handle a situation where someone uses the McDonald's Arches as an architectural work, or the Nike Swoosh on virtual clothing.
     
  5. What about publicity rights?  If I put my face on a digital item then distribute it through your player-created content network, can I turn around and sue you for infringement of my right of publicity?  Maybe, maybe not depending on whether there is an implied right to use my name/image/likeness, but why not deal with it up front?

Revenue Share

  1. Are you taking an off-the-top fee like Apple does, or is your rev share more complex?  If it's more complex, what kind of definitions for "gross" and "net" are you using?  Keep in mind that there are industry standards with this, so if you depart from that standard, you should have a good reason for doing so (and a compelling sales pitch as to why that departure is good for the player).
     
  2. Are you providing access to any sort of dashboard or control panel so players can monitor the exploitation of their content?  What promises, if any, are you making with regard to access to and usefulness of this program?
     
  3. What rights, if any, will players have to dispute the revenue share?
     
  4. On what kind of payment cycle will you pay players?  Will you keep any of the player's share as a holdback, and if so, how much and when will this be liquidated.
     
  5. If you're going international, where does currency exchange fees come into play?

Nature of the Content

  1. How will you respond if someone uploads buggy content, or even worse, content that contains malware?  Do you know the extent of your liability?
     
  2. Will you engage in a rigerous approval process (a la Apple App Store), or take a more laissez faire approach (a la Google Play).

The above checklist of questions is not meant to be all-encompassing, but as you can see there are more than a few issues that need to be thought through prior to launching a player-created content system.  Moreover, you should seek out an expert to assist with your decision-making and documentation thereof.  Not only will this help you understand the contours of the issues you face, but this will also help you create player agreements that are easy to use and easy(ier?) to understand.

Grand Theft Copyright? Rockstar and Take-Two Sued for $250 Million

The Grand Theft Auto franchise is no stranger to controversy.  The San Andreas game itself was been the subject of number of legal actions (the "Hot Coffee" and "Playpen" issues are two that come immediately to mind).  Now, Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive (the makers of GTA:SA) have been sued for 1/4 of the total estimated profits of the game.  And trust me, those estimated profits are eye-popping.  The lawsuit complaint estimates that the game has garnered roughly $1 billion worldwide, so that 1/4 in damages sought would amount to a whopping $250 million.

Why are Rockstar and Take-Two being sued, and by whom?  The lawsuit was filed by a man named Michael Shagg Washington, and he is suing for fraud, misappropriation of likeness under Cal. Civ. Code 3344, and copyright infringement.  Having read the complaint (made available by IGN here), I have a few thoughts on this lawsuit.  In short, if someone were taking bets on Mr. Washington's bout with Rockstar/Take-Two, I'd put my money on Rockstar/Take-Two.

Thoughts after the jump.

Continue Reading...

Copyright Cleanup, Clarification, and Corrections Act of 2010: Now with Less Clarity!

On August 3, 2010, the Senate passed a bill known as "The Copyright Cleanup, Clarification, and Corrections Act of 2010" (S.3689).  This bill provided for a number of technical corrections to the Copyright Act, such as changing the title of Chapter 6 to read "Importation and Exportation" (as opposed to its current "Manufacturing Requirements and Importation."  Of course, a few substantive corrections have been made as well, including clarification that under Section 303(b), distribution of phonorecords (sound recordings) made before 1978 shall constitute a publication of an underlying musical, dramatic, or literary work (currently, the statute's wording is limited to just underlying "musical works," which can create confusion for sound recordings like audiobooks or non-musical plays).

A few days ago - on November 15, 2010 - the House of Representatives passed a version of S.3689 that was very similar to the bill passed by the Senate a few months back.  However, one provision of note that was in the Senate's version did not make it into the version passed by the House.  This provision would have allowed the holder of an exclusive right to a copyrightable work to sublicense that right to another party without the licensor's consent.

To put this into plain English, let's say I'm a studio with a great idea - I'm developing an MMO based on (of all things) developing an MMO (how meta is that!).  I have enough original expression, embodied in enough tangible media, to qualify for copyright protection.  (See our previous posts involving copyright for more on this).  In the process of developing this MMO, I decide to license exclusive publishing rights to Bob's Discount Game Publishing Service (a totally fake entity, as far as I know).  Now Bob's has an exclusive right that is part of the "bundle of rights" that make up copyright.  Can Bob's unilaterally sublicense the publishing rights to another entity without my approval?  What if our publishing agreement did not specify any right to sublicense the publishing rights?

The answer, plus reasons why this may matter to the video game industry, after the jump.

Continue Reading...

Pitching your Project to Publishers: Legal Concerns

Gamasutra has a great article, written by Cameron Davis, on how to pitch your project to publishers (onomatopoeia included).  It provides some salient insights on how to best convey your ideas to those who: a) have money; and b) can use that money to market and distribute your game to a wide-ranging audience.

In that same vein, we thought we could contribute to this discussion, but of course, being lawyers, we can't really help but speak to those legal issues that studios and developers should think about when pitching publishers.  As with most things legally-related, there are a million different ways to approach this topic: negotiation strategies, contract pitfalls, dealing with an "Alice in Wonderland"-esque definition of "net profits," etc.  This post, however, will focus on protecting the ideas you bring to the pitch.  Because while idea misappropriate would never happen in this business, chance favors the prepared (all apologies to Louis Pasteur for the paraphrasing).

Why should you care about idea protection?  Because ideas are illusive things, and are capable of legal protection only in certain circumstances.  Without being able to obtain those protections, there's very little to stop someone taking your ideas from a pitch and using them without your consent (or without paying you royalties).   Considering game devs can spend significant amounts of time thinking about a project, protecting that investment can be extremely worthwhile.

Thoughts on protection strategies after the jump.

Continue Reading...