Guild Wars 2

Ok GW2 Players,

Don’t get me wrong, the whole idea of SAB (Super Adventure Box) looks and plays great. However, I cannot remove the thoughts out of my head that the way this game was publicised and made is using too many aspects of other classic games; and IMO would be considered copyright infringement.

Examples:

1) Block style gameplay reminds me, and I’m sure many others, of Minecraft.

2) Zelda references within the gameplay.

3) The flyer on the main page (https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/releases/april-2013/). The golden logo which writes, and I quote, ‘ARENANET Seal of Approval’, is very, VERY, similar to the Nintendo seal of quality logo (Google ‘Nintendo seal logo’)

4) As per the flyer in 3), the game depicted on the bottom of that page clearly is “inspired” by a SNES game box (Google ‘SNES game box’).

I’m sure there are several Nintendo fans in the GW2 team, however, I would tread carefully.

Just my 2c.

They might have gotten written permission.

References and inpsiration are not copyright infringements. If they were, there would be so many games that would be hit with infringement suits.

Pretty sure that when a big company puts something in a very visible game, they have double checked and triple checked things, nor would they give their employees the go ahead to create copyright material.

Also referencing things is not infringement, if that were the case every game would be infringing on a game that came before it in some way.

Zelda you picked pots up and threw them to get gems
In SAB you pick pots up and throw them to get baubles

Is that copyright infringement? lol no.

1) No. People need to realize that minecraft was not the first game to use block style graphics. That’s like saying WoW was the first MMO…

2) There are and many other games have done similar things. There’s nothing taken exactly from a Zelda game.

3) FYI: Seals tend to look like that. Just because Nintendo used one doesn’t mean nobody else can.

4) Using a rectangular box is not copyright infringement.

I suggest you research copyright infringement.

The key word in your post is “inspired”. Without inspirations from previous works of art or inventions, there would be no progress in society. The dark ages are a example of this.

As per wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement), and I quote:

“Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder’s “exclusive rights”, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the copyrighted work, spread the information contained within copyrighted works, or to make derivative works. "

There has always been one major loophole in the copyright infringement act and it basically is summed up in the bolded words in the above paragraph:

Derivative Work- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
What is considered “derivative work”. IMO, my examples clearly show derivate work of copyright material.

Then there is this – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._LaMacchia
Where it basically said that you can use copyright material as long as you don’t make profit – but isn’t ANet making profit out of GW2 which includes content that contains derivate work of copyright material?

I would really like an ANet representative to respond at this stage. Perhaps they have gotten written/oral permission, but I don’t know this. Just curious.

You sure are seriously negative about this but I could argue that when Blizzard made World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King, they admitted they copied a bunch Lord of the Rings environments and movies themselves and got away with it.

I don’t see Nintendo getting upset at this since they are clearly stating in reference they are trademarks from other games by Nintendo.

If anything, all guild wars 2 is doing is advertising for Nintendo.

1) I don’t think any company owns the copyright on the blocky or pixelated look, and SAB is unique enough artistically. The resemblance to minecraft is probably incidental because the inspirations were clearly taken from elsewhere. People refer to it as minecraft-like because minecraft is currently a popular game.

2) References and parody do not constitute copyright infringement. However, selling something as the material referenced is copyright infringement. That is not the case with Super Adventure Box. It’s not Super Legend of Zelda Box. It’s Super Adventure Box and it is clearly its own thing.

3) & 4) See number 2.

Death Reincarnated.3570:

As per wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement), and I quote:

“Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder’s “exclusive rights”, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the copyrighted work, spread the information contained within copyrighted works, or to make derivative works. "

There has always been one major loophole in the copyright infringement act and it basically is summed up in the bolded words in the above paragraph:

Derivative Work- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
What is considered “derivative work”. IMO, my examples clearly show derivate work of copyright material.

Then there is this – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._LaMacchia
Where it basically said that you can use copyright material as long as you don’t make profit – but isn’t ANet making profit out of GW2 which includes content that contains derivate work of copyright material?

I would really like an ANet representative to respond at this stage. Perhaps they have gotten written/oral permission, but I don’t know this. Just curious.

You can’t copyright everyting in a game. You can copyright unique aspects of a game such as the story.

Nintendo wants 3d party developers to have some freedom in their game design.

I believe when the contents are that of a parody, the rules change. The fact that this content is inspired and even does poke fun at the classic retro themes probably means they are free from those legal problems. Along with all of the content being custom created and none are ripped.

Also the SAB is free and considered art. You are paying for the retail game. Anet isn’t obligated to give us this content for free.

The items sold in the gem store are not for use in the SAB and look unique enough to sell.

Onshidesigns.1069:

Death Reincarnated.3570:

As per wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement), and I quote:

“Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder’s “exclusive rights”, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the copyrighted work, spread the information contained within copyrighted works, or to make derivative works. "

There has always been one major loophole in the copyright infringement act and it basically is summed up in the bolded words in the above paragraph:

Derivative Work- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
What is considered “derivative work”. IMO, my examples clearly show derivate work of copyright material.

Then there is this – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._LaMacchia
Where it basically said that you can use copyright material as long as you don’t make profit – but isn’t ANet making profit out of GW2 which includes content that contains derivate work of copyright material?

I would really like an ANet representative to respond at this stage. Perhaps they have gotten written/oral permission, but I don’t know this. Just curious.

You can’t copyright everyting in a game. You can copyright unique aspects of a game such as the story.

Nintendo wants 3d party developers to have some freedom in their game design.

I’m no law expert, but irrc game rules and mechanics are not protected by law. I believe this is because rules and mechanics are considered underlying ideas, or genre. Kind of like how shooting is one of the underlying ideas to so many shooters. If they were protected by law, we’d see far fewer expressions on game genre (no Halo, Gears of War, or Half Life. Only quake). Assets like art and story, however, are IP because they original and expressive works.

The line between mechanics and expression can often be blurred, and it’s tricky to decide what’s expression or mechanic. If Ninty feels like their IP was infringed upon, then they can always take ANet to court, but I doubt they will since there’s nothing to be gained from it.

@Death Reincarnated: Like I said before, research copyright infringement. What you’ve done so far is a good start but you haven’t grasped what counts as copyright infringement.

lol no.

A derivative work means you took something from another actual work, like the source code or art assets, modified it, and then distributed the modified work that contained some or all of the original copyrighted work. There is no evidence that any of this occurred in SAB.

Imitation and parody, or even reuse of conceptual ideas is not a derivative work under copyright law (an idea is not a work). Some images can be trademarked, some ideas can be patented, but since you’re not even quoting the correct laws, and because in any case you would not know better than Anet’s lawyers, it isn’t worth worrying about. YANAL

And besides that, if you played GW1 you would know that Anet is well-practiced in making overt references to other properties.

Not everything in this world is copyrighted. Just delete your thread.

Also look at free/fair use and parodies.

No.

SAB is clearly inspired from classic 8bit and 16bit games but in no way is it copyright infringement.