Pong Clone Legalities

A hypothetical question that I think I know the answer to came into my head the other day, and I thought I'd see what you guys think.

If I were to create a killer Pong clone (don't worry - this is all hypothetical... there's no way I'd ever do anything productive with my Blitz purchase...), could I legally sell it, or would that be copyright infringement? Could I even distribute it for free? I'm not talking an exact Pong clone, but an upgrade. Powerups, the like.

This same question goes for all of those retro games, and really all games in general. I mean, tons of people have made revamps of the same RPGs, but for some reason I feel like even a completely revamped Pong would still feel like Atari copyright infringement.

I'm simply wondering, because I've seen tons of free, award-winning ripoffs (Plasma Pong comes to mind), but on the other hand, the free Blitz Geometry Wars clone was taken down.

Any ideas?

The Geometry Wars clone was taken down not because of the gameplay but because it looked just like Geometry Wars. In fact some people thought that Geometry Wars was a rip off of Grid Wars (the Blitz game). If you make a game with 2 paddles and a ball you're not infringing on their copyright necessarily. It all depends on how you approach it.

You Tube is the current and future benchmark of all that was, is, and that that has not yet been.

I am the envelope.

It's the old saying - which penguin is bigger and at what point was it bigger - which one made the other one - who is the peoples' penguin?

it really depends on who's watching or whether they care. The game dev I once worked for got offered a contract by EA to make a small series of java based classic arcade game clones for about $250k.

In the end my boss declined because there was the signs of some copyright issues in the air. Not asteroids but a couple of other games. One of them being frogger.

Was back in 1999 so I don't remember the exact details now.

heh, all of a sudden I fancy a penguin chocolate bar. Do they still have those in the UK? They don't sell them over here in California.

Should be fine, unless you rip graphics from the pong game in question itself.

I'm also making a super pong, entitled Rong. By ripping the graphics, do you mean using white squares for everything? If so then... Damn.

there are no graphics in the original pong that could be copyrighted (except for overall look and feel). there are no software mechanics in pong that could be patented. (the hardware is a different story)
[edit]actually the presentation was patented... but is long expired.

in general for any game you are fine as long as you don't steal or copy the media, don't use any trademarks and a "17 year old boy" can discern the difference between the 2 games.

DO NOT use the word "Pong" anywhere in the title or game.

I think that about covers it.

@po
Don't try "Rong".... too close to the trademark.

It depends on the game. Whoever owns the copyright calls the shots. If you're going to do a remake you need to find out what the copyright owner says on the matter.

In most cases you should be able to make a free remake. Also, in most cases the copyright owner won't want anyone profiting from what is essentially their work.

Plasma Pong didn't escape Atari's wrath, it seems.

http://plasmapong.com/

Just my opinion flaring about here, but I really wish people would stop making clones of pong, asteriods, space invaders or breakout, or any of the other remade-a-million-times games. What can you feasibly possibly be doing any different with these very basic games that hasn't been done to the death already. Just strapping on power ups or weapons or particle effects doesn't alter the fact that the core of the game is very basic and archaic. Where is the creativity in just regurgitating the same old games over and over again. It seems to be like some horrible disease blighting the game development community, that so many people can't help but just copy these `old classics` thinking that they can somehow put their personal `better` spin on them. Pong is pong is pong is pong is pong. I think maybe we're all stuck with `archetypes` of classic very-old-school/arcade games which most of us have never played or seen in person, but which seem to influence so much of what we're trying to create. Okay so if you're a beginner then maybe it's cool to sharpen your teeth on some kind of `easy` game with `well known` gameplay, but beyond that how can you seriously put the words `killer` and `pong` in the same sentence?

Sorry my opinion is so loud today.

It's called a learning experience. I'm trying to make my clone all object oriented and polished, which may be easy for most users here, but it sure isn't for me.

Learning how to crawl before attempting to walk.

With Plasma Pong the author shouldn't have called it "Pong".

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/204191.html?playlist=featured

made me think of this, really funny.

Sorry, didn't mean to derail you - it's okay to use these kind of games to learn and improve skills, which I did say, but it'd be nice to see more originality.

A few sites you should read about Copyright and Trademarks
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tm.htm
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/UKpga_19880048_en_1.htm
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
http://www1.uspto.gov/go/tac/tmlaw2.html

aye making pong breakout space invaders asteroids etc for anything OTHER than learning how to do em is a bit pase
what can one bring to the table anymore?

but as i said in another recent thread (and a fair few really really old ones) without pong wed have no breakout and without breakout wed have no space invaders as tatio blokie openly admitted on the tatio legeds bonus movies section that he played breakout and wished the bricks would shoot backk
and thus a legend was born

so having a fully recoded by you pong game in blitz java asm or lego wouldnt be a good use of website hosting bandwidth but who knows when the fps band wagon dies down a bit a sort of pong mechanic might come into play
but if that coder never worked on pong it might not strike him/her to do it
mind you im not quite sure what new game mechanic could come out of pong but im not discounting it nor holding my breath waiting ;)

What about if you remade a classic game, that was going to be offered as a free download,but you would not make any profit from it whatsoever?
What's wrong with that?
your just making it for fun, and your not going to profit,
so whats the problem?

The Mighty WERDNA(Master Of Lemons)
(I'm branching out a bit.I'm already the master of darkness so I wanted to try something new.)
http://hosted.filefront.com/WERDNAWORLD

You've never played Pong have you :)

If you can make an Arkanoid clone that works perfectly and doesn't have weird collision related bugs then you've solved probably most of the difficult problems in game programming. The only way up from there is A* pathfinding, field-of-view calculation, real physics collisions and enemy AI. That is, before you try applying all that to 3D ;)

Writing a Pong or Space Invaders clone merely trains you into thinking about how to structure your game code.

The problem is this little thing called copyright, which now lasts for the life of the author + 70 years (or 95 years for corporate ownership) -- or about 2 quadrillion years in internet time.

Of course there's a lot of shades of grey in the mix as well: While game play is not copyrightable (meaning you can freely make a 'similar' game) you can NOT just 'borrow' the original title or graphics, or even use 'confusingly similar' names and such.

The whole point about copyright is that it prohibits others from stealing your work. It doesn't matter that you spread something for free without monetary gain -- the whole issue with so-called intellectual property is that it's not yours to spread in the first place.
Now, if you don't charge you're more likely to stay below the radar of the original copyright owners, and if they do decide to sue you then not charging anything might be a mitigating factor in deciding how much money they can squeeze out of you, but that doesn't make it OK.

Now, you can make whatever you want for personal use in the privacy of your own home, but as soon as you start giving it away you'd still be violating copyright laws.

some one released a song called "one minute silence" or such like
which was just that

some other bloke released an album with a song with the same or similar title
the band stopped playing ... you could hear caughing and just shuffling of feet but nothing was played

2nd album blokie was sued by 1st

for what doing NOTHING and recording it?

so do the bbc have to pay this guy royalties every 11/11 with their extended version?

hell that means microsoft is in breach as to get a good length file out of sound recorder i had to record a minute (its then max) and copy it onto the end till i got the desired length (this stopped when i got a streaming recording proggie that WORKED)

saying its cos of the name kinda invalidates the claim as their are 3 different songs called the power of love that i know of
frankie goes to hollywood
jennifer rush / celine dion
hewie lewis and the news
and afaik they never got into trouble with each other
bands sharing the same name is confusing though

Whoa ginger tea, don't spill any.

Just because no sound was played, doesn't mean it was nothing. It was the idea of having no sound. But I have no idea if your story is true or not or how accurate it is.

I don't know why the BBC would have to pay royalties but that's not a minute's silence for music or artistical purposes is it?

Even if that were a breach of copy right it wouldn't be Microsoft responsable it would be you. But it's not because, well, you're not copying someone's music are you?? That's the idea you're missing.

its the principle that someone saw fit to sue someone else who may not have heard their 'song' and they just did it as a lark
the goons i believe released a b side called silent night
play it and all you get is the sond of the stylus going against the dust build up on the record

the 'joke' about the bbc and rememberance sundays 2 minute silence was if someone sees fit to sue over a recording of silence then what about the broadcast of it

but tbh i dont know the outcome
my dad told me about this years ago
but the names have faded and it was pre mass home internet so i couldnt check its validility

i was tempted to do something similar should i ever release an album and see if i got sued too

on a side note i really hate albums that have 'hidden' tracks like 99 with dozzens of silent tracks inbetween
or one really long song with 2 songs split by an age of silence they get cut up in music apps if i like the 2nd one

This is one example how "intellectual property" laws always restrict freedom and creativity.

Your more likely to get hassle as an arkanoid clone than a pong clone.

Always is a strong word. Also, would it be fair if you created something, but another took credit (and profit) from your hard work?

didnt this happen to tetris blokie?

happens all the time if your paid to do the job

when my dad was in the army he took alot of photo's of tanks, jeeps and aircraft (on the odd occasion) and they got published in the likes of janes and he never saw a penny or got a photo credit
it all went to the MoD
i think it started when he did a wedding of one of his fellow squaddies and a higher uper asked seeing as he had a 'propper' camera if he could do some mug shots of what was knocking around the compound
(cant ask him for validation on the full facts without an ouija board)

It should certainly be legal. My game is released under a creative commons licence and the source code is public domain.

Copy Right is so confusing :(

some of it is common sense
others are written in legal mumbo jumbo and not plain english (enter your language here)

copyright theft can go from something so miniscule as to not even seem like it to a wholesale ram raid

on the common sense here is an analogy (true story)
bloke down the hall from me was looking in the shared freezer
"who's pizza is this?" he asked
well seeing as he didnt know he knew it wasnt his

so if he took said pizza it would be like taking anything game music art or whatever and passing it off as your own
so if i saw an unfinished game knocking around by a now absent blitzer and decided that cos the demo had all the media in plain view to carry on and finish it with or without consent
the end result would be seen to be mine but those that know would know ive just gone and nicked all his/her stuff for my own gains

Not sure what Ginger Tea's stories are going on about. I don't know what a like of jane is, or whether you are saying finishing another's demo is a good or bad thing! Please learn how to write in sentences.

Very good. That is your choice, but not one you can make for people who do not wish to release their source code in such a way. You cannot force people to make public their own creation they wish to be private. It's their right. You are not divinely entitled to other people's creativity.

Not nearly as much as ditching them would do. The vast majority of creative people would stop being creative if they couldn't feed their families.


And what's your day job? You're prepared to do that and let someone else get paid for it too? I'll let you know where to send the checks.

My way??

The reason I support complete abolition of copyrights is my support for absolute freedom of speech. If you ban saying words/information that other people have said before (the basic idea of copyright ) you're restricing freedom of speech. Of course I don't want to force anyone to release source code, my point was that I practice what I preach (so people can take my source code and sell it).


I'm a student currently, but your point might be that abolition of copyrights would make it impossible to get paid for creating information, which is nonsense. Pirates will already pirate the stuff they need, no law will change that. Besides, I'm not advocating "piracy", I'm advocating making it legal, which is a big difference. An analogy one could make is that I don't advocate religions, but I sure as hell think they should be legal.

Now there's a surprise.


No, I didn't say it was impossible, just hard enough to make people not bother. I mean, if you abolish copyright, you've got six and a half billion people who are just as able to sell your "information" as you are. Perhaps there are some people who could survive on one six billionth of what they're currently earning, but not many.


I'm well aware of what you're advocating, and that's what precisely my reply addresses.

I see no reason to debate with people so stupid to make claims like that. You're probably one of those people who want to make an artificial scarcity and an artificial market to create money for themselves, and I happen to be someone who prefers freedom. If you can't compete with this freedom then get another job.

OMG, nawi STFU.

janes is, or was a great big set of books about military aircraft tanks and stuff like that that you send to some poor country and go boom alot

now my father working in the army was paid by the MoD (ministry of defence), even though it was his next in line or a bit higher up that asked him to take the photoes and not the biggest of the big at the MoD, he was in the end paid for his work by the MoD and thus signed away his rights to any and all photographs taken under orders

so for every copy of guns and ammo, janes tanks or whatever from the first publication to the most current, my father never saw a penny in royalties or photo credit, it all went to the MoD cos they paid for it.

so if you are paid a flat fee for work done (like some of us (myself not included) here) thats all you got
£x one off fee to last the life time of the program

as for the game finishing thing
say perhaps you wrote a very interesting looking game demo left all the media open to view (many old demos were like that till data paks became more common)
then you are taken very ill and are in a coma for a year or two, or did something to get you arrested for a similar or longer time

during this period people go "i wonder if X will ever finish that game" or perhaps theve forgotten who was doing it but they remember the name
now say i or someone else thinks the same but goes one step further and works on it behind the scenes (perhaps trying and failing to contact you)
game gets released regardless of praise ratings etc

you wake up, get released are beamed back from the alien spacecraft that took you oh so many years ago our time but five minutes ago your time

you go back to work on your game only to find its already out and about selling online

what would you think about that?

Have you ever actually tried to sell software? I haven't, but I can imagine the experience might sway your opinion.

Legal piracy is a pretty stupid idea.

Well that is a moral opinion so there is no way to argue or disprove it other than state your own opinion. My opinion is that I disagree, and that absolute free speech should not be allowed. For example, to shout "FIRE" in a crowded cinema, or lying in court, or making hoax emergancy calls. These should all be banned.

Copyright isn't banning, it's preventing people from taking credit for your work or receiving financial benefit for your work. The difference between literature/electronic work and physical work is that the cost of duplication is negligible. If you worked hard to create a customised and carefully tailored piece of clothing, that is completely specficially designed for a single person, that took you a lot of effort, but before you could give it to him to get your agreed financial reward, somebody replicated/duplicated/cloned this piece of clothing you made, and sold it to him instead, so your own efforts were wasted... would you believe that having no protection was a good idea then?

That's misfortunate for your father but if he agreed to that then it's his own fault.

I don't know; it is an interesting moral problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

By absolute freedom of speech I meant that it should be legal to make any information available as a form of book,movie or to host anything in a web server, so this shouting in public is not included in my definition.


Yes. When a 3d-replicator is complete, we'll all be driving Ferrari sport cars. The copyright people are against that, they want only the elite to drive sport cars, and want to create an artificial scarcity.

I don't think there are a group of "copyright people" who want to create an artificial scarcity - what benefit do THEY get from that? The company, maybe, but that's a different group of people.

Why do you believe in absolute freedom of speech, other than because it sounds morally nice?

When 3d-replicators are complete, and peolpe can get anything they want to without the designer getting a penny, then you can say goodbye to new inventions! There's a nice world where people work only to benefit others and do not demand payment for themselves, but that is not reality. Rather than try and ignore the fact that humans are selfish and not perfect, I would rather face facts and try to make the best out of the inperfect situation we have.

"I don't make the rules, I just play the game."

When you want to recreate a classic game which looks too much like the original, why not ask the copyright owner for permission in the first place?

If you don't want to do this, use your own graphics and think of your own unique name for this game.

Yeah, massive amounts of free music, free videos, free/open source programs and games are just illusion, and there are no artists/hobbyist who create content only for their own pleasure, not for money. When there is no copyright the true artists will create content as their hobby, and there are millions of these people. We don't need 'artists' like Britney Spears/Paris Hilton.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-handel/is-content-worthless_b_96195.html

Surely we still need Gwen Stefani??????? (I have a problem)

This is NOT a good thing. It has been tried, we call it communism and it failed miserably in some countries and is still failing miserably in others.

If you don't give people something to strive for, they are not going to work hard. They are not going to stand out.

Copyright law is necessary, whether you like it or not, or believe it or not. If you take away the chance to get paid for your work, people will not do the work.

"But there are free and open source projects" you say? Ah, yes, but people are able to work on these free and open source projects because they have jobs that earn money where they are working on other things that ARE protected by copyright law.