Copyright protection fails to protect game mechanics

MerricB

Eternal Optimist
Supporter
From here: http://www.boardgamenews.com/index....knizia_loses_lawsuit_against_humboldt_verlag/

BoardGameNews said:
Game designer Reiner Knizia has lost a lawsuit against German publisher Humboldt Verlag over its book, ”Die große Humboldt Enzyklopädie der Würfelspiele” (or “The Large Humboldt Encyclopedia of Dice Games"), by author Hugo Kastner.

Among the descriptions of thirteen families of dice games included in the book were 18 games that had previously appeared in books written by Knizia or as published games, including Pickomino and Jupiter. Knizia had sued for damages, claiming that his copyright had been violated, but the judge ruled that the intellectual contents of the game rules lacked copyright protection.

Note that this was a case brought in Germany.

Cheers!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wow, that's pretty horrible. It's basically saying "the creative works of game writers are not worth protecting". I can see this going through a pretty extensive appeals process though.
 

The situation's exactly the same in the UK and the USA: game mechanics are not copyrightable. Otherwise, the only game where you could say "roll 1d6 and move that number of squares" would be Snakes and Ladders.

This is a lot less damaging to games writers than it might sound, though, because the wording of the rules can be protected, the terms used can be protected, tables and formats can be protected, and so on.

This is why OSRIC had to rely on the OGL as well. If it weren't for the OGL, I could use words like "Armour class" and "Hit points" and "Level of experience" and the six stats in order, but I couldn't use all of those things.
 

PapersAndPaychecks said:
The situation's exactly the same in the UK and the USA: game mechanics are not copyrightable. Otherwise, the only game where you could say "roll 1d6 and move that number of squares" would be Snakes and Ladders.

And nothing of value would be lost...

I kid, I kid. :)

Kinda torn here. Knizia's my favorite game designer, but copyright's a very important issue for me, especially in so much as people trying to push the coverage of copyright. I can understand why he'd file the lawsuit, but I'm glad he lost it.
 

Be very glad he lost. The last thing we need is another lawsuit happy industry that's more interested in pursuing dubious legal claims than innovating and producing product.
 

This is why many companies and individuals try to patent their play mechanics. Examples:

WotC have essentially patented "tapping a card" and "playing one land a turn" (i.e. two core mechanics of M:tG).

Many chess variants have patented piece moves.

Many board games will have patented variations of standard components, such as dice. TSR have a patent on the stretched out d4 used in Dragon Dice: Magestorm. I believe the d6-in-a-pop-up-bubble is also patented, even though you can play the games involved with a normal die.
 


Rodrigo Istalindir said:
Be very glad he lost. The last thing we need is another lawsuit happy industry that's more interested in pursuing dubious legal claims than innovating and producing product.

Oh come on now. It's Reiner F'in Knizia we're talking about.

I don't think there's much danger in the most prolific game designer on the planet shifting his focus from innovation to litigation.
 

JDJblatherings said:
Only a specific expression of a game is copyrightable, if it can be expressed in a different manner and not duplicate creative content it can be made.

Well, I guess it's a good thing Reiner's known for the deep and intrinsic integration of theme and mechanics.

(this post is only funny if you follow board games)
 

Wulf Ratbane said:
Oh come on now. It's Reiner F'in Knizia we're talking about.

I don't think there's much danger in the most prolific game designer on the planet shifting his focus from innovation to litigation.

*cough* Rowling *cough* Metallica
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top