Re: Duke Nukem

Natalie Norman <natalien[_at_]uswest.net> wrote:
>
> How would such a holding bear upon unauthorized creation of game
> modification patches? There, the patch creator relies on portions of
> the underlying story in the original work protected by copyright to
> create a patch that alters the game, making it more exciting for the
> player. Game patches can change the entire look of the game, and,
> like the Duke Nukem case, not use any of the original artwork.
>
> Do you suppose a court might favor on the side of the patch creator,
> particularly where those buying/using patches necessarily own a copy
> of the underlying game already? No harm, no foul?

I think the case would actually be clearer with a patch. A "patch" is computer code that changes the nature of the original program. Whether or not the patch alters the 'story' of a game, it is creating an unauthorized derivative work.

--

Cheers,

Robert Joseph Honan
robertus[_at_]harbornet.com
http://www.harbornet.com/folks/honan/index.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"No one shall, in public or private places where children may overhear,
 speak curse words."

"'On April 26, 1968, the defendant was observed in
the Los Angeles County Courthouse ... wearing a jacket
bearing the words "Fuck the Draft" which were plainly visible.
There were women and children present in the corridor.'"
--Cohen v. California, 403 US 15, 16 (1971)