Do sports figures control the right to use their name in a game? In sports game simulations, do real people control the ability to use their name? I am not talking about their likeness, only their name. So, for example, if there is a game that uses generic figures that do not represent specific people, but give them real player's names, does that require permission? Another example would be a sports statistics program. Imagine there is a sports statistics program or a sports betting game. Does the software designer need to get permission to use the names of real players in his program? If so, what is the specific law that controls it in the United States?
Maybe The answer varies significantly depending on the US state. In many states such a right will be protected, and in others it will not. The exact degree if protection and the procedures to follow will also vary. But in those states which protect publicity rights, the name alone will often be protected. Oh, I should mention that news reporting of actual events is protected under the US First Amendment. Reporting the names of players in actual games, and their results does not need any permission. That would cover the sports statistics app. It might well cover the betting app, although that would face other legal issues because of the regulation of gambling generally. To return to personality/publicity rights: In this article Charles F. Morgan wrote: The right of publicity is the right of an individual to control the use of his or her persona for commercial purposes.Maryland is among the clear minority of States in which the right of publicity is not recognized as a property right either by statute or under the common law. In 1984, the Court of Appeals of Maryland adopted the rule that a person who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another may be liable for the tort of invasion of privacy. More than twenty years later, this remains the only reported Maryland decision dealing with the appropriation of likeness. In other States, the right to control the use of one’s name, voice and likeness, the right of publicity, has evolved through legislation or the common law as a property right apart from invasion of privacy. The distinction is an important one. The right to privacy is personal to the affected individual and therefore does not survive the death of the individual. Invasion of privacy is a tort action intended to compensate a living person who is injured as the result of another’s wrongful act. After a person dies, he or she cannot be subjected to an intrusion into his or her private life. While the right of privacy dies with the person, the right of publicity has evolved as a property right that may be transferable and capable of surviving the death of its original owner. At least twenty-eight States have recognized a common law right of publicity or have created statutory versions of the right of publicity. In this article Neal S. Dongre writes: The right of publicity has been defined as the inherent right of every human being to control the commercial use of his or her identity. ... The right of publicity is based in state law, which create an intellectual property right that when infringed upon is a commercial tort of unfair competition.The right of publicity has been recognized by various states — by the courts through the common law, by legislatures through statute, or by both. ... Most other states, while not recognizing the right of publicity, do recognize a cause of action based in the right of privacy which, while protecting different interests, may arise from the same factual scenarios as right of publicity cases. Eight states currently have statutory provisions on the books which encompass the right of publicity. McCarthy at Sec. 6:3. These states are: California, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Id. Ten additional states have statutes which, although labeled as privacy statutes, are worded such that they effectively encompass most of what is known as the right of publicity. Id. These states are: Indiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington. The leading Supreme Court decision in this area is Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977). This case concerned a television news station that had taped and rebroadcast an entire 15 second “human cannonball” act performed by Zacchini. Although the Court’s holding did not turn on the Constitutionality of the right of publicity, the Court treated the cause of action as a viable one and used the term “right of publicity” several times throughout the opinion. This treatment by the Supreme Court led other courts to begin to recognize the common law right of publicity. There are currently eighteen states whose courts have recognized a common law right of publicity. ... Only the Nebraska and New York courts have expressly rejected a common law right of publicity, although the New York legislature later remedied this rejection by statute.
There is a general belief that a term being trademarked means that it's illegal to use the term without permission from the trademark holder, but that is false. It is illegal only if it is done in a manner that suggests endorsement by the trademark holder. For instance, selling a football as a "Super Bowl football" would be trademark infringement, as it implies NFL involvement in the production of the football. Simply talking about the Super Bowl, such as saying "Our construction company built the stadium the Super Bowl is being played in" is not trademark infringement. Simply using a trademarked term to discuss the thing it refers to, without implying endorsement, is known as "nominative use". However, even if one would be on solid legal footings and could win a lawsuit on the basis of nominative use, one might avoid using a trademark to avoid the hassle of being sued.
Making the game free makes very little if any difference to the position here. There are two kinds of IP issues that could possibly be involved: copyright and trademark. Note: both copyright and trademark are civil, not criminal issues (except in very limited circumstances which do not apply to the situation described in the question). You will not &quot;face charges&quot; but might possibly be sued. If you are asked to take down such a game and comply, this might end the matter, but if an IP holder claimed that damages had occurred before the game was taken down a suite might possibly still be brought against the developer. Copyright Names, like titles and other short phrases, cannot be protected by copyright. As long as no other text from anyone else, and no images are copied or imitated, copyright is not infringed. This means that there are no copyright issues. Game mechanics and rules cannot be copyrighted, although the words of game rules can be. Therefore, fair use which is a strictly US copyright legal concept, is not involved here. Neither is fair dealing, a somewhat similar legal concept from the UK and some commonwealth and European countries. Trademark Here is the main issue for this situation. The names of individual Pokémon characters are probably (almost surely) protected as trademarks. That means you cannot use them to identify your game, or any other product or service, and you cannot use them to advertise or market your game. This is true even if the &quot;selling price&quot; is $0. The use here does not seem to be nominative use, as you are not intending to refer to Pokémon or any of its variants. You are just reusing the names. As long as you make it very clear that your game is not made by, nor in any way authorized or endorsed by the makers of Pokémon, this is probably not trademark infringement. But if the makers of Pokémon become aware of your game, they might well send you a cease and desist letter, and they might file a trademark infringement suit. Even if you were to win such a suit, as I think you might well do, it might be costly to defend. Could you alter the names to ones you invent form yourself? That might save a lot of trouble and hassle. What is the value to you in reusing the well-known Pokémon names?
(Note that some of the below may be UK specific, but the general principle applies in many other jurisdictions) Well the first thing is to stop working from this from the wrong direction: There is no law that makes it legal to assault someone: the law only makes it illegal to assault someone (eg in the UK, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 apply). The law states that it is illegal to assault someone. So let's explore how sport works. In most legal systems, you are able to give consent for certain activities or risks. This is also why certain other activities (for example, things a couple may enjoy in their own home) are not necessarily assault if consented to. Essentially, therefore, your consent gives the person doing the hitting the legal excuse (a little different to a normal excuse for forgetting your homework or being late to work): or a defense that their actions were reasonable. This stops the issue being the law, therefore, and becomes an issue of what does/doesn't constitute an "excuse". It is not therefore a question of "What law allows you to commit a crime during sport?" instead it is really one of "Exactly how much consent can a person give, to allow consent to be used as an excuse, and at what point is that consent no longer an excuse?" For example in R v Brown (UK Case Law) it was established that you cannot give unlimited consent. Similarly in every jurisdiction I'm aware of, that consent is only able to be given within the realms of the rules of the sport. As soon as the rules are broken, a crime may have been committed. I won't go into the details of R v Brown here, as I'm not convinced that it's suitable for SE (although I'm sure you can find it), but to give a more sport-related example, R v Donovan established that No person can license another to commit a crime, if (the jury) were satisfied that the blows struck ... were likely or intended to do bodily harm ... they ought to convict ... only if they were not so satisfied (was it) necessary to consider the further question whether the prosecution had negatived consent. Again, similar case law or exemptions exist in most jurisdictions. Essentially what this establishes is that if the intent is to cause harm, rather than to undertake the sport or activity to which consent has been given, it is still a crime The question after this is then generally one of whether it is in the public interest to prosecute, and often (but not always) the victim's wishes are taken into account. In some cases, the sportsman is prosecuted: for example this British football player who assaulted an opponent. In other cases there is either insufficient evidence, or insufficient interest in the prosecution. In many cases where the rules are broken but no serious harm is done, for example where rules are broken accidentally or in a minor way, the police or prosecution service (or equivalent) may simply regard the matter as sufficiently dealt with. This is the same as with most other cases, where not every instance of assault is necessarily prosecuted: two teenage brothers fighting may not result in a prosecution, or an assault in the street may not carry enough evidence. And to indirectly answer the question - the reason players are often not prosecuted is because "In the public interest" incorporates an element of public opinion. If a certain action has become (or always been seen as) acceptable, it is unlikely to be prosecuted. For example minor fouls in games, or accidental fouls causing injuries. The other primary reason is that the victim chooses not to press charges (although this isn't required, and the police are able to press charges themselves, it is often taken into account)
A person who uses a name similar to an existing protected trademark may have committed trademark infringement. The trademark owner can sue, and possibly collect significant damages, and possibly also get an injunction against further infringement. Note that this is not a matter of a crime, but of a lawsuit by one person or business against another. (A point of terminology: A trademark, like a copyright, is said to be &quot;infringed&quot; when someone uses it without permission in ways that the law does not allow. The word &quot;broken&quot; is not used for this.) In many countries, only marks properly registered with the appropriate national registry are protected. In the US simply using the mark can lead to its being protected, although registration can give greater rights to the mark owner. Protection in one country does not give protection in another. In general, protection only applies in the same or a similar market area as that in which the mark is already being used. An electronic game may well be similar enough to a card or board game for protection to apply. A key question is how similar a mark can be and avoid infringement. The basic test is if a reasonable person could be confused into thinking that the products were from the same maker, or were affiliated, or that the maker of the original product or service endorsed the new one. This is always something of a judgement call. If a mark is similar enough that a judge or jury might think that some reasonable consumers would be confused or mislead, then there is risk of an adverse judgement. Note that even an unfounded suit may be costly to defend. If there is any question, consulting an experienced trademark lawyer may well be a good idea. I will not express an opinion of the similarity of &quot;2oobbllee&quot; and &quot;Dobble&quot;. That would be legal advice. But if the OP were to change the name of the app, the whole matter would seem to be finished with no risk of court action. Note that the concept of a game, unlike the name, cannot be protected, neither by trademark law nor by copyright law,
Getting permission from the game owner would be a sensible approach. If you get it, great. Then you could do it with the owner's blessing. It's possible to do your write up without the owner's permission, but then you have to be much more careful. For instance, the names of games cannot be copyrighted. No one can prevent you from writing "A Guide to Bridge," or "A Guide to Chess," etc. On the other hand, some games are trademarked, in which case you will need to attach a TM (trademark) symbol when referring to them. In this case, see a lawyer. You are also allowed to discuss the game itself "in your own words," but you must be careful not to "plagiarize" anything from the rules, or the official game description. That is, while you can refer to specific aspects of a game, such as building houses and hotels, the leash on copying is fairly short, as little as five words. This does not refer to five words in a common sequence referring to a single thought like "The United States of America," but it could refer to five words in an original or unusual sequence such as "I think therefore I am," by Rene Descartes, or "X houses and Y hotels," where the numbers X and Y define the number of houses and hotels in a certain board game trademarked (I believe) by Parker Brothers.
You can license the use of your IP only for certain uses, for example (most commonly) &quot;non-commercial&quot;. The general template of permission is &quot;You have permission to ___ as long as you ___&quot;. What the user is permitted to do, in your scheme, is something along the lines of &quot;only distribute the output in this manner&quot;, or &quot;not distribute code developed with this tool anywhere else&quot;. It's up to you to prove that someone violated that condition, if they did.
I'm wondering whos responsible for this code if people start using it? The user. Can the people using it that think its under GPL in any way get in trouble for it or be made to remove it from their projects? Yes, they can be sued (successfully) for copyright violation. It’s not enough that you think you have permission from the copyright holder - you actually have to have permission. The law places the onus on the copier to seek out and get permission from the copyright holder. In theory, someone deceived in this way could sue the repo poster(s) for misrepresentation, however, there are practical issues about finding them, having them in an accessible jurisdiction and if they are judgement proof. Copyright law was created to protect physical books and paintings - it doesn’t really fit with digital methods of reproduction but it is the law. It doesn’t matter that complying with it can be hard bordering on impossible - comply with it you must.