Is it allowed to &quot;copy&quot; a video game concept? I am developing a little mobile MMORPG which is Google Maps based and uses your GPS position to make you play around your area. I came up with the idea after a famous and beloved game called "Parallel Kingdom" shut down their servers two years ago. It was a game with a huge playerbase and they had basically exact the same game concept. You played on the Google Map, could fight different monsters, meet other players, level up your equipment and co. So basically I am using the same idea, and many of my content is based on "Parallel Kingdoms". Now I asked my self: am I allowed to do that? To use the exact game concept? I researched a bit and found following on their website: 7. Content Ownership All of the content on PK including, without limitation text, graphics, maps, user interfaces, visual interfaces, photographs, moving images, illustrations, files, trademarks, logos, service marks, sounds, music, artwork and computer code, design, structure, selection, coordination, "look and feel" and arrangement of such content ("Content"), is owned by PerBlue, its licensors, vendors, agents or content providers. All elements of PK including, without limitation the general design and the Content, are protected by copyright, trademark, trade dress, moral rights or other intellectual property regimes. PK may only be used for the intended purpose for which PK is being made available. Except as may be expressly set forth herein, You hereby agree not to modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from any Content. Except as may be expressly set forth herein, the Terms of Use only allow You to display, view, play, print, and download Content for Your own personal, informational, and noncommercial purposes. PK and the Content will remain the exclusive property of PerBlue or its licensors, vendors, agents or content providers unless otherwise expressly agreed. You will remove no copyright, trademark, or other proprietary notices from material found on PK. Followed by the following: Digital Millennium Copyright Act PerBlue respects the intellectual property of others and requires that You do the same. In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), the text of which may be found on the U.S. Copyright Office site at http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf, We will respond expeditiously to notices of alleged copyright infringement that are duly reported to Our Designated Copyright Agent identified in the notice below. We will disable and/or terminate the accounts of Users who are repeat infringers. If You believe Your content has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, or Your intellectual property rights have been otherwise violated, please provide Our designated Copyright Agent the following information: A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed; Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site; Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material; Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact You, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address; A statement that You have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that You are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. PerBlue's designated Copyright Agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement is: Justin Beck legal@parallelkingdom.com or mail to PO Box 1861 Madison, WI 53701. You acknowledge that if You fail to comply with all of the requirements of this Section, Your DMCA notice may not be valid. We may give notice to Our Users of any infringement notice by means of a general notice on any of Our Websites, electronic mail to a User's e-mail address in Our records, or by written communication sent by first-class mail to a User's physical address in Our records. If You believe that Your User Submission that was removed (or to which access was disabled) is not infringing, or that You have the authorization from the copyright owner, the copyright owner's agent, or pursuant to the law, to post and use the content in Your User Submission, You may send a counter-notice containing the following information to the Copyright Agent: Your physical or electronic signature; Identification of the content that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the content appeared before it was removed or disabled; A statement that You have a good faith belief that the content was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or a misidentification of the content; and Your name, physical address and telephone number, and a statement that You consent to the jurisdiction of a Federal District Court for the judicial district in which Your physical address is located, or if Your physical address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which We may be found, and that You will accept service of process from the person who provided notification of allegedly infringing material or an agent of such person. Modification of the Content or use of the Content for any purpose other than specified in the Terms of Use is a violation of PerBlue's legal rights. For purposes of these Terms of Use, the use of Content on any other website or networked computer environment is prohibited unless explicitly stated otherwise. So what am I allowed to do and what now? Is it ok to copy the game concept and even with mostly similar content like "fighting", "building houses" etc.? I'm completly unsure about this because my simple English skills don't really understand that law slang. I should also mention that pretty much my whole user interface is based on the user interface from "Parallel Kingdoms". I didn't use any of their assets or code. I just use the same structure, as you can see in the pictures below. Heres the original menu from "Parallel Kingdom": Here's what I created for my game:
Is it ok to copy the game concept and even with mostly similar content like "fighting", "building houses" etc ? Yes, but ... I should also mention that pretty much my whole User Interface is based on the User Interface from "Parallel Kingdoms" Is copyright violation. Ideas are not protected by IP law. The tangible representation of those ideas (art, words, layout, format etc.) is protected.
Generally speaking, it is illegal for you to do this. Copyright gives the creator of the image the exclusive right to copy it, and just making copies to send to other people is probably not going to be fair use. Making copies without a license from the copyright holder would therefore be copyright infringement. Are there likely to be any consequences for doing this? Probably not.
Disclaimer: I'm from the US and don't claim to know German or Turkish law. So let me discuss some general principles here, but details may well be different in Germany and Turkey. You're mixing together three very different things: trademark, copyright, and patent. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, in this case, the exact computer code, images, etc. If you didn't copy his code, the chance that you would coincidentally write identical code is remote. The fact that you both have a line of code that says x=x+1 wouldn't give him any grounds for a lawsuit. He'd have to show substantial portions of the code were identical. If you didn't deliberately copy his code, this isn't going to happen. Barring some extraordinary and unbelievable coincidence, you can't violate copyright accidentally. Trademark protects names and symbols used to identify a company or a product. If you decided to call your software company "Microsoft", then that other Microsoft could sue you for trademark infringement. Likewise if you copied somebody else's logo or other distinctive graphics. This is very different from copyright. It is quite possible to violate someone's trademark accidentally. Especially if he gave his company or product a rather generic name. Like if someone called his product, say, "Password Manager", someone else might make a product with the same name without ever having heard of the original. Ditto if he has some simple logo or other graphics. If you did accidentally duplicate a name or graphic elements, well, in the US a court would likely order you to change your name or graphics and that would be the end of it, unless you refused, in which case you'd end up in court. US Courts have ruled that very generic names have limited trademark protection. An example I saw recently was "Main Street Auto Repair". A court said that the owner of that name could prevent someone else from opening a shop in the same town with the same name, but he couldn't sue someone in another town who happened to use the same name. This is why, by the way, companies often use made-up words for their product names. In your case, this should be a trivial issue. If he is claiming trademark to the look of the main menu screen, just change the colors or move some buttons around. If it actually went to court, you should be able to argue that the similarity was accidental and when you were informed you promptly changed it, and that should be the end of it. Depending, I guess, on how hard-nosed the judge is, etc. Patents are different still. A patent gives the owner the exclusive right to use an invention or process for a specified period of time. It doesn't matter if you invented the same thing entirely independently. Whoever filed the patent first has exclusive rights. There have been cases where an inventor lost out to someone with a similar invention because he submitted his patent application one day later. If this other person has patents that you are infringing, you are pretty much out of luck.
It's hard to say, under the Twitter TOS. They do not claim that copyright is transferred to them: &quot;You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your photos and videos are part of the Content)&quot;. But you do license the content: By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use. Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals, may be made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services. The totality of conditions, including the Twitter Rules, is ever-evolving and not apparently contained in a single link. From what I can tell, there is no condition that prohibits a user from copying tweets into a book. There are numerous statements about &quot;respecting copyright&quot; which refer to taking material that is not licensed to Twitter and redistributing: nothing about redistributing licensed material.A plain reading of the first bold sentence says that you can make your content available to the world, not restricted to &quot;retweeting&quot;.
Here's where you went wrong legally: Suppose I legally obtain some digital image created by somebody else (e.g., by downloading from a public website). That, right there, is copyright infringement- unless the copyright owner has granted permission or the image is public domain you cannot copy it - this breaches "the right to make reproductions". By posting it on the web (assuming that it isn't itself an infringing copy) they have given implied permission for you to look at it in a web browser but not to copy it into a presentation even if that presentation is never presented. If it is presented then that makes the infringement worse - it adds breaches of "the right to communicate to the public" and "the right to use the work as a basis for an audiovisual work". How is this different from the computer wallpaper? It isn't. If you are using the one of the defaults that shipped with the OS then the license gives you permission. If you are using someone else's copyright without permission then it's a breach. There are defenses to copyright infringement but these are quite nationally variable - search this or other sites for "fair dealing" and "fair use".
It's complicated You still own your own posts First off, you own everything that you originally created. Posting it on Stack Exchange doesn't affect your rights to your own content. Incorporating suggestions If you copy any of the text from posts that were created by others, you must comply with the CC BY-SA license. The exact version will depend on when the content was posted, and can be viewed by clicking the &quot;Share&quot; link or viewing the post's timeline via the clock icon on the left. Currently, new posts are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, which requires you to (basically) provide attribution with the creator's name, a link back to the content, and an indication of whether changes were made. A more detailed description of the exact requirements is here. You would also be required to license the work that you incorporated it into under the same license. However, game mechanics aren't copyrightable. If you merely used mechanics suggested in the posts without actually using the actual creative expression (for instance, names or description text) from the posts, you would not be required to provide any attribution or use any particular license, because you didn't use any copyrightable material from the post. A thank-you would still be nice All that said, it's still a nice thing to do to provide some sort of informal thanks to those who provided valuable assistance, even when you're not legally required to do so.
Intellectual property law varies considerably by jurisdiction, and doesn't just involve copyright, but also trademarks, and patents. The first problem you are going to run into is that "Risko!" is probably protected as a commercial trademark rather than copyright. In the US at least, making minor changes to a trademark generally doesn't get you off the hook for unlicensed use. The owner of the "Risko!" trademark could bring suit against you for trademark infringement and it would be up to a judge or possibly a jury to decide whether "Risko" is different enough from "Risko!" that confusion would be unlikely. If they won the suit they could collect damages and their legal costs. There was a protracted and important trademark lawsuit in the US over the names "Monopoly" and "Anti-Monopoly" for board games. An economist, Ralph Anspach, had introduced a game he called "Anti-monopoly". He was sued by the Parker Brothers company for infringing on their trademark for "Monopoly". After 10 years the US Supreme Court ruled in Anspach's favor, finding that "Monopoly" had become a generic term for a type of board game and was no longer a valid trademark. You can't necessarily count on being "small potatoes" so that they'll simply ignore your possible infringement. In US law, failure to enforce their trademark rights can lead to the loss of trademark rights and remedies, so companies are less likely to let minor infringements slide. The situation in Italy may be different. Your artwork and graphical components are another potential problem. Those probably are covered by copyright. Again, the holder of the copyright for the "Risko!" artwork could sue you for violating their copyright on the artwork. A judge or jury would then evaluate whether your artwork was "derivative" of the "Risko!" artwork. If the court finds that your artwork is derivative, you might have to pay damages and legal costs. There are actually a ton of Risk inspired games already available online, but they seem to stay away from names that sounds anything like "Risk" and anything that looks like the Risk artwork.
We cannot and will not try to answer &quot;what should i do?&quot; questions here. Nothing in the linked page makes me think that the views expressed in the previous question here are any less correct. They certainly have not changed the law on copyright. The linked page is an open forum. Many of the posts o9n that thread express ill-informed and incorrect views of how copyright works, and what it protects. Several google searchs find no trace of the suit described in the thread. Note that in US law no copyright claim may be heard in a small claims court, except for the federal copyright office's small claims tribunal. I am not sure if the same is true in Canada, but it might be that the suit was simply dismissed on such a basis. In any case small claims cases do not establish legal precedents in Canada or the US. Of course it is true that anyone can sue over almost anything, even when there is no valid legal basis for the suit. If the suit had been won by the claimant, or even settled that would be larger grounds for worry. A person seriously worried over publishing a book such as that described in the question might do well to consult a lawyer with relevant expertise. A single consultation plus an opinion letter might not cost very much. But 17 USC 102 (b) is very clear that copyright never protects facts, as are the copyright laws of other countries. Note that reports of the events of sports matches are not protected by copyright, although expressive language and analysis may be. 17 USC 102 (b) reads: (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. Article 2 paragraph (8) of the Berne Copyright Convention provides that: (8) The protection of this Convention shall not apply to news of the day or to miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information. There seems little room for copyright protection of the moves of chess games.