Are invented names protected by copyright? When an author invents a new term such as Mithril or Orc in Lord of The Rings or Redstone in Minecraft, are there restrictions on the use of those terms? If I write my own book or create a video game would it be an infringement to use Mithril or Redstone as a fictitious item? If so what are those limitations? If my redstone was actually a blue liquid that explodes instead of a red powder that conducts electricity would that be different?
Words cannot be copyrighted. Copyright law does not protect names, titles, or short phrases or expressions. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright. The only intellectual property protection that might be afforded to such things is trademark.
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.
The question as worded implies that if something is a parody it is automatically fair use or allowed in US copyright law. This is a myth. First of all, in a copyright context, the term "parody" is somewhat limited. In that sense, a "parody" is a new work which comments on the original (often but not always by mocking or ridiculing the original). A mere alternate version which modifies the form of the original, perhaps humorously, but not to comment on the original or perhaps on much of anything, is not a parody. A new work which modifies the original to comment on something else, but not on the original, is a satire. Of course many works may be both parodies and satires in this sense. See this law.se Q&amp;A for extensive quotes from Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co 268 F.3d 1257 (The case of The Wind Done Gone vs Gone with the Wind) and discussion of what is and is not a parody in US copyright law, and when a parody is fair use. A parody, because it comments on the original, will often be found to be a fair use of the original. But not always. The full four-factor analysis must still be done, and the results are never certain until a court has passed on the specific case. See this law.se Q&amp;A for more on fair use. I can't tell from the question whether the modified song is truly a parody in the sense used in copyright law. If not, it probably isn't fair use, although it might be for other reasons. By the way, a song written for a television show or video to be distributed commercially is a commercial use, even if a non-profit corporation is involved, and even if there is an educational purpose. Note that fair-use is a strictly US legal concept. Even if something is fair use under US law, it may be copyright infringement under the laws of some other country.
Yes. Being a sequel or using the other assets, in either case, you are making a derivative work. Without a license, you infringe on the right holder's exclusive right to make or license derivative works: A sequel is usually a classic case of &quot;how the story unfolds further&quot;. See Anderson v. Stallone, where the author of an unlicensed sequel script was struck down. A modification of the original game - aka Mod - uses the assets or parts of them. Modding is often contentious, sometimes it is encouraged. Usually, when you install a game, you agree to a EULA that dictates what you can or can't do - so there is the real possibility you violate a contract if you step out of that contract. Some game smithies are modder-friendly and encourage it, as a mod community keeps a game relevant longer. Bethesda for example hands out a modification package for Skyrim and other titles, but it also provides a separate EULA what you can and can't do with these modification-tools. Many games however don't provide a modding pack and have a EULA that explicitly bans users from making modifications or derivative works. As a result, there have been cases against modders, and there are a lot of C&amp;D letters sent out to modders that use assets of games. So there is a high chance that litigation for violation of the contract or copyright infringement can be started. A rather high-profile case that ended somewhat recently was the &quot;Red Dead Redemption Visual Enhancement Mod&quot;. Take-Two sent a modder a C&amp;D, filed suit, and then the parties had arbitration. The arbitration result contains a clause that forbids the author of the mod to ever create any derivative work (aka: mod) for a Take-Two or Rockstar game again. The C&amp;D (as well as the case and leverage in arbitration) hinged on a violation of the Rockstar EULA License Condition i, which bans any modifications wholesale: You agree not to, and not to provide guidance or instruction to any other individual or entity on how to: i [...] display, perform, prepare derivative works based on, or otherwise modify the Software, in whole or in part;)
Plagiarism is an academic concept, not a legal one. The issue you are concerned about is copyright infringement. A work based off of another copyrighted work is a derivative work. This requires permission of the copyright holder. Simply listing your source and saying &quot;no crime intended&quot; does not help. However, recipes are generally not copyrightable (at least in the UK/US). This is because they are a list of ingredients and instructions which is not sufficient for a creative work. The presentation of the recipe can be copyrighted, as can any descriptive text surrounding it. If you're just taking the actual recipe, making a better recipe from it, and presenting that recipe in a better way, you should be fine.
In my opinion, you are totally free to publish the information. There are two areas of law that can be cosidered - private and public law. In the private law area, you can be liable for revealing trade secrets, but only if you agreed to keep them by a contract. Trade secrets do not exist by themselves (there are minor exceptions, eg. in competition law, but those do not concern us), they must be protected by contracts. Another private limitations, like libel laws, won't apply here. This is not uncommon, but not in cars - you can find clauses like these in software license agreements. Then there is the public area. Is there any regulation, any policy of the state, that prevents you from publishing it? I am not aware you whole legal code of your state, but I doubt there is. It would be a harsh limitation of freedom of speech. Even if the modification could lead to illegal effect (like, modifying toy weapon to kill by rising its power...) it would be only illegal under very rare circumstances. To conclude it - freedom of speech can be limited only if there is sufficient public interest to do so, and I don't see any.
The reason is 17 USC 106: the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following... (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work The original picture is the underlying protected work. The ASCII reproduction is a derivative work. If you get permission to make the derivative work, it is okay. Otherwise, it is copyright infringement. There is an escape clause, "fair use", which amounts to taking a chance that you won't be sued and then arguing that you didn't do them any prohibited harm. If you make any money off of the game, you have a major strike against you. I suggest reading the fair use FAQ; basically, it is really hard to know how a fair use defense will fare, but based on prior cases, I'd say it's infringement, not fair use.
You can, and many authors and other creators of fiction do, use the names of real newspapers, real brands and products, and real people without obtaining permission from anyone. As long as those names are not being used to market or identify goods or services, the use cannot be trademark infringement. There idea that you cannot &quot;defame the brans&quot; is in fact much narrower than many people think, and than it used to be. Particularly in the united-states free speech rights often supersede protections against so-called trademark &quot;defamation&quot;. In the US all of the examples in the answer by Jack Edwards would be clearly legal, an they probably would be in many other countries as well, if they appeared in a work that was clearly fictional. If a work mof fiction uses the name of a real person, and other identifying details that make it clear just which real person is being mentioned, and if statements that seem to be statements of fact, not opinion are made about that person, and if those statements are false and negative, and if a hypothetical reasonable person would believe that those statements are about the real person, not a fictional person, thereby harming that person's reputation, then if all that is true, the person might have a valid claim of defamation.