How to avoid legal action for releasing an artwork depicting abuse or harassment? Let's say, I want to develop and release a game which depicts slavery period in America of 19 century, and my game will contain scenes of harassment and abuse of people having African roots (like executions, mortification, lashing naked in public - things we have seen depicted in movies like 12 years of slavery) How do I avoid legal action against me and will there be one? Can I be sued for having such depictions in piece of artwork I produce? Can I reject such lawsuits based on that I tried to realistically reproduce a historic period of our time?
In the United States, I would strongly expect that an accurate depiction of historical fact (even if uncomfortably graphic) would be protected under the First Ammendment. Otherwise, the government could functionally censor the worst parts of history (as being too awful to discuss or depict), which is exactly the kind of thing the First Amendment is designed to prevent. There are three important categories of speech that are not protected: (1) "fighting words" directed at a person intended to provoke a fight, (2) words that infict emotional distress such that it qualifies as a tort, and (3) speech that court finds to qualify as "obscenity". Of these three, your game probably will not qualify for the first, since it generally requires speech directed at a specific person or people. I also suspect (less confidently) that an emotional-distress tort would not succeed since your game is not directed at any particular living people. Even if the game caused emotional distress to someone, your public release of the game probably could not qualify as a tort against that specific player who happens to experience emotional distress. The Miller test is used to determine if a work is obscenity. Wikipeida summarizes its three parts, all of which must be satisfied to constitute obscenity: Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law, Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The first two are explicitly sexual in nature. I don't know if there is any similar prohibition against hyper-violence, but even if there were, as long as your game does not run afoul of the "lacks serious artistic value" condition, you will be on the safe side of the line. Note that none of this stops anyone from initiating legal action against you (which may cause headaches for you); it only stops those legal actions from succeededing.
Short answer Sorry. Everything you want to do is completely illegal. Consider the time you have invested so far a learning experience. Very little of your work will be salvageable. You need to start over pretty much from scratch with an original visual and musical pallet only vaguely inspired by the original. If you don't, you will be sued for many, many different reasons and lose. Longer answer Intellectual Property Problems There are multiple intellectual property-like problems with your plan. If you use any registered trademarks (or unregistered claimed of trademark designed with the superscript "TM" by the restaurant) you are probably looking for trouble. If the architecture or anything in the restaurant is protected by copyright or a design patent, you are looking for trouble. The restaurant can probably claim "trade dress" protections of its "look and feel" to the extent that those elements are a consistent part of the restaurant's image and is distinctive. If individuals in the game correspond to individuals in real life from whom you have not received permission, you are probably engaged in tortious violation of that person's right of publicity. If you use music used in the restaurant without permission in the game, this is probably a violation of somebody's copyright unless you obtain a license (or statutory license for covers of music copyrighted by someone else). If you are a former employee of the restaurant, there may also be contractual limitations in disclosures of elements that are considered "trade secrets". Tort Law Problems In addition to intellectual property issues, there is a good chance that if the correspondence between the real restaurant and your game is close enough, and the game displays the restaurant in a negative light (perhaps partially due to video game hyperbole) that you will be sued (quite possibly successfully) for defamation, for "injurious falsehood", or for the tort of "false light" (if that privacy tort has been adopted in a state where the game is sold). Bottom Line: You Are Screwed If You Proceed Basically, if you can't obtain permission, it is a really bad idea to proceed according to your original plan and you will be successfully sued to no end. Moreover, even if you do win a lawsuit in the end, you will go broke trying to defend it and will be hopelessly distracted for years from your main business of selling video games. Options To Make Your Video Game Legal You can either parody the original (which is quite tricky), or you can follow the advice in the comment from @schizoid04 and change things to a similar degree to what you commonly see on television or in movies where they clearly don't have the licensing rights to the real thing. If the game uses the images in connection with culinary or political criticism it could also be protected, but this video game probably would not rise to that level for intellectual property purposes. Should I simply give the restaurant a different name? Should I feature the restaurant in a different city than where it really resides? What if I mirrored all of the architecture to be backwards like how people "Mirror" copyrighted video on youtube? None of these measures (or even all of them combined) go nearly far enough to be sufficient to ward off intellectual property or defamation-type lawsuits. You need to rebuild from scratch touching on some of the general ideas or cliches for this type of business, but none of the distinctive specifics that associate this particular business with your images.
No, bare possession is not illegal under US law Nothing in Tile 17 of the US code (which is the copyright law) makes it illegal or even actionable to simply posses a single physical object (such as a game or a book) which constitutes a copyright infringement. Criminal copyright infringement is defined in 17 USC 506 and is limited to people who: Infringe for &quot;purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain&quot;; and Create infringing copies &quot;which have a total retail value of more than $1,000&quot; in a six-month period; or Infringe &quot;by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.&quot; However, in practice, the US Department of Justice only brings criminal copyright cases when infringement is carried on as a business, on a bulk or mass basis, and only when infringing copies are in fact distributed to the public. In practice the vast majority of copyright enforcement (both in the US and in other countries) is done by private suits by copyright owners or rights-holders. In the US such suits are generally to enforce the rights guaranteed in 17 USC 106. This protects six core rights (summarized): To make copies or phonorecords; To prepare derivative works; To distribute copies or phonorecords; To perform the copyrighted work publicly; To display the copyrighted work publicly; To perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. The copyright owner can do any of these or authorize other to do them. Anyone doing any of these without such permission is an infringer unless one of the exceptions or limitations in sections 107 thru 122 applies. There are also the &quot;moral rights&quot; specified in section 106A. These apply only to works of visual art in the US, and grant the artist the right to: Claim authorship of the work; Prevent the use of the person's name on any work s/he did not create; Prevent the use of the author's name on any work that has been changed so as to possibly harm the author's reputation; Prevent any &quot;intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation&quot;; and Prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature. Note that none of the six rights from sec 106 or the five moral rights from sec 106A covers possession of an infringing copy. One caution: so-called &quot;first-sale rights&quot; (from 17 USC 109) do not apply to an infringing copy, and it is infringement to knowingly sell, lend, rent or otherwise distribute an infringing copy. But the purchaser is not an infringer. Also, to play an infringing copy of a game might be a violation of the right to &quot;publicly perform&quot; the work, but not if done in private. However, in running a game it is likely that one or more temporary copies would be made. This is lawful if done from a lawful copy, but not if the person does not posses a lawfully-made copy. So playing an infringing copy of a game might well constitute an act of infringement, although a suit over a private act is unlikely.
The "Crabs" game can be legal if it is seen as a form of parody. That is one of the forms of "fair use" that allows copying (within limits). This is to allow the use of limited amounts of copying for critical or "mocking" pieces, which are considered a form of free speech. Two other issues come into play under "fair use." The first is whether or not this is "commercial" (yes) or non-commercial (e.g educational) use. That is mildly negative for "Crabs" but by no means dispositive. The second is the likely market impact, whether the new use tends to compete with the old use in its "home" market, or whether it is likely to open a new market of a very different, perhaps "opposite" audience that might later buy the original as a "crossover." The "Crabs" game seems to address the "green" or at least "pro animal" (PETA) market. If the defendant can show that the "Cards" market addresses e..g., your "inner Nazi," making it "opposite," that would be ideal. It would be less convincing if "Cards" were addressing e.g. human rights, because that might be seen to overlap with the green market in terms of social conscience.
I've found Google's filtering based on licence to not be very reliable, at least not reliable enough to trust from a practical legal perspective. Using a photo that you don't own the copyright to is a risk. You may be infringing copyright by doing so. The owner may eventually ask you to stop, or they may sue you for damages. Further, some copyright infringement is criminal 17 USC 506. In my opinion, it would be unwise to use a work commercially that you don't affirmatively know you have permission to use.
That post is probably illegal. Because she is making false assertions about you (that are presumably damaging your reputation), she is likely liable for defamation. Because she has copied a picture of you without authorization, she is likely liable for violating the copyright of whomever owns that picture. Commenters have suggested she might invoke a fair-use defense, but I would expect it to fail. The four fair-use factors are: The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Both Plaintiff and Defendant are using using the photograph to identify the holder of an account -- a Facebook account in P's case, a business account in D's. D is using the photograph in connection with a profit-making enterprise, not for educational purposes, and her use is not transformative. The nature of the copyrighted work: Photography is a creative art at the core of copyright's purposes, generally entitled to thick protection. Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068, 1074 (9th Cir. 2000) (&quot;[P]hotography entails creative expression warranting copyright protection.&quot;) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: There is no indication that D took anything less than the entire photograph. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: The question is not only whether the defendant's use affected the actual market for the protected work, but whether many people doing the same thing would depress the potential market for the work. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 590 (1994) (Courts must consider &quot;whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market.&quot;) The potential market for the image is probably very small, but widespread unauthorized copies, publicly displayed, would undoubtedly depress whatever market exists. So all four factors cut against the defendant. Fair use is a loser defense here.
It depends on the game and what you copy. Games are an utter nightmare when it comes to IP law as so many parts of them cannot be copyrighted. Game rules for example cannot be copyrighted, nor can the concept itself. Some things can be copyrighted or trademarked. You cannot use the following: Names Written elements- while the rules themselves can't be copyrighted, rulebooks can Artwork and other visual elements Miniatures designed for the game Original characters Try to avoid these and the Hasbro lawyers should leave you alone.
Your example powers are tropes and their basis in public domain The Queen of Pain's scream is modeled after the Banshee, which had a scream that would kill... and there are LOTS of variants of Banshee. In fact, &quot;Our Banshees Are Louder&quot; is a trope. Hiding in a shadow or walking through it is for example a typical feature of Ninja stories since the Edo Period, and a common Trope as &quot;Shadow walker&quot;. That makes those two powers older than You can not have a copyright on concepts, facts, or ideas. Facts are not copyrightable, which was decided LONG ago over Feist v Rural. Neither can you copyright concepts or ideas. You won't get a claim on the concept of a damaging scream or turning into shadow. See also Copyright.gov (emphasis mine): How do I protect my idea? Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work.