Re: Bioshock Remastered - GoG free

On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 11:40:14 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 14:40:04 -0000 (UTC), in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, candycanearter07 wrote:

Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 12:03 this Wednesday (GMT):

On 11/11/2024 2:40 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote at 16:54 this Sunday (GMT):

Well, I don't think Nintendo has rewritten any laws, so not yet.

well, they famously put King Kong into the public domain (trying to
defend Donkey Kong)

Isn't that a good thing?

Only accidentally.

Technically, it wasn't Nintendo that did that. They merely took
advantage of the fact and gave the public more awareness of its
status.


The fact is, the ownership rights of the character were muddled from
the start. Although the movie was made by RKO Pictures, Merin Cooper
-the creator of the character- claimed he had rights to the IP based
on an agreement not to take a salary while co-directing the film. But
Cooper never did much with the property, while RKO was fairly ruthless
in licensing it. Things got more confused in 1976, when DeLaurentis
licensed the rights from RKO, while Universal objected that _they_ had
exclusive rights to the character due to a verbal agreement with RKO.
And all this happened just as the 1933 copyright was due to expire. It
was finally adjudicated that while the rights originally _had_ laid
with Cooper (and that RKO owed him oodles of money for illegally
exploiting it), a failure to renew the copyright meant that the
character was finally in the public domain.

Following the 1976 decision, the Cooper family had sold the rights to
Universal.  Thus, in the 80s, Universal thought themselves on firm
footing when they sued Nintendo over the King Kong/Donkey Kong issue,
claiming trademark (not copyright) infringement. But it was quickly
pointed out by Nintendo's lawyers that the character had been deemed
into public domain, and that the rights were such a scattered mess
anyway that Universal's trademark claim was unsustainable.


The end result is that the CHARACTER of King Kong is in the public
domain. The various MOVIES remain copyright of the individual
publishers. Certain INTERPRETATIONS of the character (for instance,
the axe-wielding kaiju of the recent 'Monster-verse' films... released
by Universal) are also owned by their respective creators. Ownership
of the NAME is a bit murkier; it's probably public-domain but could
get you into trouble.


But if you want to make a new story about a giant ape from some
isolated Pacific island who falls in love with a girl, goes to the big
city, and has adventures therein... well, knock yourself out. It's
open season on big monkeys.


TL;DR: Nintendo didn't get King Kong put into the public domain. They
just took advantage of the fact to defend themselves after Universal
sued them for trademark infringement.