KickStarter Free Stars: Children of Infinity - upcoming Star Control 2 sequel from original creator Fred Ford

[Zarniwoop]

Yes, there are boundaries here that are unclear. For example, I believe Wardell has said he can't use the original games' ships. But apparently he can use their alien races (just with different art?)

Is it possible that he looked at who did what in the original games and decided he could use anything that can't be proven to have been personally created by Paul Reiche and Fred Ford?

Did you pay to use that avatar, mister? The Melnorme Captain is a registered trademark of Some Windows Re-skinning Company, Inc.. We paid some other douchenozzles that never cared about it, for the IP. We own the eye, the background colour and the square. But the body is OK. You can use the body. The teeth are a grey area at the moment.

Replace it at once or our attorneys, Shekelberg, Goldstein and Associates, will be in touch.

 

[Strange Fellow]

Frankly, I can't get over how dumb this is. Either Paul and Fred do have the copyright, which would go a long way to clear the legal waters, but they’re refusing to prove it, even to Stardock's lawyers. That would make them complete idiots.

The other option is that they don't have jack shit, and they've decided to stir up this shitstorm on the basis of absolutely nothing, in which case a successful crowdfunding campaign would be the worst that could ever happen to them. That would make them utter morons.

Which is better and why?

 

[MRY]

It's not some big mystery. All the relevant contracts, and Reiche and Ford's position regarding them, are attached to their answer and counterclaim:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385448-N-D-Cal-4-17-Cv-07025-SBA-16-0.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html

They're not especially long, they're fascinating (particularly to see how tiny the budget for Star Control II was), and anyone seriously interested in this thread should take the time to read them. Having no desire to weigh in on the merits of the case, I won't opine as to the strength of the arguments, but it's not like they haven't explained their basis for asserting ownership.

 

[T. Reich]

Guise, read the whole exchange between the devs again.

Stardock's claim:
1) They own the SC-related trademarks, because they bought them fair and square. They offered to resell it to FF&PRIII at cost, the latter refused the offer. Stardock decided to make use of it for their own game, FF&PRIII did not object to that... for a while, untile they decided to make their own game.
2) They own the SC3 copyrighted content.
2) They also hold the license to use copyrighted SC 1+2 content. Which means they do not own the copyrighted content (and had never claimed to), but they do have the legal right to use the licensed SC copyrighted content, albeit at rather steep % royalty rates. Out of economical considerations + out of respect to the original makers, Stardock refrained from using the licensed SC-related content in their new game. Also, FF&PRIII repeatedly declined Stardock said permission to use that content, and Wardell complied out of respect for them, not because FF&PRIII demonstrated they had the legal right to deny such usage (they haven't btw).

FF&PRIII's claim:
1) They own the copyright to SC content. No proof had been presented so far.
2) They claim that the license to use the SC copyrighted content that Stardock possesses has expired and no longer valid. No proof of expiration of said license has been presented so far. Do not that at no point the existence of such license has been disputed.

My understanding is that Wardell & Stardock have been carefully tiptoeing around the copyrighted content issue up until the end of 2017, out of respect to FF&PRIII, and also because the state of SC copyright is in a rather grey zone at the time (FF&PRIII are assumed owners, but no proof existing
Holding the TM rights to SC, Stardock exercised their power to use it and had been developing a game with SC(tm) in its name since 2013. Insertion of copyrighted SC content had been avoided.
At the end of 2017, FF&PRIII announced their own SC(tm) game. Red Alert, they do not own TM to SC, they can't do that shit.
Stardock reacts, first with confusion, then with warnings. FF&PRIII reacts to that with lawsuits and public attacks on Stardock and Wardell personally.

Up to this point, I'm looking at FF&PRIII and thinking: "Wow, such cunts".

Now, Stardock currently releasing dev snippets with SC1+2 copyrighted content is certainly a new development. However, legally they are in the right to do so, because, DUH, they hold the license to use that!
Now, it's probably a matter of legal debate whether that license is still active, but it sure as hell not up to forum monkeys to decide. That's the legal attorneys' business.

FF&PRIII's "suestarter" campaign at this point looks like a rather poorly thought through PR stunt, and nothing good for them will come out of it, that's for sure. Maybe they're banking on the scorched earth approach, and the whole point of that potential lawsuit is pure denial tactics, not to make right.

 

[Zombra]

Yes, there are boundaries here that are unclear. For example, I believe Wardell has said he can't use the original games' ships. But apparently he can use their alien races (just with different art?)

I'm guessing that the Arilou thing is another example of Brad "aggressively exercising" "his" "rights" - that Arilou didn't appear by accident. Unless R&F successfully sue now (and it looks like they don't have much of a case), statute of limitations will mean in 6 years Stardock can use the old races, because they were never properly contested, something like this.

 

[MRY]

FF&PRIII's claim:
1) They own the copyright to SC content. No proof had been presented so far.
2) They claim that the license to use the SC copyrighted content that Stardock possesses has expired and no longer valid. No proof of expiration of said license has been presented so far.

They attached exhibits to the complaint, and explained their theory of expiration (not-payment of a requirement minimum quarterly amount) in that complaint as well.

There are endless aspects of this affair that are annoying and lame, but I don't think it's helpful to smear one side or the other with inaccurate information.

 

[Strange Fellow]

One point of contention seems to be whether or not the copyrights of the franchise reverted back to the creators when Atari went bankrupt, in which case the acquisition of the rights by Stardock would be illegitimate(?)
Anyway, this has drifted way into "I'm not a lawyer, but..." territory, which I have no business being in. I thought the ownership of copyright and trademark was clear, but when ownership claims are muddy that's where they lose me.

 

[Infinitron]

The point is that the copyrights were never with Atari or anybody else. The games belonged to P&F the entire time, it's how they were able to release the source code to the public back in 2002.

http://sc2.sourceforge.net/

 

[Strange Fellow]

The games have belonged to P&F the entire time, it's how they were able to release the source code to the public back in 2002.

From MRY's doc:
"Defendants admit that pursuant to the 1988 Agreement and addenda, Reiche granted to Accolade an exclusive license to certain rights to Star Control, Star Control II, and Reiche’s Preexisting Characters in exchange for the payment of royalties to Reiche. Defendants deny that such license continued after April 1, 2001 when it expired or terminated and all such rights reverted back to Reiche."
I meant Accolade, not Atari. I have no idea whether the above would prevent Reich from releasing the source code while the publisher was still alive.

 

[Dexter]

The point is that the copyrights were never with Atari or anybody else. The games belonged to P&F the entire time, it's how they were able to release the source code to the public back in 2002.

This is also a point of contention that they haven't provided any legal proof for since they weren't the sole authors of said game. Note that Brad & Stardock say they also own the Copyrights to Star Control III, on which the two haven't even worked on, which the two don't contest although they claim they own the Copyrights for any "Derivative Works". I'm not sure inhowfar the races, ships or anything else appeared in that game. Along with the rights to distribute the classic games, which they have removed from Steam/GOG so it doesn't confuse the legal issue, since that's not their main claim or pressing concern (but releasing their own "Star Control" game they've worked on for over 4 years in 2 months is).

The main point of contention seems to be that the license for them to use content from Star Control I+II from 1988 supposedly ran out/expired because they haven't gotten royalty payments from ATARI every year in excess of $1000 between the time the games stopped selling in Retail (2001?) and they started selling them on GOG again (2010?), while Stardock claims that they have continously gotten royalty payments from that point onwards from both ATARI and them and are just bringing it up now (in the year of our lord 2017) after they've sunk millions into the development and marketing of their own "Star Control" product they were aware of since 2013. As noted they've also tip-toed around the issue by generally avoiding using characters and races from said games in the first place. It's on a court to decide where all of these rights begin, end and intersect and whose legal argument is more plausible if they can't come to an agreement between them.

 

[MRY]

This is also a point of contention that they haven't provided any legal proof for since they weren't the sole authors of said game.

"Game (c) Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III" on the back of both boxes:

Spoiler

The contracts with Accolade, attached to their pleading, sets forth that copyright as well. And they've posted their design journals showing the development of the game's visuals, aliens, etc. What kind of crazy decades-long conspiracy would be necessary to trick the world into thinking they had the copyrights just so that some day they could spoil the current game?

As frustrating as I find the Kickstopper and as skeptical as I am about Ghosts of the Precursors, as tricky as the issues involving what rights were licensed and assigned to whom and on what terms may be, that doesn't justify historical revisionism as to one of the greatest games of all time created by two brilliant early game developers. They didn't make the game by themselves, of course,* but they absolutely were the soul of the game, as everyone acknowledged until this stupidity began. Actions have consequences, but those shouldn't be of the Soviet damnatio memoriae sort.

(* Nor have they ever suggested otherwise, as far as I know. If anything, the "Appendix N" equivalent in the manual is a generous example of acknowledging the giants whose shoulders one is standing on.)

Brad & Stardock say they also own the Copyrights to Star Control III, on which the two haven't even worked on, which the two don't contend although they claim they own the Copyrights of "Derivative works". I'm not sure inhowfar the races, ships or anything else appeared in that game.

Again, it's laid out in their pleadings: the theory is that they licensed the derivative work rights under terms that expired. I don't think they own the copyrights to the new content in Star Control III, but who would want it...? (The work as a whole would be a mix of TFB and Accolade-successor rights, I would think.)

None of that says who should win; but as the Bard wrote, "Whoever wins ... we lose." (Moreover, I find it distasteful when a child suddenly claims exclusive right to his unused toy solely because another kid is playing with it, and the behavior is even more distasteful in adults.) Regardless, many of the questions you're raising have answers that have already been publicly given.

 

[Dexter]

"Game (c) Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III" on the back of both boxes:

Spoiler

The contracts with Accolade, attached to their pleading, sets forth that copyright as well. And they've posted their design journals showing the development of the game's visuals, aliens, etc. What kind of crazy decades-long conspiracy would be necessary to trick the world into thinking they had the copyrights just so that some day they could spoil the current game?

Argument as to this presented by both sides:

Q: Why does Stardock claim that Paul and Fred were not the creators of Star Control?

A: Paul and Fred were the designers of Star Control I and II. In the credits, on the box and elsewhere they had previously officially listed themselves as either developers or designers. While Stardock has no objection to “creators” in the casual sense, legally, and when trying to promote a product in commerce, they are not. Most of the Copyrighted material people think of as being important to Star Control was created and owned by others.

For 25 years, Designer was their official designation.

It is Stardock's opinion that they have begun to focus on referring to themselves as "creators" in their marketing in order to give the impression that Ghosts of the Precursors would have the the same creative core as Star Control II. This is not the case.

What most people do not realize is Star Control II had, in essence, the dream Sci-Fi team as mentioned in this 25th anniversary tribute. The lead animator went on to lead the animation at Pixar and is the director of the Minions movies. Many of the alien designs were created by the artist who went on to design Darth Maul and other Star Wars and Marvel movie characters. Many of the most quoted lines came from seasoned Sci-Fi writers. The engaging music was created by others.

We respect Paul and Fred’s crucial contributions as well as the rest of the talented team who worked on Star Control.

But as stated before, this is more of an "academic" argument, since so far they haven't explicitly made use of any of the characters and aliens in Star Control II, which would presumably fall under the two's Copyright and potential License agreement.

 

[Strange Fellow]

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that they deserve most of the credit for the two Star Controls. At least I hope not. Sadly, devs not getting due credit re: ownership of their creations isn't uncommon. Evil publishers! and whatnot, we all know the story.

But as stated before, this is more of an "academic" argument, since so far they haven't explicitly made use of any of the characters and aliens in Star Control II, which would presumably fall under the two's Copyright and potential License agreement

But that's exactly what they did, unless you don't consider using that Arilou in promotional material to qualify.

 

[Zarniwoop]

This is also a point of contention that they haven't provided any legal proof for since they weren't the sole authors of said game. Note that Brad & Stardock say they also own the Copyrights to Star Control III, on which the two haven't even worked on, which the two don't contest although they claim they own the Copyrights for any "Derivative Works". I'm not sure inhowfar the races, ships or anything else appeared in that game. Along with the rights to distribute the classic games, which they have removed from Steam/GOG so it doesn't confuse the legal issue, since that's not their main claim or pressing issue (but releasing their own "Star Control" game they've worked on for over 4 years in 2 months is).

The main point of contention seems to be that the license for them to use content from Star Control I+II from 1988 supposedly ran out/expired because they haven't gotten royalty payments from ATARI every year in excess of $1000 between the time the games stopped selling in Retail and they started selling them on GOG again (don't know when that was exactly, 2010?), while Stardock claims that they have continously gotten royalty payments from that point onwards from both ATARI and them and are just bringing it up now (in the year of our lord 2017) after they've sunk millions into the development and marketing of their own "Star Control" product. As noted they've also tip-toed around the issue by generally avoiding using characters and races from said games in the first place. It's on a court to decide where all of these rights begin, end and intersect and whose legal argument is more plausible if they can't come to an agreement between them.

So Stardock can only use the races that are new to SC3?

So they are down to literally the dumbest group of aliens ever created, the Hegemonic Crux (of retards). Basically the Jar Jar Binkses.

 

[Dexter]

But that's exactly what they did, unless you don't consider using that Arilou in promotional material to qualify.

1. They claim they own the Copyrights to Star Control 3, as well as the Trademarks for the entire franchise
2. They didn't use the likeness of the old games:

As per Stardock/Wardell again:

Q: Why did Stardock really need to trademark the Star Control 2 alien names?

A: Star Control fans expect new Star Control games to have the Spathi, Ur-Quan, Orz, etc. We originally chose not to include them in Star Control: Origins in deference to Paul and Fred who asked us not to.

However, in December 2017, Paul and Fred posted:

This creates confusion because Stardock alone owns the Star Control universe. That doesn’t mean it owns any lore or stories created by others. It just means that Stardock has the right to determine what is canon in the Star Control universe.

The Star Control aliens are associated with Star Control. That doesn’t mean Stardock can use expressions and stories of those aliens without permission. But it does mean Stardock has the right to create its own stories and expressions for the Ur-Quan, Spathi, etc.

When Paul and Fred were contracted to develop Star Control I and Star Control II for Accolade, they were allowed to keep certain copyrights to the works they created. But all trademarks were explicitly defined as being owned by Accolade.

Incidentally, their name was put into a diagram because they literally announced their game as a sequel to Star Control II. They associated their new game with Star Control, not the other way around.

Stardock paid over $300,000 for the Star acontrol IP which included the trademark and copyright to Star a Control 3. The Star Control brand is, in our view, far more valuable than any copyrighted material within a 25 year old DOS game. Source code and alien art. Nothing else, as far as we can discern, falls under copyright protection. You can’t copyright “lore” or timelines, or alien names, or game designs or UI.

Thus, all we would gain would be the ability to have Ur-Quan that look just like the old Ur-Quan and space ships that look like the classic space ships. The greater value would be to make sure this kind of dispute didn’t happen again. But that valzue would still not overcome the damage they’ve caused in the market place due to the confusion on who owns Star Control and the ill will due to their PR company issuing false and misleading press releases and publicizing the dispute in a way to maximize ill will.

 

[MRY]

Most of the Copyrighted material people think of as being important to Star Control was created and owned by others.

I will leave it to each man to decide for himself what is "important to Star Control," but it is a nigh certainty that the pixel art and MODs and so forth that others were hired to make for Star Control I and II were made pursuant to work-for-hire or rights-assignment agreements, as is standard in every collective project, and as is warranted in Section 9.2 the 1988 agreement. And, again, the 1998 agreement defines TFB's intellectual property as "the copyright and other intellectual property rights (excluding trademarks) in and to (a) Star Control I for PC, Amiga and Sega, (b) Star Control for PC and 3DO, (c) any accompanying documentation, and (d) the Star Control II cluebook" as well as "proprietary rights in and to any source code, names (of starships and alien races), characters, plot lines, setting, terminology unique to the Star Control products, and music in and to (a) - (d) above."

Again, unless there was a decades long deception being practiced, this was never under any dispute.

For 25 years, Designer was their official designation.

It is Stardock's opinion that they have begun to focus on referring to themselves as "creators" in their marketing in order to give the impression that Ghosts of the Precursors would have the the same creative core as Star Control II.

But that's not true. While "designer" was a more capacious term back then, and was how they were credited on the box, the manual credits them with a host of roles and acknowledges them as the copyright holders for the game:

Programming Fred Ford
Game Design and Fiction Paul Reiche III
Additional Design Greg Johnson, Fred Ford, Robert Leyland and Greg Hammond
Art George Barr, Paul Reiche III, Erol Otus, Kyle Balda, Greg Johnson, and Armand Cabrera
Sound Effects Paul Reiche III, Erol Otus, Fred Ford
Music Riku Nuottajarvi, Dan Nicholson, Marc
Brown, Aaron Grier, Eric Berge, Kevin Palivec, Erol Otus and Tommy Dunbar
Producer Pam Levins
Assistant Producer Robert Daly
Testing Tomi Quintana and Joel Dinolt
Manual Paula Polley, Paul Reiche III and Dick Moran
Manual Illustrations Jeff Rianda and George Barr
Online Manual Adaptation W.D. Robinson
Manual Updates Harvey Bush, David Foster, Daniel Grove,
Josh Huynh, Ray Massa, W.D. Robinson, Bobby Tait

What Stardock is trading on is that back then a two-man team might call itself a designer and programmer -- for instance, here's this endearing post from PRIII in 1992 ("My name is Paul Reiche, and I am the designer of Star Control and the
yet-to-be-released 'Star Control II - The Ur-Quan Masters'. ... Fred Ford and I (Fred's the programmer) have worked hard to make this product fun, beautiful, and technically ground-breaking...") -- because there wasn't the same need for a catch-all "creator" shorthand.

But it's simply false that they didn't call themselves "creators" until Stardock got the rights, as a simple Google search confirms. For instance, here's a 1998 press release from Unholy War:

From the creators of "Star Control" I & II and the co-designer of "Archon," "The Unholy War" pits players against each other, or the fearsome AI, in a battle for dominion of the planet Xsarra. "The Unholy War" has a suggested retail price of $49.99 and includes an interactive demo of "Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver."

And of course, other people routinely called them Star Control's creators. For instance, here's the foremost Star Control fan page's FAQ, using that term repeatedly: https://star-control.com/faq.php

But as stated before, this is more of an "academic" argument, since so far they haven't explicitly made use of any of the characters and aliens in Star Control II, which would presumably fall under the two's Copyright and potential License agreement.

Well, as a fan of the games and as a game developer, it's not academic to me whether developers can have their credit revoked simply because of a subsequent brouhaha.

 

[MRY]

Here's some more, from before this contretemps:

Wardell says he has a lot of respect for the creators of the Star Control series, Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III.

https://www.pcgamer.com/stardock-ce...reboot-is-a-prequel-will-include-multiplayer/

"Atari doesn't actually own the copyright on Star Control 1/2 so it's not like one could make a Star Control 2 HD or what have you without a license from Paul Reiche. And even if we did have rights to SC 1/2 I wouldn't touch them without his blessing."

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013...tar-control-rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/

Consulting the creators?
The biggest question Ars had for Wardell, and the one I asked first, was whether or not Star Control series creators Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III would be involved in the development. The two designers spend most of their time these days on the wildly successful Skylanders franchise, but history has shown that Star Control without Ford and Reiche tends to be pretty bad.

Fortunately, Wardell was ahead of me—the Holy Duo has already been consulted. "I talked to them quite a bit about what level of involvement they would like to have in the new game," he said. "The main issue is that Toys for Bob is owned by Activision now, and as a result they cannot be officially involved at present."

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014...-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/

 

[Infinitron]

So Stardock can only use the races that are new to SC3?

So they are down to literally the dumbest group of aliens ever created, the Hegemonic Crux (of retards). Basically the Jar Jar Binkses.

When they started Star Control: Origins, it was implied that they were going to create all new races. A clean reboot and alternate timeline. But now all of a sudden we're seeing Arilous and Melnormes. I don't know what exactly happened here. Maybe it's related to the point where Frogboy says he stepped in and changed the game's direction from procedurally generated to more strictly story-based.

 

[Strange Fellow]

But that's exactly what they did, unless you don't consider using that Arilou in promotional material to qualify.

They didn't use the likeness of the old games:

I find it ridiculous to discuss the likeness of one stereotypical small greenish humanoid alien to another. Let's face it, every scfi-fi game ever made features the little green men from Mars. I think they're alike enough, and in combination with the name I would say it's enough that I'd consider it copyright infringement at first glance. If you don't, then there's really not much more I can say. This is of course contingent on whether or not Ford and Reiche do in fact own that copyright.

When they started Star Control: Origins, it was implied that they were going to create all new races. A clean reboot and alternate timeline.

Now, the implication seems to be that they only did that out of courtesy to Ford and Reiche, and that they've rescinded that courtesy now that Ford and Reiche have turned out to be such dicks. It certainly doesn't seem like they were legally obligated to refrain from using material from the originals. Then again, Stardock could just be going out on a limb and banking on the assumption that Ford and Reiche won't follow up on the legal threats.

MRY The attempt to discredit Ford and Reiche as "creators", specifically, of Star Control is obviously a legal thing, I don't think Wardell & co sincerely believe that they don't deserve the title. But you know that of course. If you're just posting for the of it all, then I agree.

 

[Dexter]

None of that contradicts anything previously stated:

While Stardock has no objection to “creators” in the casual sense, legally, and when trying to promote a product in commerce, they are not.

Unfortunately for everyone it became a legal dispute upon the pair continuing to decline any sort of request or frankly even strong begging for involvement, their blessing or reaching any sort of compromise, lawyers got involved and more careful wording and the strongest possible legal arguments and terminology to maximize the rights upon the universe and franchise will be used by both parties until the issue is sufficiently settled.

 

[MRY]

And more: https://littletinyfrogs.com/article/463278/Star_Control_FAQ

Star Control FAQ
Published on Tuesday, April 7, 2015 By Brad Wardell In Star Control

Q: What is Star Control?

A: Star Control is a action/adventure originally developed by Paul Reiche and Fred Ford at Toys for Bob.

...

Stardock along with Paul and Fred all agree that the aliens and story elements of the classic Star Control series belongs to them.

...

As far as we're concerned, only Star Control 1 and 2 are canon to the Ur-Quan universe that Paul and Fred created.

....

This way, if/when Paul and Fred can return to the Ur-Quan universe, we can not only help ensure it is preserved but also make sure a new generation of gamers becomes aware of their magnificient creation.

Next: https://littletinyfrogs.com/article/471109/star-control-september-2015-update

From Stardock's point of view, Paul and Fred own the Ur-Quan lore and in fact, this lore goes well beyond what was seen in Star Control 1 and 2.

Next: https://littletinyfrogs.com/article/485378/Ghosts-of-the-Precursors

He asked us not to try to make a sequel to Star Control 2 and said that he hoped one day to be able to return to the universe he and Fred Ford created.

Again, none of this addresses the actual legal controversy about how rights were assigned, but I do think it clears the air a little bit about the claims of bad faith about Paul and Fred describing themselves as creators.

 

[MRY]

None of that contradicts anything previously stated:

While Stardock has no objection to “creators” in the casual sense, legally, and when trying to promote a product in commerce, they are not.

Except that you've excised from your quote what came immediately before and immediately after, which it does directly contradict: "A: Paul and Fred were the designers of Star Control I and II. In the credits, on the box and elsewhere they had previously officially listed themselves as either developers or designers. ... It is Stardock's opinion that they have begun to focus on referring to themselves as "creators" in their marketing in order to give the impression that Ghosts of the Precursors would have the the same creative core as Star Control II."

Moreover, "creator" doesn't even have technical legal meaning in copyright law. "Author" is the legal term of art.

Again, if you want to say, "There's a legal dispute, who knows what the rights are?" that's one thing. But "lol, they've never claimed to be creators, there's no evidence they ever had any copyright at all, the only thing anyone likes about Star Control was created by other people who probably still have the copyrights" is pretty lame.

 

[Strange Fellow]

As per Stardock/Wardell again:

The Star Control aliens are associated with Star Control. That doesn’t mean Stardock can use expressions and stories of those aliens without permission. But it does mean Stardock has the right to create its own stories and expressions for the Ur-Quan, Spathi, etc.

So Stardock is allowed to use the aliens from SC1/2, but they're legally obligated to remove everything that characterizes said aliens? This sure is shaping up to be a great spiritual successor!

 

[Heretic]

Can you own a copyright to (the idea of) an alien race, its name and likeness, in the USA? Or only to a whole work - a book, game, a picture?

 

[Zombra]

Now, the implication seems to be that they only did that out of courtesy to Ford and Reiche, and that they've rescinded that courtesy now that Ford and Reiche have turned out to be such dicks. It certainly doesn't seem like they were legally obligated to refrain from using material from the originals. Then again, Stardock could just be going out on a limb and banking on the assumption that Ford and Reiche won't follow up on the legal threats.

It doesn't make sense to escalate the situation in the hopes that your antagonists won't notice. This was done as a loud assertion that Stardock is legally in the right.