Star Control: Origins - Star Control reboot from Stardock

[Dexter]

Ah, I stand corrected on the "upcoming" Chenjesu thing, wasn't aware that was a previous thing that ended up not being done. Nevertheless, the fact that it ever existed in the first place is sufficient proof to me that Stardock never had any particular intention to not use the old aliens.

If you honestly see zero resemblance between the Arilou and the Arilou though ... you're blind. I can only conclude you're being willfully obtuse. The two images you posted, the guy is even wearing the same jacket for chrissakes. And that conversation ... lol. Do you really need me to pick it apart line by line to show how closely it copies the one in SC2?

What most people don't seem to be getting or get stuck up on is that they think they can't use the names of the old aliens, which is blatantly false, YOU CAN'T COPYRIGHT NAMES: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

How do I copyright a name, title, slogan, or logo?
Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or see Circular 33, for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark.

They may be Trademarked, which the duo apparently didn't do and it's always a bit of a contentious issue in cases of split IP rights in the same way where one company owns Trademarks and partial Copyrights like Stardock does for Star Control 3 and Star Control: Origins and another company or individuals hold Copyrights for Star Control 1+2 while not owning the Trademarks or Copyrights to the Star Control games they didn't work on.

Stardock owns the Trademarks to "Star Control" by buying it off ATARI and various other brand-specific names, including "Arilou" and "Chenjesu": https://trademarks.justia.com/878/07/star-87807839.html https://trademarks.justia.com/878/10/arilou-87810518.html https://trademarks.justia.com/878/10/chenjesu-87810499.html

For instance if anyone wants to draw a vague parallel to a similar situation without going into minute details, consider what happened with "Star Trek", where due to a company split between Paramount and CBS, Paramount Pictures ended up with the Copyrights and distribution rights for the movies and CBS Television ended up with the rights for the TV series up to Enterprise with the Trademarks split between the two: https://screenrant.com/star-trek-discovery-enterprise-design-changes/

After Enterprise, properties of Star Trek ownership changed hands and was divided, so what was able to cross TV shows up to that point changed and a lot of the crossover was no longer allowed. That is why when JJ [Abrams]'s movie came along everything had to be different. The alternate universe concept was what really made that movie happen in a way as to not cross the new boundaries and give Trek a new footing to continue.

So while Paramount for instance can make movies featuring specific species, entities and concepts known in Star Trek and also have license agreements for use of specific characters etc., they can't too closely resemble the specific Copyrighted star ships, uniforms, aliens and designs that appear in the TV series. For STD there were similar issues, while they in turn were sued for Copyright infringement by an Indie Pixelgame developer for allegedly using elements in the series too closely resembling his Original lore, story and designs:


The ultimate decision in these cases are up to the courts and going into details of the contracts and fact finding minutiae of the specific works, copyrights and trademarks, which hasn't even started yet. What's the real dick move here and unfair in regards to the DMCA takedown notices is that they apparently can simply pull a competing product off the biggest digital marketplaces and deny any potential revenue to Stardock with all the consequences that brings (having to lay off employees, having to potentially stall or stop development, block console release), since platforms like Steam and GOG will want to be on the safe side and not entangle themselves in a complex legal proceeding and will rather wash their hands off it and wait for the final court decision, while Toys for Bob have no equivalent product on the market or even in apparent development and barely any skin in the game (they weren't the ones that spent 5 years and $10 million developing a game) before any merit for said notices or facts in the case have even been established - which may potentially take years, even if ultimately Stardock might be proven to be entirely in the right (which is a bit doubtful, they're weak on specific claims, strong on others). The judge's argument was apparently that this action wouldn't cause Stardock "irreparable harm" like it claimed, since they could always ask for damages after the court has made a decision and some vague legalistic argument about the game not yet being released at the point the complaint was made.

 

[Cael]

Typical! Another self-inflicted stardick preemptive strike. And when he got his head handed to him by his own actions, he goes around playing the victim. Is the fucker an ex-worker of pallywood?

 

[:Flash:]

What most people don't seem to be getting or get stuck up on is that they think they can't use the names of the old aliens, which is blatantly false, YOU CAN'T COPYRIGHT NAMES: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

How do I copyright a name, title, slogan, or logo?
Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or see Circular 33, for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark.

That answer refers to names and slogans slogans regarding things (company names, product names, etc), not to names in the context of a larger creative work. If the names are part of a larger creative work, they might well be protected by copyright, not because someone "copyrighted a name", but because the entire creative work is automatically protected by copyright. You can't actively copyright something, copyright is something that automatically applies as soon as you do creative work.
Whether the copyright applies then depends upon the context it is used in.
That is why you can't publish books with Hobbits Frodo and Bilbo doing shenanigans in middle earth and then claim "Names can't be copyrighted, I can do whatever I want with them". But you could probably write a book about a teenager that gets bullied for being called Frodo because his parents were nerds, as then the context would be something completely different.
Admittedly, that is probably a bad example, because those names are most likely trademarked in addition, but the example also applies to lesser known works of fiction, without trademarked names.

So that the game is called Star Control, and is trying to be a spiritual successor to the original game, makes a copyright infringement via the use of names more likely, not less, because the context they are used in is obviously very similar.

The fact that Accolade signed a deal with them for the alien names to be used in Star Control 3 should be a clue, they certainly wouldn't have done so, if they didn't need to because "names can't be copyrighted".

 

[Dexter]

Whether the copyright applies then depends upon the context it is used in.
That is why you can't publish books with Hobbits Frodo and Bilbo doing shenanigans in middle earth and then claim "Names can't be copyrighted, I can do whatever I want with them". But you could probably write a book about a teenager that gets bullied for being called Frodo because his parents were nerds, as then the context would be something completely different.
Admittedly, that is probably a bad example, because those names are most likely trademarked in addition, but the example also applies to lesser known works of fiction, without trademarked names.

That's wrong, as you point out this is the most relevant part:
https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=Hobbit
https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=Bilbo
https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=Frodo

https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/the-saul-zaentz-company-2452373/

If you could Copyright the name "Frodo" then that would apply to your example, but as you also point out it can clearly be used in a different context or material that isn't too much like the source material. A Copyright infringement might apply if someone does a derivative work that is very close or almost indistinguishable to the source material that falls under Copyright e.g. a book or TV series about Hobbits Frodo and Bilbo and some ring that needs to get brought to Mordor that doesn't fall under fair use (but this might equally apply if they're Habbits Mongo and Volvo that want to bring a ring to Dormor, since the names aren't the relevant part regarding derivative-ness, but also how close all the rest or specifically the design in a visual product is). Stardock afaik was aware of this and changed their design and lore sufficiently to not appear derivative, but as has been pointed out it's kind of a moot point since they decided not to include any of said species in the final product anyway to be on the safe side, even though Paul & Reiche use various statements of Brad's intent to do so for effect in the suit.

 

[A_boring_GOG_bot]

Star Control: Origins delisted from catalog

 

[A_boring_GOG_bot]

Fun fact : https://www.stardock.com/games/starcontrol/store#purchase

 

[Alex]

It is way more expensive than on Steam or GOG, though. At least on my region.

 

[Cael]

Fun fact : https://www.stardock.com/games/starcontrol/store#purchase

Fun fact: The DMCA is there to protect game distributors like Steam. If they refuse the order, they are liable for damages when the court rules in favour of R&F.

 

[Alex]

If

 

[Cael]

If

I disagree. The court already basically said stardick will lose in its ruling that told him to fuck off, the DMCA take down order is valid and should stay.

 

[Alex]

I hope not.

 

[A_boring_GOG_bot]

Fun fact : https://www.stardock.com/games/starcontrol/store#purchase

Fun fact: The DMCA is there to protect game distributors like Steam. If they refuse the order, they are liable for damages when the court rules in favour of R&F.

I meant why is that web page still alive ?

 

[Cael]

Fun fact : https://www.stardock.com/games/starcontrol/store#purchase

Fun fact: The DMCA is there to protect game distributors like Steam. If they refuse the order, they are liable for damages when the court rules in favour of R&F.

I meant why is that web page still alive ?

No idea. Steam decided to roll the dice and bet on stardick, perhaps? Bloody stupid thing to do when the court ruling made it clear that there was a copyright/trademark infringement, which was why it allowed the take down notices to proceed.

 

[Товарищ]

Pirates win again?

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

The court already basically said stardick will lose in its ruling that told him to fuck off, the DMCA take down order is valid and should stay.

Judge pretty much allowed DMCA take down to proceed on the grounds that people who issue wrongful DMCA's can be fucked over at later date.

 

[Angthoron]

Wow, the autism sure escalated quickly. What will the three wacky derelicts think of next?!

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Fun fact : https://www.stardock.com/games/starcontrol/store#purchase

Fun fact: The DMCA is there to protect game distributors like Steam. If they refuse the order, they are liable for damages when the court rules in favour of R&F.

I meant why is that web page still alive ?

DMCA notice only applies to third party vendors. Paul and Fred would need a court order to stop Stardock from selling it directly, but that's not settled yet.

 

[Zombra]

Fun fact : https://www.stardock.com/games/starcontrol/store#purchase

Just to draw a little more attention to this, at the moment Stardock is apparently selling the game direct for $19.99 ... though it will still use a Steam key. Wonder how that works.

Also, Chinese site sonkwo.com is selling the game "Interstellar Control: Origin" for what looks like 54 yuan or about $8 USD, but you'll need to use a Chinese proxy or something as the site is region locked.

 

[luj1]

I'm with Fred and Paul

. Stardock are faggots.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Ultimately, you know that the two has beens are still crying themselves at night for not getting enough "hardcore gamer cred", due to them having peddled nothing but bullshit for the last 20 years. Fuck those losers.

 

[Cael]

Fun fact : https://www.stardock.com/games/starcontrol/store#purchase

Fun fact: The DMCA is there to protect game distributors like Steam. If they refuse the order, they are liable for damages when the court rules in favour of R&F.

I meant why is that web page still alive ?

DMCA notice only applies to third party vendors. Paul and Fred would need a court order to stop Stardock from selling it directly, but that's not settled yet.

Yes, and it would be glorious when the court rules against stardick and the notion of them continuing to sell that violation of IP comes up. The damages is going to be fun to watch.

 

[Mustawd]

So none of what you (and the horde of people like you on various Subreddits and similar) are referring to is actually in the game. Beyond that it wouldn't have been a Copyright violation even if Stardock went through with it (at most it would have added to the Trademark dispute) if they didn't resemble the old aliens or their lore. As the DMCA is applied anyone could basically claim to hold the Copyright for any kind of material under penalty of perjury and content providers are obligated to act, whether there's anything to the claims or not, which has to be proven through lengthy court battles. I hope Stardock can sue for damages incurred to their business after this is done with.

In the court document it is clearly outlined that Stardock’s argument is not “Origins does not use copyright material from SC I or II”. Their main argument is that “P&R don’t even own SCI and II”. That is quite telling on what Stardock’s own thoughts are on the content of SCI and II in Origins. See below. Brackets are mine.

Upon learning of Plaintiff’s [Stardock] intent to develop Origins, Defendants [P&R] stated that they hold copyrights to Star Control I and II.

Plaintiff acknowledged the same and repeatedly sought a license to use the Star Control I and II IP in Origins. Defendants declined. Through at least August 2017, Plaintiff assured Defendants that Origins would not make use of “any of the Star Control 1/2 IP (which in this case means alien names, alien designs, lore, art, music, ship designs).” Plaintiff ultimately changed its position, however, and a copyright dispute materialized in the fall of 2017.

Plaintiff now asserts that Defendants have no protectable interest in Star Control I and II and/or that its use of the Star Control I and II IP in Origins does not constitute infringement.

So Stardock is arguing, IN COURT, that they used SC I and II, BUT it wasn’t copyright infringement (which is due to the fact they claim their purchase of SC3 assets gave them copyright of SC I and II).

So all your REEEEEIIING about this is pointless. Especially when Stardock has already admitted their use of SCI and II in Origins in front of the court.

As to your claims that service providers like Steam and GOG are obligated to act? Yah, the court also addressed that:

As Defendants correctly observe, Plaintiff’s argument is based on the “flawed premise” that the issuance of a notice of infringement under the DMCA is the equivalent of an injunction requiring the removal of allegedly infringement material. It is not. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, see Mot. at 13, Defendants cannot “unilaterally” block Origins or any other content from distribution by issuing a DMCA notice. See 17 U.S.C. § 512. Such notice simply serves to provide knowledge of alleged infringement to service providers. Critically, receipt of a notice of claimed infringement does not mandate that a service provider remove or disable access to allegedly infringing material.10 Rather, in providing safe harbor from liability, Title II of the DMCA incentivizes services providers to remove infringing material

The court doc goes on to mention that Stardock tries to argue that the law is structured in a way that the incentive is too large and that in practice companies will take down anything for any reason.

The court responds twofold:

1.) Tough titty. Talk to Congress who passed the law not the Court.
2.) Stardock presents no evidence to back up their claim.



So let’s recap:

-Stardock has argued in front of the court that any use of SC I and II in Origins is ok because P&R don’t even own the Copyright. Basically admitting that SC I and II are in Origins.

-A DMCA notice is only a notice to the Service Provider that copyright infringement is present. However, it’s up to Steam and GOG to make that determination. If they choose to ignore a DMCA notice they can lose liability protection and can in turn be sued. However, if they felt the grounds are baseless, as Dexter seems to think so, then they can simply side with Stardick.

Yah, so I think Stardock is facked. Way to go ahead and releasing it even though you know there was the copyright controversy.


EDIT: The next step will be to determine who truly holds the Copyright to SC I and II. But I think we can put to rest the idea that content from those games are not included in Origins. Especially when the developer itself is admitting to it as part of their argument.

 

[:Flash:]

Ultimately, you know that the two has beens are still crying themselves at night for not getting enough "hardcore gamer cred", due to them having peddled nothing but bullshit for the last 20 years. Fuck those losers.

I think those two are laughing and counting money at night, because they haven't catered to hardcore gamers, but peddled bullshit for the last 20 years.

 

[Mustawd]

The court already basically said stardick will lose in its ruling that told him to fuck off, the DMCA take down order is valid and should stay.

Judge pretty much allowed DMCA take down to proceed on the grounds that people who issue wrongful DMCA's can be fucked over at later date.

That and some other legalese pertaining to filing an injunction.

Although, the biggest argument is that you can’t claim something causes irreperable harm when the harm was of your own doing.

 

[Dexter]

In the court document it is clearly outlined that Stardock’s argument is not “Origins does not use copyright material from SC I or II”. Their main argument is that “P&R don’t even own SCI and II”. That is quite telling on what Stardock’s own thoughts are on the content of SCI and II in Origins. See below. Brackets are mine.

So Stardock is arguing, IN COURT, that they used SC I and II, BUT it wasn’t copyright infringement (which is due to the fact they claim their purchase of SC3 assets gave them copyright of SC I and II).

So all your REEEEEIIING about this is pointless. Especially when Stardock has already admitted their use of SCI and II in Origins in front of the court.

Umm, I don't know how anything that you say follows, when it states that they claimed the complete opposite:

According to Stardock, Origins does not include any “copyrightable artwork” from the classic Star Control games. Wardell Decl. ¶ 7.

Maybe they struck it because the Defendants objected to it and it has to be cleared up in fact finding:

For example, Defendants object to Wardell’s declaration, “Stardock has not incorporated any copyrightable artwork from Star Control I, Star Control II, or Star Control III into the Origins game itself,” on the ground that Wardell lacks the expertise necessary to opine as to what constitutes “copyrightable artwork.”

I'm not sure where the claim of his assertions or the weird and/or formulation and statement "that its use of the Star Control I and II IP in Origins" comes from other than the allegations of P&F, since this was about the preliminary injuction for preventing a DMCA and not the substantial case in regards to the Trademark/Copyright dispute.

As to your claims that service providers like Steam and GOG are obligated to act? Yah, the court also addressed that:

The court doc goes on to mention that Stardock tries to argue that the law is structured in a way that the incentive is too large and that in practice companies will take down anything for any reason.

The court responds twofold:

1.) Tough titty. Talk to Congress who passed the law not the Court.
2.) Stardock presents no evidence to back up their claim.

The proof is pretty much in the pudding since both Steam and GOG removed it and they have no opportunity to appeal due to the legal process. Nothing like this could ever happen if these were boxed copies in a Store, but they can at least still sell them directly:

So let’s recap:

-Stardock has argued in front of the court that any use of SC I and II in Origins is ok because P&R don’t even own the Copyright. Basically admitting that SC I and II are in Origins.

-A DMCA notice is only a notice to the Service Provider that copyright infringement is present. However, it’s up to Steam and GOG to make that determination. If they choose to ignore a DMCA notice they can lose liability protection and can in turn be sued. However, if they felt the grounds are baseless, as Dexter seems to think so, then they can simply side with Stardick.

Yah, so I think Stardock is facked. Way to go ahead and releasing it even though you know there was the copyright controversy.

EDIT: The next step will be to determine who truly holds the Copyright to SC I and II. But I think we can put to rest the idea that content from those games are not included in Origins. Especially when the developer itself is admitting to it as part of their argument.

1. You're wrong and they haven't argued that at all. Nor would you if you actually played the game.

2. You're a petty dick lauding an abusive lawfare practice and happy over their misfortune even if they're ultimately in the right.

3. You can't expect a company to delay their major release that they've worked on for 5 years and poured ~$10 million into for potentially years based on allegations and frivolous claims.

An alleged infringer cannot release purportedly infringing material in the midst of litigation and then reasonably ask the Court to hamstring the alleged copyright holder in its efforts to curb the alleged infringement.

4. This kind of precedent has a way of backfiring.