The "Stardock Response to Paul and Fred" thread has gotten a bit long-in-the-tooth, and the moderator suggested that it might be a good idea to split discussion that isn't actually Stardock responding to P&F over to a new thread.
So, I've set up this thread to discuss the litigation more generally. Since people understandably have strong feelings on this topic, I'd like to suggest a few guidelines:
So, I'll start by responding to a post from the prior thread:
One point of correction: "Toys for Bob" isn't involved in this. Paul and Fred are working as individuals outside their company, presumably because if they didn't, Activision would own the game.
I'll also note that P&F removed any mention of making a "sequel to Star Control" from their blog; it now only refers to Star Control in a historical sense. So while their initial post may have stepped over the line, and they may owe some damages for that mistake, their intent is to avoid doing anything that would require paying Stardock royalties. Their position is that they wrote the story for the prior games, and their contract let them retain the copyright, so they should be able to continue that story under a new title without needing anyone's permission.
However, Stardock is claiming that its trademark rights don't just cover the game's title, but also cover most of the names used within the earlier games, such that doing anything in the same game universe requires its permission. This is a broader interpretation of trademark rights than anyone had previously asserted over the game. I'm not saying that it's wrong (that's up to the courts), but it has taken a lot of people by surprise.
The UQM project attributes copyright to Toys for Bob, so it is not completely disassociated from the whole mess.
Just posting because I can't work out how else to subscribe to the thread.
I noticed that myself a while ago, and have been curious about it. If T4B did own the copyright, then Activision would now control it. But according to a post by Brad long ago, Paul told him that he (Paul) owned the UQM copyright personally.
My suspicion is that as CEO of Toys4Bob, Paul may have sold or transferred the UQM copyright to himself before the company was sold to Activision, presumably with the permission of any other T4B shareholders there may have been (which might have just been Fred). If that's the case, then the copyright in the project attributes was accurate at the time, but has since become outdated.
(Another reply from the prior thread):
There is a significant difference with UQM: Most fan projects are leveraging the publisher's game's engine, content, or both, and therefore require the use of the original game's copyright, in addition to its trademark. In UQM's case, the engine and content are open-source/Creative Commons. Moreover, it's not using any registered trademark of the original game, and any common law trademarks that might apply have never been tested in court. So the question of whether Stardock has any basis at all for asserting control over UQM is still an open one.
I have seen several remakes in which the developers reverse engineered the code of a game and for it to work it still needs the base game installed. Like the original X-Com if I'm not mistaken.
In this case UQM wouldn't even be 'stealing' Star Control 2 sales because it needs the actual game to work
This seems like the last thing UQM would want to do, and I doubt it's legally possible: The GPL and CC-SA license terms forbid mingling UQM with any code that isn't under those same licenses. And even if it was possible, becoming a mod of SC:O would not "protect" UQM; rather, it would cement Stardock's control of the project. Speaking for myself, one of the best things about the UQM project has always been the fact that it was independent of outside control, and I would like to see it continue that way.
Elestan, part of the issue is that Toys For Bob was never involved in the making of any of the Star Control games. Paul alone was the contractor for Accolade and he paid his buddies. I'm not entirely sure if TFB was even created until after SC2's release.
Regardless, you'll never see TFB mentioned in the original materials for SC 1, 2, or 3.
The studio's involvement seems to be retconned in
The "significant difference" matters a lot less than you are making it out to. If Stardock wanted to assert its trademark, it doesn't matter if UQM has a copyright on every bit of art or code in the project itself. Any legal case would be judged on the merits of the trademark and its usage, the copyright, an entirely separate legal point, plays no part in that judgment.
For that matter, UQM's situation vis a vis Stardock has absolutely no relation to Stardock's current lawsuit against P&F. It has no involvement in the conflict, and its activities don't touch upon Stardock's trademark in a manner that Stardock finds to be infringing. This is something Brad himself has stated. It is ultimately up to you whether you want to believe Brad or not, but there is a limit as to how far Stardock or Brad should feel a need to go or expend time and resources on.
With respect to your claim that the trademark covers the story proper taking people by surprise, there are also those of us who aren't surprised by the claim. What would have surprised us was if the trademark didn't cover the story.
Sure, but my point was that UQM is not reliant on any game's copyrighted material, which makes it different from many fan projects.
Brad stated in the earlier thread (reply #634) that "Stardock, like Atari before it, could shut down UQM at any time if that was what it wanted.". He's asserting the independence we thought we had was really just benign neglect. That means that the UQM community is affected by this conflict, whether he intends to assert the control he claims to have or not.
UQM also potentially affects the outcome of the case, depending on whether or not its use of the alien names during the 2001-2010 gap in Star Control sales would have weakened or supplanted Atari's claim over them. Brad claims, variously, that either these names were in use by Atari the whole time, or that the gap in sales doesn't legally matter, because they were used via GoG sales since 2011. He could be right, but this is a question that may end up being fought over in court.
I'm quite certain that trademarks don't cover stories; Stardock isn't even arguing that. Stories are creative works covered by copyright, and Stardock is arguing that specific words or phrases from the stories form part of its product identity, and are therefore trademarkable.
You took a far too narrow reading for Brad's statement, and are ignoring the clarifications he made after it. What Brad has made very, very clear is that Stardock does not consider UQM's usage of the names and etc to be engaging in commerce. Since trademarks deal with usage in commerce specifically, UQM's activities have no relevance to the trademark dispute between Stardock and P&F. If you are trying to construct a narrative wherein you want UQM's activities to have relevance to the lawsuit, the only way that narrative would work would be if UQM was engaged in some sort of in-commerce activity using the Star Control trademark. If UQM was doing this, Stardock, as the trademark owner, would be legally obliged to take action against UQM. On the other hand, Brad has stated very clearly that he does not consider UQM's activities to touch upon Stardock's trademark. That by definition precludes it from being relevant to their current lawsuit.
UQM never possessed the sort of independence you seem to think it had. Trademark law, except in very narrow instances of fair use and parody, assumes priority of the trademark owner. If UQM strayed outside of those bounds or engaged in commerce with the Star Control trademark, the trademark owner would have legal mechanisms to shut it down. If the trademark owner even though that UQM's existence could interfere with the owner's commerce usage of the trademark, UQM has no standing to continue. Benign neglect is literally one of the best ways for companies to treat such fan projects. It's also the primary method of survival for most of these projects. They keep their heads down, take care that they don't do anything that would require the official trademark owners to formally take notice of them, and they are allowed to continue doing things they enjoy. It is effectively an informal legal truce between the trademark owners and the fan community, one that both sides usually have reason to want to maintain, but one in which one side, the trademark owner, holds most of the cards. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but it's the accommodation that the industry as a whole has arrived at without having to expend lots of time, effort, and money trying to dot all the i's and cross all the t's.
P&F have applied to register 'The Ur-Quan Masters' with the UQM project webpage forming part of their specimen. Therefore they and their lawyer are presenting that it is engaging in-commerce with respect to trademark law. Someone has to be wrong here, and I have no particular reason to believe either party just because they declare something to be so.
In any case, I don't see how the project is at any particular risk under trademark law, as trademark does not cover code, voiceovers, dialogue, graphics, sounds, music, etc. It could just relaunch under a different name (assuming the copyright side of things is all OK).
Ok i got to say it. After Brad has very clearly said he wasnt going to sue Ur Quan Masters. P and F is trying very hard to make Stardock to sue them.
Therein lies the risk: UQM's license prohibits charging for the software, but even so, trademark law may view past or future UQM activity as commerce, whatever Stardock may think. Some of the references provided in the prior thread suggest that distributing software, even free of charge, can be (but is not always) considered use in commerce. Stardock could find its hand forced.
That is why I am advocating for Stardock to demonstrate its good intentions by committing that if it wins, it will formally grant that independence back to the UQM project via some kind of legal commitment. This would be a much more meaningful act than merely stating intentions, which could be changed by Stardock or some other future owner of the marks. And it would mean that the marks would be used with permission, which (to my non-lawyer understanding) would remove any need for hostilities.
If the court and USPTO confirm the validity of Stardock's new registrations, then I agree. But it could also turn out that Stardock's rights are limited to just the title, "Star Control". This is a question that will certainly get litigated if the case doesn't settle.
I'm not sure Brad's interpretation of trademark is limited in the way you describe; he seemed to be suggesting that he could do more than just force it to rename.
I have to assume that's due to the copyright Stardock claims, not the trademark - otherwise Brad would simultaneously be claiming UQM is and is not engaging in commerce!
Which copyright claim is this? As far as I'm aware, Stardock has an uncontested copyright claim on the original parts of Star Control 3, and may be contesting a claim to the derived portions. But UQM is derived from Star Control 2, and while Stardock is disputing Paul&Fred's copyright to SC2, I haven't (yet) seen them advance a claim that they have it.
Neither have I, though they do appear to be trying to muddy the issue by defining the Star Control 3 copyrights as "The Star Control Copyrights" and referring only to the later for the majority of their complaint.
UQM can't infringe trademark if they aren't engaging in commerce, and can't infringe copyright Stardock don't have, so how exactly would it get shut down?
I believe the idea is that if Stardock felt that UQM or some derivative of it did something that counted as "commercial" (in their judgement), they would shut it down.
The difficulty is that there are three different definitions of "commercial" in play: One defined by the CC-NC license, one defined by Stardock, and one defined by trademark law. The project is used to operating under the first, Stardock wants to impose the second, and the law cares about the third.
Except one thing Brad is for this project to continue. He has no reason to shut down this project. You guys have tied your hands, so you cant charge. You scrubbed the project of the star control logo. This game is to old for him. If the trademark ever changed hands this software would be worth less, not more. Hes not against fan stuff. He has repeatedly said this over, and over bringong every excuse to not sue you. This argument is only coming from you, and your questions. If he seized any control it is because you asked.
Stardock is using the definition by trademark law. The one defined by CC-NC is irrelevant in the context of trademark law and offers little to no actual protection in the context of a trademark dispute. It is entirely possible to release a work under CC-NC terms and still be engaged in commerce. The CC-NC license is more intended as a shield against someone else misusing the released work and biting the people that released it initially than as a shield for use by the people that did the original releasing.
I pretty much agree with this - I just don't see how trademark law can be used to prevent relaunching under a different mark. It doesn't appear to protect anything other than the mark itself. UQM could be forced to stop using the name, to pay compensation, to pay lawyers fees - but not to stop distributing the source code and and other assets.
Not going to happen Stardock doesnt want that. If someone picked up the trademark to sell these games. Then the trademark would cost more than what they would get for the games. Im sorry no one wants your games, but you. In the future they would even get less.
The question of whether UQM is violating copyrights or not is up to the law itself. And if they are violating copyrights, it is Stardock's obligation to act on it or else they weaken their position in regards to claiming those copyrights.
I don't know exactly what the agreement was between UQM and Accolade or UQM and T4B but I've seen many other fan projects based on copyrighted material that had no desire to "engage in commerce" and wanted to release everything for free and were still sued into oblivion.
So, as mentioned in reply #15, there hasn't been any suggestion so far that Stardock has any copyright on Star Control 2, or on the UQM project that came from it. All of Stardock's claims that might give it any control over UQM are based on trademark.
Stardock does make a claim that some of the contractors who worked on SC2 might have copyright claims on it, but none of them have stepped forward to make any. And Stardock does claim to own the copyright to SC3, but SC3 is mostly irrelevant to UQM.
Also, to the best of my non-lawyer knowledge, only trademarks impose an"obligation to act"; copyrights do not.
There was no agreement between UQM and Accolade because by 2001, when the project was founded, the understanding was that Accolade's license to the Star Control 2 copyright had expired, such that Paul and Fred had regained all of the copyright rights, and that the only other IP limitation on the game was the "Star Control" trademark, which the project dealt with by removing every instance of the words "Star Control".
And the agreement between UQM and Paul&Fred (or T4B, if they'd formed it by then) consisted only of the two licenses (GPL 2.0 and Creative Commons BY-NA-SA) that they released the code and content under.
Certainly. If Stardock had the copyright on SC2, it would be an entirely different situation, because copyright gives control over copying even when that copying isn't "use in commerce". The "use in commerce" question only matters for trademarks.
Ok what is not being pointed out is Stardocks lack of interest in suing what is basically a fan based project. If other fan based projects were sued into oblivion that is not Stardocks intention. To be honest a bunch of Joe Jurors aren't going to care about a project that Stardock is not interested in. Would you care if you are on the Jury that is basically the same thing when it comes to the Jury. This decision is in the hands of the Jury. If Stardock, and Paul and Fred want to leave you out of the trial; then, you probably wont get mentioned other than Paul and Fred's good will by helping about your creation. If their is an interest shown it was to give you guys control of Star control 3, something Stardock can do regardless the outcome of the trial. Or put Star control 1,2, and 3 into a new modern Star Control engine, and give it back to you to control. The only thing that might of came out of from a lot of questions from you guys not Stardock, not you guys is that you guys is not comercial. If I was going to ask for the Gnu I would've waited till after the trial. Leaving you guys alone who are a free based game project who believe software should be free really doesn't weaken a trademark. Giving a Gnu in the middle of a trial might. The best thing you could do is get out of the way of the guys who want to leave you out of this, and live off the goodwill of whoever comes out of the settlement. If Stardock wins this, and gives you Star control 3, pluss Star Control 1,2, and 3 on new engines, what you do with these new games is up to you the most you might have to worry about is a bunch of new fans from the fact you guys wanting to play with a possibility of having to also maintain Star Control 3. To my opinion I; only, wish that Stardock would have purchased the fan based game Star Control 4 to have given it to you to.
I have noticed that Ur Quan masters HD start with the beginnig of 2. It would be better to give the whole story. Now that it looks litke you will; also have 3 you should put all three stories into a HD game. Right now you could only put 1 and 2 together. That would make it better.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
