User talk:MJBurrage/testpage3

Formula Dé: 1999 League Schedule & Rules
This article has the following statement:

The following pamphlet was distributed to players for the 1999 Formula Dé Tournament League.

I doubt this was distributed with a GDFL compatible license. --[User:BirgitteSB|BirgitteSB] 03:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There was no copyright statement on the pamphlet, and as I understand it, rules can not be copyrighted. The pieces may be trademarked, the graphic look of the rules may also be protected, and long passeges of decriptive text can be copyrighted, but the mechanics of the rules become public domain once the game is published. game rules copyright law. Any one can make and sell their own Monopoly game for example as long as the do not use the Monopoly logo's or the corner spaces (which are a trademarked design) —[User:MJBurrage|MJBurrage] 15:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a passage from the website you refenced:
 * Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.
 * The idea of the rules cannot be copyrighted, however the text describing them can. You could write a description of the rules in your own words without violating copyright.  However when you copy the words written in a pamphlet that is a copyright violation.—[User:BirgitteSB|BirgitteSB] 16:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that the descriptive text that could be copyrighted was the large amounts of text in many rulebooks that explains the background of the game, including the setting and the story (if there is one). Not that I would not be happy to paraphrase a set of rules, but the photocopied single page that was handed out back when the company still ran tournaments themselves is already pretty terse.  Once you say for example that you can use one engine point to move one extra space once per turn, then that is sort of that.  The full rulebook has much more detail on Formula One racing, the tracks, the pros and cons of the optional rules etc.  I was/am pretty sure that this was terse enough already to not be an issue.  If you still think there is a problem I will rephrase the sentences, but given how short the content is it can't be that different. —[User:MJBurrage|MJBurrage] 17:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the verbatim coping of a published pamphlet is a copyright violation regardless of how terse the wording is. Lets see what other people think about it.  Rephrasing the information would clear up copyright concerns, but would not be an acceptable aritcle for Wikisource.  Because wikisource includes verbatim copies of existing documents (with a GDFL compatible license).  I think your best bet would be to make a Wikipedia article about the rules or else add the information as a section of a larger Wikipedia article.--[User:BirgitteSB|BirgitteSB] 18:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the presentation of the work can also be copyrighted. Meaning, if the rules are already very terse (like we couldn't paraphrase the rules without already saying the exact same thing), the manner/order/layout/style/etc. of how the rules are presented is also subject to copyright, being part of the "creative process."  Without an actual copy of the document to look at, I must err on the side of caution and suggest deletion.—[User:Zhaladshar|Zhaladshar] [User talk:Zhaladshar 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Longer quote from U.S. Copyright Office - Games
 * '' Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.
 * ''Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.

That bold sentence, in the first paragraph, pretty clearly covers the whole content of this 1-page handout that I called a “brochure.”

Now the Formula Dé Rulebook is a separate multi-page document with more non-copyrightable rules, and notes on the game, and longer explanations of the rules with detailed interpretations. This extra material is what the second paragraph refers to.

I will also submit that while I am not a lawyer, I did study U.S. vs. E.U. Copyright and Trademark law while I was in Maastricht working on my MBA. And while I might be fuzzy on how one release license is, or is not, compatible with another—written copyright I am reasonably clear on. As such I am confident that there is not enough literary content in this document to make it copyrightable (as text), and I did not reproduce the design or formatting. (The handout used the games graphics and logos for the Circuits at the end for example.)

If anyone is still uncomfortable, I (or they) could rewrite items 3H, 3G, and 4, (which do use a paragraph structure) making the document my (or their) interpretation of the original. I did not do this before, because I do not believe myself that it is required under copyright in this case, and because the users who play the game would want the original wording (of the rule) if possible for the rules arguments that some love and some hate :-)

—[User:MJBurrage|MJBurrage] 15:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game I cannot understand what sort of rules could expect to be copyrighted if these are exempt.  These rules are explanatory paragraphs. Rewriting the article would make it unacceptable for Wikisource.  This really needs to be deleted.  Please look over What Wikisource includes and Copyright carefully.  I hope you can find an area where Wikisource's goal and your own interests overlap so you can continue contributing here enjoyably. --[User:BirgitteSB|BirgitteSB] 01:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Case law on game rules
A quick search turns up the following material, which confirms that rules (and lists) can not be copyrighted. Even the wording of most rules can not be copyrighted. Lengthy discussion of the rules, such as examples of their interpretation, may be copyrighted (but not the rules themselves). In some cases there could patents or trademarks but that does not make the rules copyrighted. Hence my assertion that it is allowed content on a Wiki. As for whether it fits the wiki license, Since derivative works, based on Game rules are allowed, and are not a copyright violation, that would allow the free use (or editing, or adaptation) need for a wiki article.

As for whether it belongs on Wikisource in particular, It is Reference material, and as such I thought it was more appropriate here than Wikipedia. —[User:MJBurrage|MJBurrage] 03:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This Paper on Game Copyright by ethesis list a number of cases on the topic over the last hundered years:
 * Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99; Affiliated Enterprises v. Gruber, 86 F.2d 958; Burk v. Johnson, 146 F. 209; Whist Club v. Foster, 42 F.2d 782; Downes v. Culbertson, 275 N.Y.S. 233; Russell v. Northeaster Pub. Co., 7 F.Supp. 571; and Seltzer v. Sunbrock, 22 F.Supp. 287; Midway Mfg. Co. v. Bandai-America, Inc., 546 F.Supp. 125.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - ALLEN v ACADEMIC GAMES
 *  A copyright only protects a particular expression of an idea and not the idea itself Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 218 (1954). Thus, ideas contained in a copyrighted work may be freely used so long as the copyrighted expression is not wholly appropriated. This is often the case with factual works where an idea contained in an expression cannot be communicated in a wide variety of ways. Landsberg v. Scrabble Crossword Game Players, Inc., 736 F.2d 485, 488 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 103  7 (1984). Consequently, the notions of idea and expression may merge from such "stock" concepts that even verbatim reproduction of a factual work may not constitute infringenent. Accord See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1983); Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 11 57, 1163 (9th Cir. 1977); Aliotti v. R. Dakin & Co., 831 F.2d 898, 901 (9th Cir. 1987).
 * This doctrine of merger is particularly applicable with respect to games "since they consist of abstract rules and play ideas." Midway Mfg. Co. v. Bandai-America, Inc., 546 F.Supp. 125, 148 (D.N.J. 1982); see also Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, 611 F.2d 296, 300 n.1. (9th Cir. 1979). A similar logic has been applied to rules of a contest where most subsequent expressions of an idea of a rule are likely to appear similar to the words of a related rule. See Morrissey v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 379 F.2d 675, 678-79 (1st Cir. 1967); Affiliated Hospital Products, Inc. v. Merdel Game Mfg. Co., 513 F.2d 1183, 1188-89 (2nd Cir. 1975). Here, Allen has not shown that it is possible to distinguish the expression of the rules of his game manuals from the idea of the rules themselves. Thus, the doctrine of merger applies and although Allen may be entitled to copyright protection for the physical form of his games, he is not afforded protection for the premises or ideas underlying those games. To hold otherwise would give Allen a monopoly on such commonplace ideas as a simple rule on how youngsters should play their games.