Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jeysie
I can't believe I almost forgot to address this:
I can't speak for the original poster, however, yes, for me I would feel Roberta would have every right to stop the use of copyrights while I find it distasteful from Vivendi.
You know why? Because Roberta created and wrote most of the King's Quest world, whereas Vivendi did nothing but buy it up. And seeing as how in this case the original creator of the series knows of the project and has given it good wishes, I personally hold a lot, lot more weight over that then a company which technically owns the rights but has jack all emotional or creative energy vested in them as of yet.
So, yes, I personally feel that the original creator of a work has the right to say how it's used and I would respect that with no grumblings. But why should I care overmuch about a company that has no creative involvement with the work whatsoever?
Peace & Luv, Liz
|
I generally agree that, on a moral level, the original creator of a work should have a say over what happens to it.
Of course, one could also ask whether or not Sierra On-Line ever contacted the estates of the creators of some of the various fairy tales that made up the KQ series to see if they had the moral leave to use them freely.
But just for fun, let's say they did...that, for instance, Lewis Carroll's estate was asked for moral permission, even if legal permission was no longer necessary.
I find it funny that one would argue moral grounds here. KQIX was chiefly written without Roberta's input or approval. Very late in the procedure, they got her "blessing," but that blessing was not based on a review of the material. Roberta refused to look at the specifics of the game. Her "blessing" amounted to, "Good luck with your project, go for it!" not "I approve of what you have my characters saying and doing, I approve of the direction you're taking the series I created, and I approve of your representation of this game being the next rightful game in the series I created."
In other words, she did not (or, legally, could not) care overmuch about the future of the KQ series if she gave her blessing, sight unseen, to a fangame.
But the point is: she had already done that. The Williamses freely sold the company. In other words: the same blessing she gave to the KQIX team, she had already given years ago when she sold the company (and, with it, the rights to the game).
Why is it morally wrong for the company that PAID for those characters to assert their ownership, but NOT morally wrong for a company (the KQIX team) that did NOT pay for those characters?
BTW: I urged the KQIX team many times, years ago, to consider renaming and recreating the game from a very early point, so as to be more respectful of Roberta (specifically: NOT to rewrite canon), to avoid conflict with Vivendi, and to avoid making presumptuous claims about what direction the series should move in and whether or not the game should be represented as being the next game in the series. For this, I was considered hostile to the project. I take no joy in seeing the project quashed, but I think it was easily preventable, and I think hubris got in the way.
--Josh
