[bolseiro]

I was thinking about the timing of Vivendi´s decision concerning the KG IX game...it was right after they released the trailer,wasn´t it?
At first,i thought that they didn´t follow the game´s progress,and were simply surprised with the quality of the project.
But now,i realise that those guys (from Sierra) probably had been following the game´s progress,and,at the same time,planned a sequel to the game.They just didn´t want to pay a development team to start the game.They wanted to make sure they would have a good audience (read "buyers) for the game.And now,they are sure of it,and without spending one cent!
They took advantege of the work done by the Phoenix studios.
That´s awful,and i am not gonna buy the KG game if the Sierra decides to release it.
What about you?

[crabapple]

Originally Posted by whisperwind

this was going to happen. all the adventure fangames are screwd. adgi signed a deal with vivendi about a year ago and has the exclusive rights to create fangames. you heard it here first

Huh?

[Hammerite]

Why dont the KQIX people just join with AGDI then or something?

[Jeysie]

Josh: I'm not personally disputing that Vivendi has the right to shut down the project. But they way they've chosen to do it I find rather bizarre.

Point 1: There's been two SQ fangame prequels released so far, possibly other Sierra-based fangames too, and a number of other fangames in development. Nothing from Vivendi. Nothing that has caused those games to be closed/removed, anyway.

Point 2: AGDI has permission to release remakes. Now, I would think that games that are essentially free and improved replacements for the original games would be a nightmare for a company's IP and sales, yet Vivendi's granted permission for AGDI to release them.

Point 3: The KQIX fangame has been in production for something like 4 years, and, as you said, has received quite a bit of publicity. Vivendi has had years to shut them down, yet they wait until 2-3 months before it was going to be released.

Point 4: Colin from the SQ7.org team has been in contact with Vivendi for quite some time. Yet the project is still going. You'd think if Vivendi was really worried about cancelling fangames they'd have also given the SQ7.org folks a cease & desist, yet they have not.

Also, last I heard KQIX did not have any previous agreement/contact with Vivendi (although they did have contact with Roberta and Ken Williams). So I don't think this is a result of failed negotiations.

So, while I don't dispute the fact that Vivendi has the right to close down a fangame, I find the IMHO inconsistency of their behavior towards fangames to be strange. I feel like I'm putting two and two together and getting five.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Jeysie]

I can't believe I almost forgot to address this:

If Roberta Williams owned the copyright herself, would you feel that SHE had the right to prevent others from ripping off their copyrights? Is it simply the fact that Vivendi is a large company that makes you feel they should not have the final say about their intellectual property?

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

[MdaG]

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 have to agree with you. Just the very idea of buying someone else's idea is disgusting. As long as they're not profiting off of someone elses copyright.

[Josho]

Hi, Jeysie!

It's certainly fair to find Vivendi's actions (and timing) bizarre, but I think it's safe to presume that's only because neither you nor I nor most of the people here are privy to the decision-making process. Odds are very good that there was some rationale for it. Just because we don't know what that rationale is doesn't mean we can assume it was just an evil whim.

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Point 1: There's been two SQ fangame prequels released so far, possibly other Sierra-based fangames too, and a number of other fangames in development. Nothing from Vivendi. Nothing that has caused those games to be closed/removed, anyway.

I can think of many reasons that Vivendi might act differently with one fangame than with another. For one, as I've said, the KQIX team has taken a singularly high-profile approach (one which I encouraged Cesar NOT to take, and, as you know, have always encouraged Colin not to take with SQ7, either). For another, this is certainly not the first time that Vivendi has meddled with fangame developers. For yet another, the KQIX team (again, against my advice when they sought it) has made a show of saying that the series "needed to move in another direction" and that they were the ones to do it, and, by labeling the game "KQ IX," have also insinuated that they are releasing *the* next game in the series. Any number of these things may've helped lead Vivendi to want to call a halt to the project. Many more are easily imaginable.

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Point 2: AGDI has permission to release remakes. Now, I would think that games that are essentially free and improved replacements for the original games would be a nightmare for a company's IP and sales, yet Vivendi's granted permission for AGDI to release them.

I'm really not at liberty to discuss the terms of AGDI's agreement, as I was involved in that agreement, but let us just say that it was not without cost to AGDI. I'd also argue that free and improved replacements for original games that are no longer being sold (and, at the time of the agreement, that was true) are less of a problem for a publisher than games that purport to be the NEXT game in the series, and thus might easily "muddy the waters" for any future release.

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Point 3: The KQIX fangame has been in production for something like 4 years, and, as you said, has received quite a bit of publicity. Vivendi has had years to shut them down, yet they wait until 2-3 months before it was going to be released.

Perhaps it was the much-hyped release of the trailer that made Vivendi stockholders go, "Enough is enough." That was an extremely recent turn of events, wasn't it?

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Point 4: Colin from the SQ7.org team has been in contact with Vivendi for quite some time. Yet the project is still going. You'd think if Vivendi was really worried about cancelling fangames they'd have also given the SQ7.org folks a cease & desist, yet they have not.

That might be the reason right there: Colin took the initiative and has had "good faith" contact with Vivendi, recognizing and trying to address the fact that the project is a violation of copyright. Perhaps the KQIX team didn't. That might count for something in Vivendi's book. It might also help that Sierra does not own the rights to the name "Space Quest," but it does own the rights to the name "King's Quest."

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Also, last I heard KQIX did not have any previous agreement/contact with Vivendi (although they did have contact with Roberta and Ken Williams). So I don't think this is a result of failed negotiations.

Impossible to say. If someone on the KQIX team had had dealings with Vivendi, they might very well not be allowed to acknowledge them. Also, the point you make here is not a point in KQIX's favor. Depending on the relationship between the Williams family and Vivendi, it might've been seen as a hostile move on the KQIX team's part to have contacted the Williams, but never to have contacted the rightful copyright owners.

Originally Posted by Jeysie

So, while I don't dispute the fact that Vivendi has the right to close down a fangame, I find the IMHO inconsistency of their behavior towards fangames to be strange. I feel like I'm putting two and two together and getting five.

Well, that's simply because we don't have all the information, and we're unlikely to get it. We *might* get one side of the story, but we're highly unlikely to get both sides of the story. Until such point as we do, I'd suspend judgment.

--Josh

[Josho]

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

[Jeysie]

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.

True, but it's her right to care or not care about her work. Choosing whether or not to review the fangame before saying whether she minds it or not is her choice, and in the end she didn't shut them down. If she had it wouldn't have bothered me, and if the KQIX team ignored her and did it anyway I would take umbrage at them.

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?

I don't see KQIX as asserting ownership any more than any other team who creates a fangame or fanfiction. If you're going to call the KQIX team on that you need to call every non-original fangame team on that.

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)

Isn't that what *every* fangame does, rewrite canon? AGDI's KQ2 remake *completely* rewrote canon. SQ7.org is playing with canon. Every other SQ fangame is rewriting or playing with canon to some degree. Etc. etc. It's essentially electronic fanfiction, and again, if you call one team on it you have to call everyone on it.

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.

I will say I do agree with this part to some extent. I do think the team has been guilty of some hubris. (Which is one reason why I don't post on their forums any more.)

Nevertheless, I think what I'm basically saying here is that, again, to me the whole situation feels inconsistent. If Vivendi is going to shut down one fangame, they really need to shut down all of them, or at least give some concrete criteria of what they do and don't find acceptable and why, so every fan who wants to do a fanwork isn't looking over their shoulder with paranoia.

You do make some good points, but again, they are true of all non-original fangames, so I don't think it's fair to pick and choose which games you condemn regarding them. That's what I'm really arguing about here: equal treatment (or perceived lack thereof).

Peace & Luv, Liz

[squarejawhero]

What's the dif between this game and fanfic?

No-one's making any money out of it.

[Josho]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Choosing whether or not to review the fangame before saying whether she minds it or not is her choice, and in the end she didn't shut them down. If she had it wouldn't have bothered me, and if the KQIX team ignored her and did it anyway I would take umbrage at them.

If I remember correctly, I believe she said at the time that, for legal reasons, she could NOT look at or comment on the game itself. I don't think she had a choice in that matter.

Originally Posted by Jeysie

I don't see KQIX as asserting ownership any more than any other team who creates a fangame or fanfiction. If you're going to call the KQIX team on that you need to call every non-original fangame team on that.

But not every fangame or fanfic purports to be the rightful next entry in its series. It's one thing to say, "This is the next King's Quest game," and another to say, "This is a game that uses settings and characters inspired by King's Quest."

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Isn't that what *every* fangame does, rewrite canon? AGDI's KQ2 remake *completely* rewrote canon. SQ7.org is playing with canon. Every other SQ fangame is rewriting or playing with canon to some degree. Etc. etc. It's essentially electronic fanfiction, and again, if you call one team on it you have to call everyone on it.

I'd be interested in exploring that notion. I think one can very readily design a fangame (or write fanfiction) with the notion of "clean hands," leaving canon untouched. In the case of SQ7, at least for the story I wrote, everything that occurs does so AFTER all recorded canon. The only place where -- arguably -- events occur before recorded canon is that the action predates the whole "married to Bea" affair. I simply don't touch those events and therefore do not interfere with their development.

In the case of KQIX, though, last time I saw the docs, there were a great many events that intentionally reframed canonical events, changing, for instance, characters' motivations for their original actions, changing the nature of their relationships, etc. I think that's a clear show of disrespect to the original designer (whether or not that designer publicly comments or objects), and one definitely sees a lot of it in fangames.

Originally Posted by Jeysie

To me the whole situation feels inconsistent. If Vivendi is going to shut down one fangame, they really need to shut down all of them, or at least give some concrete criteria of what they do and don't find acceptable and why, so every fan who wants to do a fanwork isn't looking over their shoulder with paranoia.

I agree fully, it does seem inconsistent. SQ:TLC seems to have gotten a total pass. AGDI's remakes have gotten a partial pass. KQIX seems to have gotten no pass whatsoever. Then again, these games are all quite different in the degree to which, and manner in which, they impinge upon the copyrights. In a court battle, I wonder if a defendant could not point to SQ:TLC and say, "You can't selectively enforce your copyright." I'd guess that you CAN selectively enforce a copyright, but I'd love to hear a lawyer weigh in on that.

As far as making criteria clear, I'm not at all sure a copyright holder has a responsibility to publicly declare what is or isn't fair use of their property. The existing presumption is that NO use of the property is fair. I would think the onus is on the designer or writer to seek out the copyright holder and find out what the criteria are...or at least make a good-faith effort to do so (and ensure a paper trail that documents it!).

--Josh

[rtrooney]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

...to me the whole situation feels inconsistent. If Vivendi is going to shut down one fangame, they really need to shut down all of them, or at least give some concrete criteria of what they do and don't find acceptable and why, so every fan who wants to do a fanwork isn't looking over their shoulder with paranoia.

I'm with Josh on this one.

In the consumer marketplace Brands come and go all the time. Just because Proctor and Gamble decides to stop making X doesn't mean they've relinquished ownership of the Brand.

They may even decide to sell the Brand to Nestle, who also may decide not to manufacture X but that doesn't mean Nestle has relinquished ownership of the Brand.

If I, as a longtime fan of X, decide that if they aren't going to manufacture it, I will, and I will call it by the very same Brand name. Should I expect a knock on my door? You bet! Can I control when, or even if, the knock will come? Absolutely not.

Now, simply substitue Sierra On-Line for P&G; Vivendi Universal for Nestle; Kings Quest for Brand and KQIX for the remanufactured X I want to bring to market.

And finally, does the Brand holder have a right to arbitrarily protect some of its Brands and not others? That's a little iffy. If a Brand holder neglects to protect the Brand, it may eventually find itself losing exclusive rights to that Brand, but that is not the case here.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Josho

If I remember correctly, I believe she said at the time that, for legal reasons, she could NOT look at or comment on the game itself. I don't think she had a choice in that matter.

But she still chose to give them good wishes regardless. I personally wouldn't have made such a choice myself, but she did basically say "I'm not going to shut down a fangame based on my work."

Originally Posted by Josho

But not every fangame or fanfic purports to be the rightful next entry in its series. It's one thing to say, "This is the next King's Quest game," and another to say, "This is a game that uses settings and characters inspired by King's Quest."

I do agree that the KQIX team felt to me to be too arrogant sometimes. Nonetheless, any fangame that puts a number in its name is at least partially claming to be a next or previous game in the series.

I'd be interested in exploring that notion. I think one can very readily design a fangame (or write fanfiction) with the notion of "clean hands," leaving canon untouched. In the case of SQ7, at least for the story I wrote, everything that occurs does so AFTER all recorded canon. The only place where -- arguably -- events occur before recorded canon is that the action predates the whole "married to Bea" affair. I simply don't touch those events and therefore do not interfere with their development.

In the case of KQIX, though, last time I saw the docs, there were a great many events that intentionally reframed canonical events, changing, for instance, characters' motivations for their original actions, changing the nature of their relationships, etc. I think that's a clear show of disrespect to the original designer (whether or not that designer publicly comments or objects), and one definitely sees a lot of it in fangames.

That's a fair enough point to take, but it still doesn't exempt AGDI's KQ2 remake which definitely did rewrite, reframe, and add to canon. (And that by changing and replacing an existing game, for that matter.)

And I do agree that I doubt a company is legally required to specify what and what isn't acceptable to its fans. But it's certainly a sign of good faith towards your fans (since any PR person that hasn't been under a rock knows that if there's a creative work, sooner or later somebody's going to create fanworks based on it).

I mean, for instance, if I want to go and write and post/play a Harry Potter fanfic or RPG or website I know ahead of time what is and isn't "acceptable" without having to worry about it. I don't have to get all paranoid.

I do agree that the KQIX team should have addressed the issue since it's such a big and notable project, and it's a very good idea for any fangame team. But I still think it would be a sign of good faith if Vivendi acknowledged the desire of fans to create works and made some kind of official statement.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by avatar_58

I read about this on another forum, really....it was coming and they knew it. They shouldnt have assumed that vivendi wouldnt come after them. They should have either gotten permission or not have started at all.

Yeah. I always think it is a great idea to avoid starting any project if it has the possibility of being shut down. Why take the risk? Why be adventurous and take the gamble? It's just too dang silly to think that amateurs dared to face legal conflict.

If I had the chance, I would have never started making a fan game--especially since Vivendi has plans to release a collectors box set of the King's Quest series.

Um...now to be serious. They knew they were taking a chance by creating this game. To go further and say that they--in essence--got "what they deserved" is just plain backwards. I, for one, see Vivendi's late decision to shut down KQIX production as a cheap shot. Sorry, but a big, bad company like Vivendi should be a little ashamed. If their not, then I'll have to post those pictures I found of it on-line.

Maybe then they'll turn a little red in the face.

Kirk

[rtrooney]

Originally Posted by Kirk

Maybe then they'll turn a little red in the face.
Kirk

Where are you people coming from?
People/companies OWN their own Brands/Trademarks/Copywrites!!!!

That you don't like that they decide to enforce their rights is entirely beside the point.

[eriq]

Weren't the King's Quest games great? My favourite was King's Quest 5.

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by rtrooney

Where are you people coming from?
People/companies OWN their own Brands/Trademarks/Copywrites!!!!

That you don't like that they decide to enforce their rights is entirely beside the point.

No need to be snippy.

I come from Michigan and damn well do not care about the company enforcing its rights. I understand this and am not the moron you seem to imply me to be.

Instead, I merely think it is fine for some amteurs to take the risk. And I feel that it is sad to see KQIX go.

That you don't personally agree with my opinion is entirely beside the point. Now settle down.

Kirk

[ozzie]

Well, my mouth stood like 3 minutes wide open.
It's the worst joke which isn't one, legally maybe right, ethically definately wrong.
It's not really clear to me why they made this decision now after it was for so many years in development. It could be the trailer that got through to them because it spawned a big attention or it showed them that this game rivals even commercial releases and would take something away from their sale numbers, together it could have something to do with the rerelease of the KQ collection.

For me it is like the shutdown of the S&M2 of amateur games. All what we have left are some pretty screenshots and an amazing trailer which we will probably watch again and again. And that so short before the final release! There are so many similiarities!
On example of this historical case we maybe should also start a petition to show our anger against Vivendi. Many would surely sign it and in this regard it would be successful, but like we already know, it wouldn't reverse this decision.

R.I.P.
Well, at least, they're going on, but nevertheless it seems like a big waste of time and energy now, and only because this ****ing....however.

[Candle]

Should of known better .
Copyright is copyright.

[Maquisard]

Should have known better. Verbs are verbs, after all.