this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
110 points (96.6% liked)

Games

16838 readers
1059 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
110
Discworld rerelease "may happen" but depends on "King Charles", developer says (www.eurogamer.net)
submitted 9 months ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well in this case. No one actually knows who owns the rights to the DiscWorld games. Unless something has changed in the last year.

We're also talking about a game licensing another entity's IP.

But let's assume that we do know. You can't declare something in the public domain without knowing who owns it.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And how does the Crown owning half help things? That's just another interested party with a lot of bureaucracy to get anything done.

Instead of that, there should be a process, something like this:

  1. Interested party approaches judge with due diligence showing the property is unclaimed
  2. Judge orders the IP agency to investigate, plaintiff pays some fee to cover that cost
  3. IP agency does own research and informs judge that no owner could be found
  4. Judge reviews evidence and orders the IP office to place a notice that the IP is unclaimed and will revert to public domain after a grace period
  5. After 6 months or so, the plaintiff is granted a temporary license to use the IP (until the end of the grace period), and after the grace period finishes (say, 5 years?), the IP enters the public domain

Other types of property are less complicated because ownership is tracked by the government.

[–] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What you're describing is basically what happens. Only between the claimant and the government.

Also worth noting that this only applies when a company closes (is removed from the company register) and any IP isn't transferred out of the company. And in most cases it is full ownership.

So as far as the law is concerned there is no ownership of that IP. Copyrights, trademarks, patents, whatever it might be. But that doesn't mean people don't have a claim.

By moving it to a government entity that is specifically set up to deal with these claims.

It removes any ambiguity. The government can make a clear cut ruling on who owns the IP.

Because "The Crown" is just the government. And unlike a private citizen the government won't use these IPs.

There are only two things the government can do with an IP in this situation, declare someone with a valid claim as the owner, or sell it to a buyer. Who in both cases have to come to the government.

If no claims or offers are made the IP will eventually enter the public domain.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

eventually enter the public domain

But that's the problem. I'm guessing this takes until whatever the copyright term is in the UK. In the US, that's 70 years (maybe it's longer now, IDK) after the death of the original creator. If it's sold, that's still going to take a long time because they'd likely be stuck in legal limbo just like this one is and take years to clean up anytime someone wants to use the IP.

In short, I don't think unclaimed IP should be sold, it should either be claimed or put into the public domain, after a grace period. Imo, copyright duration should be much shorter, such as 14 years (original US copyright term) with an optional extension, and copyright should only be transferred once (exception for immediate family).