Category Archives: Intellectual Property
Moral rights, porn star Tera Patrick and Saint’s Row 2
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) aren’t something most people think about in relation to porn. However that is exactly what I thought about when I read this article, published by Kotaku (Saint’s Row 2: Porn Starlet Tera Patrick Joins Saint’s Row 2). The porn st…. sorry adult star Tera Patrick has been appointed “Special Producer” for the THQ published game Saint’s Row 2 – much to the embarrassment of some members of the development team, Violition (www.volition-inc.com).
Now don’t get me wrong, I am as sick as the next guy and am happy to keep staring at naked ladies until they find the drill hole and block it up. In addition to liking naked women I also like games and films and beer and animals. (The latter burnt just enough that they stop moving then smothered with bar-b-q sauce). What I don’t like is stupid and lazy marketing people who think that the best way to sell me a game (or any of the other things I like) is to dangle Tera Patrick, or any other porn star, in front of my face. Tera Patrick isn’t really a producer (special or otherwise) on the project. She doesn’t have any involvement in the development of the game and the game isn’t about Porn so her use in marketing Saint’s Row 2 is completely gratuitous. Saint’s Row 2 is about Gangs – would anyone seriously think that it would be good marketing to use a porn star to promote The Godfather or Gangs of New York? All this does is tell me that, in addition to being lazy, these marketeers have no understanding of why people buy games and have no respect for for either the customer or the developers that make the games.
So what does any of this have to do with Intellectual Property Rights? Well, in addition to the more commonly discussed IPR such as Copyright and Trademarks there are another set… Moral Rights. No I’m not talking about anti-sin, placard waiving Republicans. Moral Rights are the rights of a author not to have their work distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would prejudice the author’s honor or reputation. Something that they could certainly claim is happening as a result of this marketing campaign. Of course they will almost certainly have had to sign a development contract with assignes/waives any such rights but that doesn’t make it acceptable, it just means that unfortunately they can’t do anything about it.
Scott Miller incubates
Video Game news site Gamedaily.com has a story up here about an apparent new IP incubator company to be founded by Scott Miller of 3DRealms and Jim Perkins, a former SVP of GT Interactive. The story is based on the brief existence of a web site (now showing just a logo) for a company called Radar Group. The story states that “Radar Group is an original IP incubator that will aim to take video game projects into cross-media properties such as films, TV shows, novels and toys.” The story goes on to quote more from the site regarding the company’s plans with “We build into our original, co-created IP the hooks to make for both a great game and a great film.”
Hmmmm now Scott Miller is obviously a smart guy and thinks this is the way to go but personally I can’t remember a “cross media” project that has been a meaningful success. By that I mean a project designed to be successful across multiple media, instead of taking a success from one media and moving it to another. It takes a lot of passion, dedication and hard work to make a great creative product, be it a film, comic, game or book. Trying to make a game, which is also suitable for a film (or vice-versa) is adding an extra level of complexity to an already difficult creative process. Designing a game to include elements because they are suitable “hooks to make for both a great game and a great film” is a quick way to dilute creative vision and make the creative process harder. In the 20 years I have been in the industry I have been pitched a multitude of cross media projects designed to be a great game/comic/film. None of them ever succeeded.
Cross media products are a bad way to make creative products…. of course as business people love the media convergence concept such a business model is are a great way to attract investment.
“I have a great idea for a film….
…and I think it would make a great game”
I have had quite a large number of meetings over the years that started with that line, both as a publisher and as a developer. My reaction has always been the same; I feel used. From talking to other game people they seem to say the same things. Their thoughts go along the lines of:
1. If it’s so great why doesn’t a film company pick it up.
2. Seems to me that you want to make a game just so that (when it is successful) the film companies will see what a good idea it was and buy it – in other words you want use us to get to your real goal.
3. If this isn’t what the project was originated for then it most likely won’t be your main focus – and as a result the game will suffer.
4. You think that games are in some way an easy touch. That we will buy a “reject film idea” that no film company has taken up or that we are incapable of coming up with enough great ideas of our own.
Passion is vital in the success of creative projects. It is this passion that gets a film crew through a miserable nights filming or the 100th retake of (what should have been) a simple scene. Likewise it is passion that gets a programmer to rewrite working code for the third time because it now needs to work with something someone else is adding. You don’t actually need everyone to be passionate – but you do need the person leading the project, the person whose idea it is to focus and drive the project forward.
I think part of the reason why film/TV people believe they may be able to sell their idea to a game company is because we produce so many film licenses. The point they are missing is that game publishers buy licenses because they have proven value – either the film is already a success or it is coming from a top director/has big stars. They know how much of a marketing budget the film will have and that they can ride on the coat-tails of this when selling their game version. Just because it was originated as an idea for a film that doesn’t give it any value as a game idea.
Eidos surrender on champ manager?
I will belatedly comment on an item from a December ’06 copy of MCV (www.www.mcvuk.com/index.php), having just found the page that I tore from the paper. Page 12 of issue 415 (1st Dec ’06) featured an announcement by Ian Livingston (Director of Acquisitions) that Eidos are keen to create a Championship Manager game using Sony’s buzz peripheral. Seems to me that they are waving the white flag and surrendering in the Football Management wars. Champ Manager was the football management brand back when Sports Interactive were developing it. To describe its fans as die hard would be something of an understatement. It is also safe to say that Football Management games are something of a niche market (albeit a lucrative one) and that fans of a management game are unlikely to buy just any old Champ Man branded product. Yet here is Eidos announcing a Buzz quiz game – something much more likely to appeal to the casual FIFA/PES footy game fans (or just football fans in general). Maybe it will turn out to be a smart move that widens the brand out to the mass market but somehow I doubt it. It seems more likely that Eidos have realised they can’t compete with Football Manager and so want to transform the brand into a dumbed down quiz.
Intellectual Property in the digital age
The UK government have undertaken a review of Intellectual Property in the digital age. The Gower Report focuses on the future of IP law (from a UK stand point) in the digital age. Obviously the reality is that IP law is an international issue and an UK initiative will need to be fed up to Europe for haggling and then further debated at a global level (and even then Youtube users will just carry on doing what they want regardless). Still, it’s something to keep an eye on given that Intellectual Property is where the true value is for computer game developers and publishers .
Gowers Review of Intellectual Property
In December 2005, the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked Andrew Gowers to conduct an independent review into the UK Intellectual Property Framework. The Review was published on 6th December 2006 and can be accessed at the links below.Intellectual Property is a critical component of our present and future success in the global economy. The UK’s economic competitiveness is increasingly driven by knowledge-based industries, especially in manufacturing, science-based sectors and the creative industries.
The IP framework must create incentives for innovation, without unduly limiting access for consumers and follow-on innovators. The Review examined the instruments of Intellectual Property i.e. patents, copyright, designs and trade marks, to ensure that they are balanced, coherent and flexible, and at the operations; how IP is awarded, used, and enforced. The Review also considered the governance of IP. The terms of reference are available.
Full announcement here http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pre_budget_report/prebud_pbr06/other_docs/prebud_pbr06_odgowers.cfm
Downloadable copy of the report here http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/583/91/pbr06_gowers_report_755.pdf