|
 Features
Meet The Machinimakers: The 2006 Machinima
Festival Report
 Panel: “Intellectual Properties Roundtable”
Copyright and propriety are main concerns in the growing field
of machinima, especially if creators want to break into mainstream
distribution. Creating films from prepackaged games and existing
characters is the game industry equivalent of hip hop sampling.
While game companies have been slow to respond to machinima, and
in most cases have been supportive of machinima, legal use
of game properties are still up for debate.
“Will I Get Sued?” explored the legal ramifications
of repurposing licensed properties. The host of lawyers offered
advice on how machinimators can protect themselves before game
companies go the way of the music industry – charge high
premiums for the borrowing creative material. The panelists included
(moderator) Professor Jennifer Urban of the Intellectual Properties
Clinic of the University of Southern California, USC law students
Amir Kaltgrad and Charles C. Koole, Fred Von Lohmann of the Electronic
Freedom Foundation, and Jon Griggs, a filmmaker. The panel was
an informative lesson in digital rights, yet its main flaw
was, as noted by the moderator, the lack of presence
of game publishers.
Kaltgrad and Koole gave briefings on what artists need to know
about intellectual property, such as the life span of copyright
and trademark, and the concept of fair use, the most contested
term in the culture industry.
Professor Urban then explained the infringements of copyright, which
includes anything copied, distributed, performed, displayed, and
derivative of owned properties. Parody such as “Red vs. Blue” is
permitted, while using a Halo machinima for an Iraq protest
film would not. She illustrated the case of trademark protection,
Marvel
vs. NCsoft, where Marvel sued NCsoft’s over the likeness
of Marvel characters and logos (Marvel
and NCSoft eventually settled).
The group warned creators to read the fine print in End User License
Agreements
(EULA). Optimistically,
the group concluded that no machinima creators had been sued – yet.
The
next panelists gave an example of a real case study of machinima
artist vs. game publisher. Fred Von Lohmann of Electronic Freedom
Foundation posed
the question of whether machinima will be an independent art form or the
subject of corporate “sharecropping,” where creators will have to beg permission
for each use. A veteran defender of digital creator rights, Von Lohmann warned
that without artists’ advocacy for machinima, corporate interests will
co-opt the medium, and go the way of the music industry – where licensing
itself becomes the profitable industry.
Von Lohmann and EFF represented the fourth speaker, Jon Grigg,
a filmmaker who had dealt with an unresponsive game company, Valve.
Grigg had contacted Valve numerous times to get permission for
Counterstrike machinima for his film Deviation, with
no response. He needed the permission in order for Atom Films to
carry and distribute
his work, and for him to be able to make a profit. While Grigg
ultimately received permission, Von Lohmann noted that game companies
do not have a stance on machinima yet, and it’s up to the
machinima community to sway things their way.
Von Lohmann reminded the audience that game companies have been
supportive of machinima in the past, but its creators should
seek to convince jurors and game companies that machinima does
not compete with game sales. Another step creators can take
to protect themselves from copyright infringement suits is to closely
read the EULAs, and complain if they restrict machinima. Von Lohmann
recommended looking at clauses forbidding creative and derivative
work, and clauses that force the loser of any court case to assume
legal fees of the corporation. Von Lohmann also recommended creators
approach the marketing branches of game companies and remind them
that machinima can promote sales and the brand.
|
|
|
|
|
Previous