In college, I was so annoyed with my bf (at the time) because he was always playing this silly game called DotA. Day and night, I would hear the constant clicking of the mouse, lots of curses, and occasional cheers.
.jpg)
All your base are belong to us!
One day, my bf showed me a character that he was using. "This is Tiny," he said. I looked at the character on the screen. It was a small giant made out of rock. He was SOOOO cute. My attention was captured. I watched Tiny stomp around, gleefully squishing creeps unfortunate enough to be in his path. All of a sudden, he began to grow. And grow. And grow until he was the biggest character on the screen.
RAWR I'm Tiny! The Stone Giant!
That was how I fell in love with DotA. A tiny rock monster named "Tiny," the Stone Giant, who could grow and become a lumbering rock monster. How adorable.
Last year, it was reported that IceFrog, the current developer of DotA (there have been many developers who contributed to the creation of DotA) joined Valve, developer of TF2, L4D, and Portal, for a top secret project.
A few days ago, GameInformer announced (to nobody's real surprise) that Valve and IceFrog were working on DotA 2, a "sequel" of sorts to DotA. DotA 2 won't be the first game based on the popular DotA concept - Demigod, League of Legends (the original creator of Dota worked on LoL), and Heroes of Newearth are all RTS/RPG based on DotA. However, none have been specifically called "DotA" or incorporated the "DotA" name.
There have been numerous questions about the legality of Valve making a sequel based on DotA, which was created using Blizzard's WarCraft III map editor. I don't think Blizzard would be able to assert any claims against Valve, and I'm going to briefly explain why.
Blizzard's WarCraft III map editor has a EULA, which every user must agree to when they use the editor to create mods (such as DotA). Section 2 states:
Ownership. All title, ownership rights, and intellectual property rights in and to the Program and any and all copies thereof (including, but not limited to, any titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialog, catch phrases, locations, concepts, artwork, animations, sounds, musical compositions, audio-visual effects, methods of operation, moral rights, any related documentation, and "applets" incorporated into the Program) are owned by Blizzard Entertainment or its licensors. The Program is protected by the copyright laws of the United States, international copyright treaties, and conventions and other laws. All rights are reserved. The Program contains certain licensed materials, and Blizzard's licensors may protect their rights in the event of any violation of this Agreement.
This is the only section that discusses ownership rights - so Blizzard has ownership of the map editor, along with the concepts, artworks, animations, sounds, etc. incorporated in the program (and that people undoubtedly use to create their own maps). Seems like Blizzard is pretty well-covered, right? And that Valve can't go along and create another game based on DotA?
Well, no. This only protects Blizzard against ACTUAL reproductions and copies of the ACTUAL DotA game. So if IceFrog started trying to sell Dota as a standalone product, then there would be a problem.
DotA 2 is being developed by Valve on a new engine, complete with new code, new graphics, new animation, new sound effects, and basically new everything. Clearly the actual DotA game, including its code and the in-game characters, the sound effects, the trees, the paths, etc. built using the code is copyrightable by Blizzard, and there is no question that Blizzard owns them according to the terms of the EULA.
BUT Blizzard doesn't own the copyrights to vampires, druids, drow rangers, living skeletons, elves, orcs, dwarves, ogres, healers, etc. Arguably, these all existed well before Blizzard came up with WC3 or incorporated them into the game - they are all pretty popular characters from the fantasy genre. These are generic characters that Blizzard can't claim a copyright to. In addition, the names are probably okay because Blizzard didn't come up with the names - the developers did, and the names aren't part of the WC3 map builder. Neither are the backstories of the characters, which were created by the developers and the community. Even based on pure character aesthetics, from the concept art, it seems like there are substantial differences.
Morphling in DotA < Morphling in DotA 2
The idea of DotA itself, as an RTS/RPG game, is uncopyrightable as an idea. The actual mechanics of the game are likely not copyrightable under the merger doctrine if it is proven that there are only a few ways of expressing the RTS/RPG gameplay, especially if the gameplay mechanics of DotA are the most efficient way to express it. So if Valve makes DotA 2 gameplay the same as DotA, that is probably okay.
It looks like Blizzard would likely have a very weak claim of copyright infringement. What about the name DotA? Valve is using the name DotA 2 - is that okay?
Valve filed for a trademark for DotA - and Riot Games, developer of League of Legends, then counterfiled for a trademark on Defense of the Ancients. Arguing that DotA is something that many people, and the entire DotA community, has contributed to, Riot argued that it should remain in the public domain.
If DotA has already been trademarked by someone (which is doubtful, because we would have heard about it by now), then Valve would clearly be unable to trademark it. Additionally, if the PTO decides that the name DotA is generic (meaning that DotA has come to describe a particular product, such as the entire class of RTS/RPG games as opposed to the particular game DotA), then Valve will be unable to get a trademark. However, this doesn't seem to be the case, since other games based on DotA like HoN, LoL, and Demigod are all based on DotA and yet aren't called DotA.
Overall, it looks like Valve, and DotA 2, are on strong footing against any legal claims Activision/Blizzard might try to assert. In the end, I'm looking forward to playing DotA 2 when it's released next year!
Last year, it was reported that IceFrog, the current developer of DotA (there have been many developers who contributed to the creation of DotA) joined Valve, developer of TF2, L4D, and Portal, for a top secret project.
A few days ago, GameInformer announced (to nobody's real surprise) that Valve and IceFrog were working on DotA 2, a "sequel" of sorts to DotA. DotA 2 won't be the first game based on the popular DotA concept - Demigod, League of Legends (the original creator of Dota worked on LoL), and Heroes of Newearth are all RTS/RPG based on DotA. However, none have been specifically called "DotA" or incorporated the "DotA" name.
There have been numerous questions about the legality of Valve making a sequel based on DotA, which was created using Blizzard's WarCraft III map editor. I don't think Blizzard would be able to assert any claims against Valve, and I'm going to briefly explain why.
Blizzard's WarCraft III map editor has a EULA, which every user must agree to when they use the editor to create mods (such as DotA). Section 2 states:
Ownership. All title, ownership rights, and intellectual property rights in and to the Program and any and all copies thereof (including, but not limited to, any titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialog, catch phrases, locations, concepts, artwork, animations, sounds, musical compositions, audio-visual effects, methods of operation, moral rights, any related documentation, and "applets" incorporated into the Program) are owned by Blizzard Entertainment or its licensors. The Program is protected by the copyright laws of the United States, international copyright treaties, and conventions and other laws. All rights are reserved. The Program contains certain licensed materials, and Blizzard's licensors may protect their rights in the event of any violation of this Agreement.
This is the only section that discusses ownership rights - so Blizzard has ownership of the map editor, along with the concepts, artworks, animations, sounds, etc. incorporated in the program (and that people undoubtedly use to create their own maps). Seems like Blizzard is pretty well-covered, right? And that Valve can't go along and create another game based on DotA?
Well, no. This only protects Blizzard against ACTUAL reproductions and copies of the ACTUAL DotA game. So if IceFrog started trying to sell Dota as a standalone product, then there would be a problem.
DotA 2 is being developed by Valve on a new engine, complete with new code, new graphics, new animation, new sound effects, and basically new everything. Clearly the actual DotA game, including its code and the in-game characters, the sound effects, the trees, the paths, etc. built using the code is copyrightable by Blizzard, and there is no question that Blizzard owns them according to the terms of the EULA.
BUT Blizzard doesn't own the copyrights to vampires, druids, drow rangers, living skeletons, elves, orcs, dwarves, ogres, healers, etc. Arguably, these all existed well before Blizzard came up with WC3 or incorporated them into the game - they are all pretty popular characters from the fantasy genre. These are generic characters that Blizzard can't claim a copyright to. In addition, the names are probably okay because Blizzard didn't come up with the names - the developers did, and the names aren't part of the WC3 map builder. Neither are the backstories of the characters, which were created by the developers and the community. Even based on pure character aesthetics, from the concept art, it seems like there are substantial differences.
Morphling in DotA < Morphling in DotA 2
The idea of DotA itself, as an RTS/RPG game, is uncopyrightable as an idea. The actual mechanics of the game are likely not copyrightable under the merger doctrine if it is proven that there are only a few ways of expressing the RTS/RPG gameplay, especially if the gameplay mechanics of DotA are the most efficient way to express it. So if Valve makes DotA 2 gameplay the same as DotA, that is probably okay.
It looks like Blizzard would likely have a very weak claim of copyright infringement. What about the name DotA? Valve is using the name DotA 2 - is that okay?
Valve filed for a trademark for DotA - and Riot Games, developer of League of Legends, then counterfiled for a trademark on Defense of the Ancients. Arguing that DotA is something that many people, and the entire DotA community, has contributed to, Riot argued that it should remain in the public domain.
If DotA has already been trademarked by someone (which is doubtful, because we would have heard about it by now), then Valve would clearly be unable to trademark it. Additionally, if the PTO decides that the name DotA is generic (meaning that DotA has come to describe a particular product, such as the entire class of RTS/RPG games as opposed to the particular game DotA), then Valve will be unable to get a trademark. However, this doesn't seem to be the case, since other games based on DotA like HoN, LoL, and Demigod are all based on DotA and yet aren't called DotA.
Overall, it looks like Valve, and DotA 2, are on strong footing against any legal claims Activision/Blizzard might try to assert. In the end, I'm looking forward to playing DotA 2 when it's released next year!
Given the close association between DotA and WC3 (even though DotA, obviously, is nothing at all like the "standard" gameplay of WC3), I think Blizzard has an arguable claim to the fact that Valve's DotA2 is confusingly similar to DotA and arguably WC3, which are trademarks of Blizzard.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that Blizzard /wants/ to stop Valve (given that it hasn't made any attempts to stop HoN or LoL, which would give Valve a dilution argument because Blizzard hasn't gone after them), but I think Activision/Blizzard has a colorable argument.
That said, I'm still disinclined to play DotA2 now because IceFrog (whether true or not) seems like such an ass. ;) So, my allegiance is totally to LoL now. :P
Yes, let's all decide which games to play based on the personality of the developers. That would be SUCH A GOOD IDEA.
ReplyDeletehttp://kotaku.com/5672461/blizzard-says-valves-dota-trademark-doesnt-seem-the-right-thing-to-do
ReplyDelete@Joshua: Nice comeback! Because communities are never reflective of the personalities of the main developers, right? Woah. Mind.Blown.