Copyright Law Myths: No, You Can’t (Re)Make a Star Wars Game

I’m not sure what it is exactly about Star Wars games specifically that makes some people throw caution to the wind and completely disregard existing intellectual property laws, but here we are, the second time in recent memory that the development of an unlicensed Star Wars video game has made the rounds on various gaming news sites.

In case you hadn’t heard, a group of indie game developers going by the name of Poem Studios has announced their intention to release “Apeiron,” a modern reboot of the 2003 Xbox classic Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. According to their website, they are “a group of dedicated programmers, artists, voice actors, world builders, and writers that have all come together to breathe life back into a wonderful game,” and they intend Apeiron to be “a remake and remastering of the original game with added content, new worlds, missions, HUD, inventory, items, and compainions [sic].”

And all that really does sound fantastic – fans of the original game would get to experience the game anew on modern machines, and people who missed it the first time around would get to be introduced to a classic game without having to look past the “classic” graphics and game design.

Or, rather, it would be fantastic, if what they were doing was in any way legal, and if I wasn’t fairly certain a cease and desist letter (or worse) is headed their way at some point in the future.

It seems that Poem Studios has not sought permission from LucasFilm/Disney (who hold the copyright to the Star Wars setting and elements) nor Electronic Arts/BioWare (who hold the copyright to the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic game). On their website, under the question “Is this legal?” the answer they currently have up there is “WE BELIEVE SO.”


I… wasn’t exaggerating. This is actually what it says on their website.

It’s safe to say they probably haven’t sought the advice of an IP lawyer. I suspect the Apeiron developers’ confidence in the legality of their project is based on a number of common myths about intellectual property law. I’d like to address a few of the more common myths here. Continue reading

Guardians of the Tower v. Xûr, Agent of the Nine

This is one of those things that’s so up my alley I’m kind of annoyed with myself that I didn’t think of it first, though I realize the target audience for it (the intersection of Destiny players and people interested in reading legal motions) might not be huge.

Some context for people who might not play Destiny: Xûr is a NPC vendor that shows up in the Tower (the social hub of the game) on weekends to sell end-game weapons and armor. Xûr’s inventory is randomly generated every week, and this randomness is a common cause of grief for players looking for specific equipment to fill out their inventory.

The Complaint

Well, reddit user Agent–Orange decided to take action on behalf of all the City’s Guardians and filed a class action suit against Xûr for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

xurcomplaint1 xurcomplaint2 xurcomplaint3 xurcomplaint4

Continue reading

Lara Croft: Tomb Raiding and the Law

(If you’re a fan of both comic books and the law, you might already be aware of the fantastic law blog Law and the Multiverse. I wrote a guest post over there to answer a reader question that happened to fall within my wheelhouse: video games.)

Since the release of Tomb Raider in 1996, millions of people have been happily raiding tombs as intrepid archaeologist Lara Croft; however, back in April of last year, Mark asked: how legal is anything Lara Croft does? (Note: Since I am a U.S. attorney, this analysis will be based on prevailing U.S. law. Ms. Croft’s fate in the courts of her home country of England is best left to experts across the pond.)

The UNESCO 1970 Convention

The single most significant law affecting Ms. Croft’s globe-spanning archaeological pursuits is the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The UNESCO 1970 Convention was drafted to combat the illicit trafficking of cultural artifacts by giving member nations the right to recover stolen or illegally exported antiquities from other member countries.

At the time of this writing, 124 nations are signatories to the treaty, including almost every nation that Lara Croft has visited during her various adventures (except for Tibet and Thailand). The United States ratified the UNESCO 1970 Convention and implemented it with the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CIPA), codified in 19 U.S.C. §§ 2601-13.

Lara Croft World Map

Ms. Croft has certainly had an eventful career.

That being said, the UNESCO 1970 Convention and CIPA only come into play if the items in question were in fact 1) cultural artifacts, and 2) stolen or illegally exported. While UNESCO provides model provisions regarding state ownership of cultural objects, such model provisions are not themselves legally binding, and it is up to each member nation to implement laws concerning the ownership and exportation of cultural artifacts.

The Raiding of Foreign Tombs

Whether Lara Croft could face liability for the actual act of “raiding” would depend upon the local laws governing the tombs in question. The games are notably silent as to Lara having the proper permits to conduct her excavations, but it seems safe to assume that her tomb raiding is being done without the permission of the local governments and would almost certainly subject her to civil and/or criminal liability. (To be fair to the game developers, a cutscene or level wherein Lara visits a Peruvian government building to file for permits might not have made for the most exciting game.)

The question of whether or not Lara’s tomb raiding are illegal in the countries in which the tomb raiding is rather straightforward – the answer is almost certainly yes, as in each case she goes in without government sanction, guns blazing, often resulting in the complete destruction of the tomb in question.

Tomb Raider Lara Croft shooting


For example, in Egypt, Article 6 of Law 117 states that “[a]ll antiquities are considered to be public property . . . It is impermissible to own, possess or dispose of antiquities except pursuant to the conditions set forth in this law and its implementing regulations.” Furthermore, Article 41 states that anyone who “unlawfully smuggles an antiquity outside the Republic or participates in such an act shall be liable to a prison term with hard labor and a fine of not less than 5,000 and not more than 50,000 pounds.” There are prison terms and fines outlined for removing an antiquity from its place, for transporting it outside of Egypt without express government permission, and for defacing artifacts and monuments, all of which Lara does during her brief time in Egypt looking for the final piece of the Scion in the first Tomb Raider game.

Rather than list off the innumerable fines and jail terms Lara would no doubt face in the various nations from which she retrieves artifacts, instead I will examine the legal consequences Lara may face after her adventures are concluded and she brings these artifacts home to hang up on her wall. (Lara Croft’s official home is in England; however, as previously stated, I will be analyzing her situation in the context of U.S. law. I would welcome a British lawyer’s perspective on how Lara would fare over there.)

National Stolen Property Act

In the U.S., a person may be subject to both civil and criminal liability for the sale and transport of illegally exported cultural artifacts. While Lara doesn’t ever actually sell any of the artifacts she finds, the fact remains that she is transporting all of these artifacts across state/national borders all the time, with many of them winding up in her personal collection at home. (For example, she has the Ark of the Covenant just sitting in the main hall of her mansion.)

Tomb Raider: Ark of the Covenant

Is the Ark of the Covenant maybe the kind of thing that belongs in a museum, rather than someone’s foyer?

The National Stolen Property Act (NSPA) prohibits the transportation “in interstate or foreign commerce [of] any goods, . . . of the value of $5,000 or more,” with knowledge that such goods were “stolen, converted or taken by fraud.” 18 U.S.C. § 2314. Enacted in 1948, the NSPA was originally intended to aid states in their pursuit of thieves, as the states’ ability to prosecute thieves was often limited when the thieves (or the property) would cross state lines.

United States v. McClain

However, in addition to interstate commerce, the NSPA also specifically mentions foreign commerce, and as a result it has been applied to the illegal import of artifacts stolen from foreign nations. In United States v. McClain, the defendant was prosecuted under the NSPA for illegally importing several pre-Columbian artifacts from Mexico.

On appeal, the defense argued that that the NSPA could only be applied if the artifacts were “stolen” as defined by the NSPA, and that the term “stolen” only covers “acts which result in the wrongful deprivation of rights of ‘ownership’ as that term is understood at common law. United States v. McClain, 545 F.2d 988, 994 (5th Cir. 1977). In other words, he couldn’t have stolen them if they weren’t officially owned by anyone.

The court reasoned that an explicit declaration of ownership by the government would be sufficient to consider the illegally exported artifacts “stolen” under the NSPA. (Without such an explicit declaration of ownership, prosecuting people in the U.S. for illegally exporting artifacts from foreign nations would simply amount to the United States enforcing the laws of other nations for them.)

While the respondents argued that Mexico had passed laws protecting their archaeological interests dating back to 1897, the court did not find a law specifically declaring ownership over the type of artifacts in question until 1972, when Mexico passed the Federal Law on Archaeological, Artistic and Historic Monuments and Zones. 312 Diario Oficial 16, 6 de mayo de 1972. Article 27 states that “[a]rchaeological monuments, movables and immovables, are the inalienable and imprescriptible property of the Nation.”

Because court could only establish that Mexico had officially declared its ownership interest over the artifacts in 1972, and it could not be established precisely when the defendant had exported the artifacts, the defendant was eventually acquitted of all but the conspiracy charges.

The McCain decision was cited 25 years later, in Unites States v. Schultz, 333 F.3d 393 (2003), in which the defendant was also prosecuted under the NSPA for the receipt of stolen Egyptian antiquities. In Schultz, the court looked to a law passed in Egypt (“Law 117”) that declared all antiquities found in Egypt after 1983 to be the property of the Egyptian government, and upheld the defendant’s conviction. Schultz was sentenced to 33 months in prison and a fine of $50,000, and nearly all of the artifacts he received were returned to Egypt.


On top of all the possible fines and jail time Lara Croft would likely face in each nation she visits in her tomb-raiding adventures, for each artifact she brings home she may also be prosecuted by the U.S. government for the transport of stolen goods under the National Stolen Property Act as long as the artifact’s nation of origin has enacted a law officially declaring state ownership of such artifacts. Furthermore, all of the various artifacts she retrieves will likely be returned to their nations of origin under the UNESCO 1970 Convention and CIPA.

Lara Croft Manor artifacts

Well, for her sake hopefully Lara didn’t bring home THAT many arti… oh.


This analysis was focused specifically on the legal ramifications of the act of retrieving and transporting the artifacts central to the Tomb Raider games. In the course of the first game alone, Lara Croft also breaks into the corporate headquarters of Natla Technologies, kills a number of endangered animals (like wolves and gorillas, not to mention the sasquatch and dinosaurs), and also straight up shoots a guy without (much) provocation.

How legal is anything Lara Croft does? The short answer is, “Not very.”

Trademarks 101: The Candy Apple Glass Saga

The issue of trademarks came into the spotlight recently when King, the company behind Candy Crush Saga, took action (to put it lightly) to protect their trademarks in the words “candy” and “saga.” (Likely in reaction to the tremendous industry backlash, King has since abandoned its trademark in the word “candy” and has “amicably” resolved its disputes with both Stoic and CandySwipe, and we consumers may once again swipe candies and enjoy banner-related sagas.)

This recent trademark hulabaloo had a lot of people asking how King was even able to register trademarks on common English words like “candy” and “saga.” Meanwhile, Google has filed an application for a trademark in the word “glass,” and people have been asking for years how Apple can possibly have an official trademark on a word as common as “apple.”

will-iphone-blendThis isn’t what I had in mind when I asked you to blend a small apple. Now I know why this juice didn’t turn out at all as I expected.

What’s In a (Trade)Name?

First, it’s important to establish what exactly a trademark is, and what the government’s purpose is in protecting them. Of the four broad swaths of intellectual property law (copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets), trademarks are unique in that their purpose is ostensibly to protect the consumer, not the holder of the trademark (at least, not directly).

Unlike copyrights (which are meant to protect the rights of authors of creative works) and patents (which are meant to protect the rights of inventors), trademarks are meant to protect those of us in the public who want to go out into the market and buy things. When we prospective consumers go out into the world, we make our purchasing decisions based on a number of criteria, some objective (price, specifications, features/capabilities) and some subjective (aesthetics, status/cachet). The criterion that often holds the most sway for buyers is finding out who exactly is selling a particular product, as it can often encapsulate a lot of information about a product: its design philosophy, its manufacturing quality, its approximate price point, and so on.

This is why the law has an interest in making sure that a buyer can adequately tell who is selling a product; otherwise, if we were to let anyone slap any old label/name (like, say, someone else’s name) on a product and put it on the open market, it could lead to all kinds of shenanigans. Consider the following example:

Company A has been selling widgets for many years and has an awesome reputation for the quality of its widgets. Company B wants to start selling widgets too, but it’s just starting out and has no marketing budget to speak of. Company B decides it would be a great “guerrilla marketing” idea to start selling their widgets as “Company A’s Widgets,” hoping to capitalize on Company A’s reputation for quality widgets. Obviously this is a bit shady of Company B, as the only reason Company B would do this is in the hopes that people will buy Company B widgets thinking that they were actually widgets from Company A.

If Company B is allowed to get away with this, both the consumer and Company A potentially have a lot to lose: 1) if Company B’s widgets are of inferior quality compared to Company A’s widgets, then customers who buy these craptastic Company B widgets thinking they’re Company A widgets will be disappointed because they have a certain expectation of what they’ll get when they buy a Company A widget, and 2) Company A’s reputation for its kickass widgets will suffer the longer these Company B widgets are out there purporting to be Company A widgets.

Trademarks exist to prevent this kind of situation. Company A should have a trademark in “Company A,” and this trademark would allow Company A to prevent any other company from selling widgets with their name on it. Company A’s reputation remains the bee’s knees, consumers get what they expect when they buy a widget that has the Company A name on it, and everyone is happy (except for Company B I guess, but they kinda seemed like douchebags anyway).

Apples and Apple-Branded Apples

That’s the basic rationale behind why trademarks are a thing. And this makes a certain amount of intuitive sense, when it comes to the more esoteric, made-up names for things (like Xerox, Kleenex, or Oreo) – if someone else started using those names on their own products, it would be pretty obvious what they were trying to accomplish, and it makes sense that there should be a way to prevent people from using those labels to market their own products.

The next question people usually have is how companies are able to file trademarks on seemingly common English words like Apple, Candy, or Glass. Well, it’s important to note that the reality of those kinds of trademarks is a little more complicated than simply saying “they can stop any of us from (or charge us money for) using these regular English words!”

First, as explained above, the intent isn’t to completely prevent you from using these trademarked words – rather, a registered trademark simply allows the trademark holder to prevent you from using the trademarked words to sell a competing product. So you won’t be sued for trademark infringement just for using trademarked words in everyday speech or anything like that, but where you start to get into trouble is if you’re trying to use those trademarks to sell your own product, and your use of those trademarks might make someone think your products are actually someone else’s.

Second, trademarks are limited in scope. Apple’s trademark on the word “Apple” doesn’t prevent everyone else from selling any products at all with an “Apple” name – otherwise the apple orchard industry probably would’ve collapsed by now. No, Apple’s trademark only prevents everyone else from selling Apple-branded products that would potentially compete with Apple’s products, which at the moment consists primarily of computers, smartphones, tablets, and the software associated with those products. (The USPTO has an extensive list of classifications of products/services.) So, while Apple might have a reputation as being fairly litigious, they’re not going to be winning any trademark infringement lawsuits against products that are completely out of the scope of personal electronic devices just for being branded “Apple” products (like Apple Brand Rain & Stain Repellent).

manpickingapple“Tree, you are hereby ordered to cease and desist this blatant infringement of the trademark rightfully held by Apple Inc.”

Googling, Xeroxing, and Kleenexes

King was getting quite a bit of flak from the media for their actions against CandySwipe and others in their quest to defend their trademark on “Candy” from any who might misuse it. And while their methods certainly weren’t optimal from a PR standpoint, on some level, as a trademark holder King had a duty to take some action towards defending their trademarks from things that could potentially infringe or weaken that trademark. If they didn’t, down the line King would’ve run the risk of encountering the argument that “well, these people were using ‘Candy’ like crazy and you didn’t do anything, so you can’t assert your trademark against us to get us to stop using ‘Candy’ either.”

One of the ways that a trademark can lose its power is by becoming genericised. In one sense, having a trademark that becomes genericised is a rather good problem to have – it only happens when the product/service attached to the trademark has become so incredibly popular that people now generally associate that trademark with the product/service as a whole. There are a bunch of common examples of this that many people are probably already aware of: Band-Aid, Kleenex, and Xerox are all frequently used to describe the product generally (adhesive bandage, facial tissue, and photocopiers, respectively).

One sign of impending genericization is when a trademark starts to be used as a verb: “Google” is now commonly used as a verb for web searching (nobody is “altavista’ing” or “binging” anything these days), “Xerox” for making a photocopy, “Photoshop” for editing a digital image, etc.

Companies often work very hard to fight this kind of dilution of their trademarks. Google actively discourages the use of “googling” as a synonym for web searching, and Xerox went on an extensive advertising campaign just to let people know that “xeroxing” shouldn’t be used as a stand-in for “photocopying.” In these two instances, the companies’ efforts were somewhat successful in that their trademarks still retain some level of protection; however, in a more general sense it is hard to say that they were wholly successful, as people still commonly use both words as verbs. Other times, companies can yell and scream all they want about the proper use of their trademarks, and they still end up becoming genericised terms: everyone knows the (previously trademarked) word “trampoline,” but you’re likely to get nothing but blank stares if you ever tried to use the term “rebound tumbler” instead.

Nintendo came close to losing its trademark on “Nintendo” when the NES dominated the market in the 1980s and the term “Nintendo” began to be used to refer to game consoles generally. If your parents are anything like mine, they probably called every game console since the mid-80s “a Nintendo.” (It’s a useful thing to keep in mind, just in case.) Just as Xerox did with photocopiers, Nintendo made a great effort to promote use of the more generic term “game console,” and when it came to people of my parents’ generation, Nintendo’s efforts had about as much success as Xerox’s had.


Pictured above: Three Nintendos. Source: My mother.

In this way, trademark protection is much less “solid” than patents or copyrights. When a patent on an invention is issued, it lasts 20 years. A copyright on a creative work lasts for the author’s life plus 70 years. While patents and copyrights generally are only invalidated by a court, trademarks can lose their protection gradually, just by becoming a term used in popular culture. That’s why companies will sometimes make a big deal out of protecting their trademarks – because if they don’t, there’s a good chance they might eventually lose the trademark completely.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go google how to photoshop a band-aid onto this trampoline.