I've googled this and haven't come up with anything. Can I create a Pac-Man game and not get in trouble with?
Like can I sell it, and be able to make money without having to pay someone else royalties?
Asked
Active
Viewed 1.2k times
3
-
2NO. SO says – Dialock May 01 '13 at 18:31
-
- Maybe you should post this on a Stack Exchange site that has to do with law; it's more related to law than it is game development. 2. How does this have anything to do with c++?
– Doorknob May 01 '13 at 18:32 -
1I just needed to know. I was going to create it in C++ ;) – Jordan Schnur May 01 '13 at 18:53
-
If a specific game is public domain or not is too localized in my opinion. Voting to close as too localized, and -1 for lack of basic research. – House May 01 '13 at 23:30
-
In the related questions we have the very popular http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/q/16455/982 Should that be closed for being too localized too? – Jeff May 02 '13 at 01:30
2 Answers
12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-Man
In 2011, Namco sent a DMCA notice to the team that made the programming language Scratch saying that a programmer had infringed copyright by making a Pac-Man game using the language and uploading it to Scratch's official website.[94]
Considering they sent a DMCA to someone who wasn't making money off of it I'm going with no.
ClassicThunder
- 8,383
- 35
- 49
-
Okay thanks. I guess I'll look into something else. Thanks again ;) – Jordan Schnur May 01 '13 at 18:36
9
Pac-Man is still covered by copyright, and has not reverted to the public domain.
Exhaustively sourced proof:
- Copyright for works created during or after 1978 lasts a bare minimum of 70 years. (section 302.a) (In the case of Pac-Man, 120 years is probably a more likely duration, as it presumably would have been a work for hire performed for Namco by its employees. But we'll assume the minimum of 70 years for the rest of this proof)
- Pac-Man was created in 1980.
- At the time of writing, the year is 2013
- 2013 - 1978 = 35
- 35 < 70
Therefore, Pac-Man is still covered by Copyright.
Trevor Powell
- 21,382
- 1
- 59
- 94
-
1
-
3It was, alas, a natural confusion, as I wrote this response whilst sitting comfortably within the decadent confines of my time machine, ten years hence. ;) – Trevor Powell May 02 '13 at 05:12
-
-