this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
195 points (99.5% liked)
Games
16812 readers
674 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I hate copyright and the notion of buying creative ownership. They didn't make Wordle, they shouldnt have any control over it.
That implies that the creator should have control. And doesn't control imply the right to sell?
But they don't have control over the clones, copyright don't extend that far
Assuming that Wordle is copyrightable at all, why wouldn't copyright extend to clones? How far do you think copyright extend?
What would be the purpose of selling or buying the copyright if you can't stop the ones that are "stealing" it for free?
Copyright covers creative expression, not functionality. The code and unique design elements would be protected, but not the idea of a grid or guessing letters, etc (which all predate them anyway). Even the word list is difficult to claim protection to if it was generated by algorithmic filters on dictionary words (it probably was) because then the selection also isn't expressive.
So I can't copy their code or exact look, but I can definitely make my own version legally.
What's the point? Yeah I don't know why they spent money on such a simple concept either. The copyright protection is far more useful when the thing has enough expression that clones won't be indistinguishable anymore.
no, you no longer control it. now someone else does by virtue of money
Yes the New York Times now controls it because they bought it with money from the owner/creator. That's usually how purchases and money work.
Which is why we're in this shitty timeline where every creative project is being handled by people that do not create. A lot of artists worked on a movie, but because soulless executives had all the money to own creative rights despite having no part in the movie's creation, they just got rid of the movie to save on taxes. Creative ownership should never be decided by money.
Well the artists wouldn't be able to be artists if no one could buy their content.
I don't get why creative work should be treated like it's more important than non creative works.
An artist that works for companies sell their time and effort to create stuff the company wants. A factory worker sell their time and effort to create stuff the company wants.
Yes it's a shame some movies don't get released but it's not the end of the world.
Everyone involved still got paid and if someone is looking for anything more in their work they should start their own company.
selling your art and selling the right to create are different things. I sell my art all the time, and it gets copied and redistributed, and even more people come to me to buy more art.
They aren't selling the right to create (whatever that means) when working on a movie though. They aren't even selling the art.
It was never theirs to begin with.
They get paid to produce art and when they have done that their job is done. Nothing wrong with that. They sell their time and skill just like any other worker. It's not like electricians own parts of your home after they have worked on it.
If they want to keep the rights they should specify that in their contracts and probably work freelance or something.
Yes, they are selling the right to create. NY Times did not create Wordle, but they bought the right to. So no one else is allowed to create something like it. The people that literally created the Wile Coyote movie, they cant get together to remake it because they dont own the right to create what they literally created. The whole concept of buying the right to create has done just awful things to any form of art and puts most of the resources into the hands of people that do not create at all.