Has anyone, especially public librarians, worried about copyright or public
performance rights when holding game tournaments?  We are planning on having
an event soon for faculty and staff in preparation for an event we hope to
hold in the fall for students, and the question was raised if this would
violate any laws?  Obviously someone is checking with the libraries
copyright expert (who is a lawyer) but I was curious if other libraries have
considered this...

Thanks,
George

--
George C. A. Bergstrom
Business Reference Librarian
Management & Economics Library
Purdue University
Lafayette, IN 47907

(765) 494 - 2918

Nintendo has definitely given blanket permission for libraries to use their games/characters for nonprofit library events. I'd bet that if you contacted any of the other companies, they'd tell you it was acceptable as well. If you look through the archives of this list, I think you'll find the topic gets brought up about every month or so...

Gillian Wiseman
Electronic Resources Librarian
Waco-McLennan County Library
(254)750-5944
gwise...@ci.waco.tx.us

It was a discussion on GamePolitics earlier this week. (The site appears to
be down at the moment, but it's still on the front page.)

It's come up once on ALA's Library Copyright Website (
http://www.librarycopyright.net/) here:
http://www.librarycopyright.net/wordpress/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=1425
Ruth Dukelow, who's a fellow member of the Copyright Advisory Network from
that site, wrote this:

---
In the case of public performances of movie DVDs or movie videos, the
exceptions are narrow because the movie performance is a "dramatic"
performance under section 110.  Section 110(1) allows dramatic public
performances in the classroom, but most other exceptions in section 110 do
not cover "dramatic" public performances.

For games, however, I would argue that the public performance of a game is
not "dramatic" under section 110 and that, therefore, the exception in
section 110(4) would apply.  As long as the public performance of the game
complies with section 110(4) - i.e., performers are not paid, audience
doesn't pay to attend, nonprofit, etc. - then no infringement.

Please note, however, that labeling a game performance as "nondramatic" is
only my opinion.  I do not have case law to back this up.
---

I'd also argue that for a console game in particular (which generally do not
have EULAs you must agree to), you've got a strong fair use case.

Carlos Ovalle

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:53 PM, George Bergstrom <

Can anybody link me to an official statement from Nintendo that says this?
Our graphics department requires this information for me to submit a poster
request.  To that end, does Nintendo have any graphics libraries like they
did with the Nintendo Gateway system for hotels and in-flight gaming (
http://www.nintendogateway.com)?  Thanks!

 Best wishes,
Joseph

Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh -- Teen
4400 Forbes Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
412-622-3121
wi...@carnegielibrary.org

http://clpteens.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/clpteens

On 6/4/08, Gillian Wiseman <gwise...@ci.waco.tx.us> wrote:

Here's something from our very own archives that talks about it. Sounds
pretty legit to me.

http://groups.google.com/group/LibGaming/browse_thread/thread/601e220...

And video games have no "public performance restrictions" because they are
games. Just like Parker Brothers cannot get all huffy if someone shows
people playing Monopoly, video game companies can't get mad whether two
people are in the room or 200. And actually, Nintendo has donated a lot of
systems and games to libraries to get their stuff even more out there.

John

--
John Scalzo
http://www.videogamelibrarian.com

I came across this court case from the US Court of Appeals
"ALLEN v. ACADEMIC GAMES LEAGUE OF AMERICA 89 F.3d 614 (9th Cir.
1996)"  http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/89/89.F3d.614.html

In this case, it was a non-profit company running tournaments using
Allen's games.  Allen had several issues, one of which was the public
performance of his games.

From the discussion:
"A. Public Performance

The Copyright Act of 1976 confers upon copyright holders the exclusive
right to perform and authorize others to perform their copyrighted
works publicly. See 17 U.S.C. § 106(4). "Perform" and "publicly" are
defined in the Copyright Act as, respectively, "to recite, render,
play, dance, or act it, either directly or by means of any device or
progress ..." and "to perform or display it at a place open to the
public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside
of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is
gathered...." 17 U.S.C. § 101. In applying these statutory definitions
to the playing of Allen's games in a tournament setting, we conclude
that the playing of a game is not a "performance" within the meaning
of the Copyright Act.

Allen maintains that the language of Section 106(4) precludes AGLOA
from conducting their national tournament because it constitutes a
public performance of his protected literary works, the subject
copyrighted games. Allen contends that a purchaser of a board game
only obtains the right to play the board game in settings that are not
"public" because playing or performing the games publicly is a right
held exclusively by the copyright holder under § 106(4). However, the
interpretation of "play," as used to define "perform" in § 101 of the
Copyright Act, has generally been limited to instances of playing
music or records. See Polygram Intern. Pub., Inc. v. Nevada/TIG, Inc.,
855 F.Supp. 1314, 1321 (D.Mass.1994); Hickory Grove Music v. Andrew
Andrews, 749 F.Supp. 1031, 1036 (D.Mont.1990), but cf. Red
Baron-Franklin Park, Inc. v. Taito Corp., 883 F.2d 275, 278-79 (4th
Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058, 110 S.Ct. 869, 107 L.Ed.2d 952
(1990), (holding that a video arcade owner's use of copyrighted
circuit boards in coin-operated video machines available to the public
for a fee constituted public performance of the copyrighted work under
§ 106(4)). The term "play" has not been extended to the playing of
games. To do so would mean interpreting the Copyright Act in a manner
that would allow the owner of a copyright in a game to control when
and where purchasers of games may play the games and this court will
not place such an undue restraint on consumers.

Whether privately in one's home or publicly in a park, it is
understood that games are meant to be "played." In this situation, the
games are being played by students who come together for the purpose
of friendly, academic competition. There is no indication that this
nonprofit corporation, AGLOA, and the individual respondents are
making the subject games available to the public for a fee. The
students, schools, and school districts use their own games, purchased
from Allen, in the tournaments, and respondents are merely organizers
of this event. Moreover, AGLOA's tournaments are limited to students
who participated in regional competitions which also involved the
playing of Allen's games.

Even if the playing of games could constitute a performance, we would
have to recognize the applicability of the fair use doctrine under
Section 107 of the Copyright Act. This section allows the fair use of
a copyrighted work in such instances as for nonprofit educational
purposes and where the effect of the use upon the potential market for
or value of the protected work is limited. As indicated above, AGLOA
tournaments are held not for profit, but for encouraging education
among young students. The potential market for the subject games has
in all likelihood increased because participants of the AGLOA
tournament have had to purchase Allen's games. Analysis of other
factors involved in § 107 leads this court to conclude that the
application of the fair use doctrine in this case is clearly
appropriate.
"

This decision has been cited in 10 other cases, and I couldn't find
anywhere where it was overturned.  I'm not a law researcher, but I did
use Lexus-Nexus's Shepardizing tools.

So, assuming that we aren't charging for the tournament, we would be
supported by this case decision if there was a lawsuit.

And now, I'm going to talk about this for the upcoming Games in
Libraries podcast!

Scott Nicholson, Associate Professor, Syracuse University School of
Information Studies

These are thoughts that I had on many counts... (free advertising, Best Buy,
etc. does it...) but someone in our group wasn't sure and wanted it
clarified.

Thanks to all for the responses.
George

(765) 494 - 2918

Does anybody know if Nintendo has a respository of images for promotional
use, aside from the random images strewn about the site itself?  I don't
happen to be finding anything.

 Best wishes,
Joseph

Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh -- Teen
4400 Forbes Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
412-622-3121
wi...@carnegielibrary.org

http://clpteens.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/clpteens

On 6/5/08, Erwin <emagb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Not that I know of. I usually do a google images search when I want something.

They do, but it requires a password to access Nintendo's PR website. You can
apply for access at http://press.nintendo.com

John

--
John Scalzo
http://www.videogamelibrarian.com

Thanks for the archive link! I have new information, as this is a hot topic
right now. I've gotten THREE emails this week, asking the same question.
I've encouraged lawyer Mark Methenitis, author of the Law of the Game column
at Joystiq, to submit a program on the legal issues of using videogames in
libraries; This week, public performance in schools, churches and libraries
is the topic of his post:

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/04/law-of-the-game-on-joystiq-much-ado...

as well as the topic of a post at Game Politics:
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/06/02/do-library-amp-church-game-nig...

Eli, do you have something in writing from Nintendo that you can share?
*hopeful look*

Really, the public performance issue varies from game to game/publisher to
publisher. Red Octane says Go For It! Konami says, No! Read on for details.

Red Octane's Guitar Hero product has no such splash screen; neither does
MTV/Harmonix/Activision's Rock Band. From a conversation I had with Red
Octane in Feb, via email:

Me: What is the law in regards to public performance of Guitar Hero? Do I
need a license? What are the rules for non-Red Octane sponsored programs?

Rechsteiner, Kyle <krechstei...@redoctane.com>
to    Beth Gallaway <informationgoddes...@gmail.com>
date    Wed, Feb 6, 2008 at 2:28 PM
subject    RE: Redoctane Contact Feedback

Hey Beth,

We encourage people to hold Guitar Hero events. There are things we'd need
to consider if we are ever listed as an official "sponsor" of an event,
though. Otherwise, we can just support with prizing and we have no worries.
Also, if you choose to pass on our involvement, that is fine as well.

Thanks,

Kyle

RedOctane

Me: Is it ok to run a tournament with an entry fee?

Reply:

Hello,

You can run your event in whatever fashion you wish. I would not want to
impose any rules on you. I realize that entry fees are often necessary to
cover facility or prize costs.

Thanks,

Kyle

RedOctane

An image from Konami's Dance Dance Revolution Supernova 2 is attached. If
you can't read it, it says:
"This game is for sale and se in hte USA, Canada and Mexico only. The
copyrighted Music/Character/Artwork in this game are separately owned by the
authors. This product is licensed for private, non-commercial use only.
Public or commercial use may require a performing rights license from the
holders for the copyrights in the music."
(c) 1998, 2007 Konami Digital Entertainment Co, LTD.

The book that comes with the game helpfully lists the credits; I'm in
processing of writing to music copyright holders, now.

My expectation is that some company is going to realize that public
performance licenses for games are going to be a moneymaker - OR game
companies are going to address this issue (hopefully with a creative commons
slant, use our product any way you wish, just don't claim ownership, try to
make money, and don't forget to give credit) in the EULAs.

Beth

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
___
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
Beth Gallaway, Library Trainer / Consultant
504 Ocean Blvd #1 Hampton NH 03842
informationgoddes...@gmail.com
website: http://informationgoddess.info
cell/text: 603.247.3196
AOL IM: rimeswith0range
Skype: informationgoddess29
Second Life: Cerulean Vesperia
Twitter: infogdss29
Wii: 8757 0699 3605 2965

ddr2.jpg 346K Download

I seriously doubt you can compare a Nintendo Wii to garden variety DVD
players. The latter are ubiquitous standard equipment, whereas video
game consoles are hugely marketed brand-critical phenomena. No one
asks me about the cool digital projector we use, but they sure as hell
ask about that Wii.

I do; I was half-kidding :) Really, I meant to make that point that saying
that publishers of any medium should be grateful for the free advertising
they get when nonprofits use/endorse their products doesn't fly with
artists, designers, marketers and publishers who want their money--or with
lawyers.

I don't necessarily disagree with you; yes, you'd think the console
manufacturers would appreciate it - most of the time, they don't actually
make money on consoles, no matter HOW many they sell - the money made in the
gaming industry mostly comes from the sales of the games, themselves. Sony
lost over $200 on each PS3, Microsoft lost about $75 per console (the Wii is
an exception - it's not a loss leader like other consoles).

I have not a doubt that library patrons spend money to own items of all
kinds that they see or check out of the library, whether it's books,
magazines, videos, CDs, or games.Often kids who come to gaming programs own
the games we are playing or have played them at a friend's house.

Incidentall there is even some evidence to show the people who pirate the
most music are actually the biggest spenders on music, according to Cory
Doctorow and a (slightly dated) study from Jupiter Communications:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2000_July_21/ai_63590127.
It's a good argument to apply to games: that exposure = sales. I'm just not
sure it will hold up in court.

The bigger question, I guess, is how do we continue to provide these timely,
popular programs while still being a model of ethical use of the content? I
was on board with the "do it til you get a cease and desist order" until Mr.
Methenitis pointed out, this really isn't an acceptable solution ;)

Beth G