Atariboy Posted January 3 Author Share Posted January 3 (edited) 2 hours ago, jgkspsx said: It depends on what the contract with Williams said. It may be that Williams/Midway/WB/Discovery owns the actual 2600 program. I don't think so. My impression having followed this hobby for years is that Atari owned their own conversions. For instance if we take a look at a Defender cartridge, we'll see "Label, Program, and Audiovisual © 1981 Atari, Inc." Only next to the title itself is an indicator that an outside party is involved, with the trademark for the Defender name credited to Williams Electronics. But much like something like say SimCity for the Super Nintendo (a 1st party release that's owned by Nintendo, but obviously involves outside IP that has to be relicensed if it ever resurfaces commercially), they can't just rerelease it at will years after contracts expired. They'd have to approach the current rights holder of the source material and resecure permission. But I genuinely believe that some of these adaptations are far enough removed from the source material that the only infringement would be with the name itself if Atari SA were to rerelease them. Rebrand such games and I think something like this example would be free and clear since it's not a particularly close adaptation of the arcade game with the gameplay, audio, or visuals. It's a moot point though since they're obviously not too interested in pursuing such matters. And I think it's clear for all of us that aren't lawyers that many of the in-demand arcade conversions did their job well enough where a simple renaming isn't going to eliminate copyright infringement (Space Invaders, Ms. Pac-Man, Jungle Hunt, Phoenix, etc.). Edited January 3 by Atariboy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.