"This is the most important talk here" "It depends" "You can't say" "Keep in mind this is just a defense and you don't want to go to court" "You have to have an agreement that works around their rights" "Will vary depending on circuit, jurisdiction, and country" Great. Thanks.
Well GDC is not a gamer entertainment channel, it isn't targeted and kids/man-child, it's for professionals. I'm the first to criticize poor presentation skills like stuttering and immature comments from the presenters but this is not the case here, she did a good presentation.
It's informative, but it is a poor presentation. Letting the slides speak from themselves is exactly the problem; the slides are just text and they are boring. These are just some of the problems The slides have no pictures; showing a Cola-cola bottle just to be visually stimulating would break the monotony of words upon words. She talks about cases like King and that could be a slide by itself, talking about who vs who and what came of it. Instead it's alluded to as if we're supposed to know it. She reads the slides as if she doesn't know what she's supposed to talk about next and picks points off them and explains them loosely. It feels like everything is coming from the top of her head and not an well paced speech. Sometimes something gets thrown up on the screen and you have to read it yourself. The presentation has no flow, its just define this, define that. It starts and ends with IP portfolio, but makes no examples or timeline to keep someone engaged. The closing is the only part that feels like a presentation. I never meant this was a bad presentation as if she didn't talk about IP law. But holy crap, this is the kind of thing I would write a night before and add things from the top of my head to get a C. And this is law. Law is already boring and convoluted. It could have been practical, relatable and informative. I've watched presentations on creating education low budget comedy better than this. We've spent the 2000's learning how to use video media in a great way. You could have given me a textbook and it would have been just as helpful.
You might be thinking about this the wrong way around. Quite on the contrary Intellectual Property should touch every aspect of game development. She summarise IP 35:05 - 39:00. The law is there to protect peoples brands, personal lives, business and so on. I think this is a very helpful talk to introduce people to all that IP encompasses.
I'm not saying it's useless knowledge, but it doesn't "touch every aspect of game dev" When a programmer is fixing a bug or a designer is exploring ideas they're not thinking about copyright law. At least I would hope they weren't and were just trying to make a compelling game. Even besides that, not all people make games for money or care about these things at all. So just on a basic level she's only talking about "commercial game dev" ignoring hobbyists, students, mentors, etc.
Actually, after thinking about it, I guess she's right in a way because the programming language and libraries have licences. But in that sense your keyboard and mouse have IPs as well as most other things, so in a way all things are related to IP somehow, but I still think it's a silly thing to say.
Yes I think it's very geared towards commercial game dev and most of the time you're doing game dev you wouldn't be thinking about law. If you were just making games privately and not releasing them you might not have to worry about this. If you upload hobby games then right of privacy, copyright, and other peoples trademarks etc still matter. For example one thing I've seen a lot is people getting hurt by releasing their creative works for free for the world to take part in enjoying and later finding out that somebody is selling their work in their own name. Knowing that you can send a DMCA to a website's host to take the content down can be valuable knowledge but yes that's more useful for your work. I think it could have been "there's no aspect of your work that doesn't touch on IP". I'm curious how relevant this would be to mentors/students though.
Mobile gaming is a disgrace and not far off from a disease, its all just robbery, and seems to be very shady on the moral side of things, I'm not surprised she started with pretty much only mobile.
The PC/Console scene is very stale in terms of IP and revenue streams. There were many garage sales in the recent past, like the liquidation of THQ but very few profitable IP sale. Besides Minecraft I can't recall any other significant IP that transferred ownership. Flash games used to be the biggest market for change of IP ownership before Steve Jobs killed the platform. Mobile on the other hand is thriving at the moment, publishers buy IP in the mobile scene, on the PC/Console scene they might buy a studio once in a while but that's about it. You can see that trend by the clients name she list.
I'm missing your point. Are you suggesting I have no authority to be here or did you just think my username is so hilarious? This is a Game Developer's Conference video and can be enjoyed by developers and gamers alike. Admittedly I haven't been uploading nearly often enough but that's irrelevant. The problem with the term "intellectual property" is that it is an all encompassing term that ties together vastly different concepts. _The terms copyright, trademark, and patent are not interchangeable._ A lot of people seem to think they are interchangeable. Way back in 2016 when there was that whole Fine Brothers incident, that was a trademark issue. A lot of people called it a copyright issue. It had nothing to do with copyright. It was entirely a trademark issue, a completely different system serving a different purpose. Copyrights, trademarks and patents may seem similar at first glance, but they are not the same, and the term "Intellectual Property" refers to these subjects as if they were the same. While I'm much more of an open source guy than a free software guy, I feel that GNU has some good advice on the subject. www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
Correct me if I'm wrong but it seemed the main goal of the presentation was actually to present each concept used to enforce intellectual property separately. I'm not into FOSS, from an outsider view GNU is a useless intellectual property even if they would prefer to create their own para-legal definitions. From the point of view of the law, intellectual property is used to define rights as if they were applicable to a physical entity. When you refer to intellectual property in the context of publishing it is in the context of valuating intangible assets. It goes without saying that FOSS has no value in that context so it's understandable that they want to go against the laws because they could never benefit from them.
@Jeru Sanders, kinda annoying when your field of work is getting commented on non stop by man-child. Seriously, playing video games does not make you a know it all, losers play games and whine, they don't make money.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
"This is the most important talk here"
"It depends"
"You can't say"
"Keep in mind this is just a defense and you don't want to go to court"
"You have to have an agreement that works around their rights"
"Will vary depending on circuit, jurisdiction, and country"
Great. Thanks.
Love you : )
Good information but it sucks that this is presented like someone's first presentation. Doubly sucks cause this is law and its already boring...
this is not PewDiePie channel
MiloticMaster she didn't even mention that you can copyright YOUR code, YOuR models, YOUR textures and stuff like that .
I will admit though, i wouldn't be any better.
Well GDC is not a gamer entertainment channel, it isn't targeted and kids/man-child, it's for professionals. I'm the first to criticize poor presentation skills like stuttering and immature comments from the presenters but this is not the case here, she did a good presentation.
It's informative, but it is a poor presentation. Letting the slides speak from themselves is exactly the problem; the slides are just text and they are boring. These are just some of the problems
The slides have no pictures; showing a Cola-cola bottle just to be
visually stimulating would break the monotony of words upon words.
She talks about cases like King and that could be a slide by itself,
talking about who vs who and what came of it. Instead it's alluded to
as if we're supposed to know it.
She reads the slides as if she doesn't know what she's supposed to talk about next and picks points off them and explains them loosely. It feels like everything is coming from the top of her head and not an well paced speech. Sometimes something gets thrown up on the screen and you have to read it yourself.
The presentation has no flow, its just define this, define that. It starts and ends with IP portfolio, but makes no examples or timeline to keep someone engaged. The closing is the only part that feels like a presentation.
I never meant this was a bad presentation as if she didn't talk about IP law. But holy crap, this is the kind of thing I would write a night before and add things from the top of my head to get a C. And this is law. Law is already boring and convoluted. It could have been practical, relatable and informative. I've watched presentations on creating education low budget comedy better than this. We've spent the 2000's learning how to use video media in a great way. You could have given me a textbook and it would have been just as helpful.
"There's not a single aspect of game development that doesn't touch an IP"
That must be a very narrow definition of game development.
You might be thinking about this the wrong way around. Quite on the contrary Intellectual Property should touch every aspect of game development. She summarise IP 35:05 - 39:00. The law is there to protect peoples brands, personal lives, business and so on. I think this is a very helpful talk to introduce people to all that IP encompasses.
what would be a more broad definition?
I'm not saying it's useless knowledge, but it doesn't "touch every aspect of game dev"
When a programmer is fixing a bug or a designer is exploring ideas they're not thinking about copyright law. At least I would hope they weren't and were just trying to make a compelling game.
Even besides that, not all people make games for money or care about these things at all. So just on a basic level she's only talking about "commercial game dev" ignoring hobbyists, students, mentors, etc.
Actually, after thinking about it, I guess she's right in a way because the programming language and libraries have licences. But in that sense your keyboard and mouse have IPs as well as most other things, so in a way all things are related to IP somehow, but I still think it's a silly thing to say.
Yes I think it's very geared towards commercial game dev and most of the time you're doing game dev you wouldn't be thinking about law.
If you were just making games privately and not releasing them you might not have to worry about this. If you upload hobby games then right of privacy, copyright, and other peoples trademarks etc still matter.
For example one thing I've seen a lot is people getting hurt by releasing their creative works for free for the world to take part in enjoying and later finding out that somebody is selling their work in their own name. Knowing that you can send a DMCA to a website's host to take the content down can be valuable knowledge but yes that's more useful for your work.
I think it could have been "there's no aspect of your work that doesn't touch on IP".
I'm curious how relevant this would be to mentors/students though.
Mobile gaming is a disgrace and not far off from a disease, its all just robbery, and seems to be very shady on the moral side of things, I'm not surprised she started with pretty much only mobile.
The PC/Console scene is very stale in terms of IP and revenue streams. There were many garage sales in the recent past, like the liquidation of THQ but very few profitable IP sale. Besides Minecraft I can't recall any other significant IP that transferred ownership. Flash games used to be the biggest market for change of IP ownership before Steve Jobs killed the platform. Mobile on the other hand is thriving at the moment, publishers buy IP in the mobile scene, on the PC/Console scene they might buy a studio once in a while but that's about it. You can see that trend by the clients name she list.
Don't use the term "intellectual property."
"plays games" lmao
I'm missing your point. Are you suggesting I have no authority to be here or did you just think my username is so hilarious?
This is a Game Developer's Conference video and can be enjoyed by developers and gamers alike. Admittedly I haven't been uploading nearly often enough but that's irrelevant. The problem with the term "intellectual property" is that it is an all encompassing term that ties together vastly different concepts.
_The terms copyright, trademark, and patent are not interchangeable._ A lot of people seem to think they are interchangeable. Way back in 2016 when there was that whole Fine Brothers incident, that was a trademark issue. A lot of people called it a copyright issue. It had nothing to do with copyright. It was entirely a trademark issue, a completely different system serving a different purpose. Copyrights, trademarks and patents may seem similar at first glance, but they are not the same, and the term "Intellectual Property" refers to these subjects as if they were the same.
While I'm much more of an open source guy than a free software guy, I feel that GNU has some good advice on the subject.
www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
He left a middle school level troll reply to every comment on this video, don't waste your keystrokes.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it seemed the main goal of the presentation was actually to present each concept used to enforce intellectual property separately.
I'm not into FOSS, from an outsider view GNU is a useless intellectual property even if they would prefer to create their own para-legal definitions. From the point of view of the law, intellectual property is used to define rights as if they were applicable to a physical entity. When you refer to intellectual property in the context of publishing it is in the context of valuating intangible assets. It goes without saying that FOSS has no value in that context so it's understandable that they want to go against the laws because they could never benefit from them.
@Jeru Sanders, kinda annoying when your field of work is getting commented on non stop by man-child. Seriously, playing video games does not make you a know it all, losers play games and whine, they don't make money.