Stock Groups

A copyright lawyer says that’s OK

[ad_1]

Millions of Wordle players have made online word-puzzler Wordle a huge hit in just months. seven-figure sale to The New York Times

This is enough to make one wonder why nobody thought of creating a similar game before. It turns out, someone thought of it.

Word-game enthusiasts have noticed that Josh Wardle, a software developer, has taken his online game to the Internet like a storm since January. Wordle’s game’s grid of colored boxes and gameplay are very reminiscent of an older game called “Lingo.”

Wordle was a television series that featured five-letter word guessing. The gridded board had boxes which changed colors according to the accuracy of players’ guesses. There are differences, though, including Wordle using different colored boxes — green and yellow instead of red and yellow — and “Lingo” giving players the first letter of each word to start.

In syndication, “Lingo” aired for less than one year from the mid-80s. It then ran nearly 400 episodes over two seasons on Game Show Network between 2002 and 2011. Today, CBS announced, amid Wordle’s success, that “Lingo” will be back on the air. A rebooted version of the show will be hosted by RuPaul. reportedly saysThe reboot was already in progress before Wordle’s launch.

What does all this translate into for you? favorite new word-game obsession?

There’s nothing to be worried about

These media outlets include The Daily MailAnd the New York PostTogether with social media usersRecent weeks have seen some similarities in Wordle and Lino, while others highlighted them. wondering aloudWardle or The New York Times may be in trouble if they think the new game violates the copyright of the show.

Bruce Boyden, a Marquette University Law School professor, specializes in internet and copyright law. He does not think. Wardle and The New York Times need to be concerned about potential copyright infringement litigations.

Boyden states, “They likely don’t need anything to worry about.”

The main reason for this, he explains, is that games — from online games like Wordle, to board games and even video games — are notoriously difficult to patent or copyright because of how they are viewed in terms of intellectual property [IP] law.

Boyden suggests that first, you should look at three main areas of intellectual propriety: trademarks, copyrights and patents.

Patents may cover the “apparatus used to play” [a game] such as…the software in this case,” Boyden says. Wordle isn’t a television show and Wardle’s code to make his game would not be similar to any TV program. He says there is no patently plausible claim.

Trademarks can be used to protect logos and product names. Wordle does not have a logo, and its name is different than “Lingo,” so that’s also no problem.

Boyden says that copyright is only applicable to how a creative piece or game is communicated. He adds that copyright does not protect an idea or the overall theme or format behind the message.

Video games are not copyrightable

Boyden stated that games exist “at the border of intellectual Property Law” so as to make them “not Copyrightable” in 2011 in a George Mason Law Review article titled “Games and Other Uncopyrightable Systems.”

Boyden states that a design can be copied, as Monopoly’s iconic tokens like the top hat and thimble, and colors properties of Monopoly. Monopoly’s publisher Hasbro cannot copyright its broader concept of a game on which players use a roll of the dice to move about a table with 10 squares per side. When you hit properties, you must pay a certain amount.

Boyden is another example of Hasbro’s Scrabble. It has an extensive history with online knockoffs. Scrabulous agreed to change its name. a 2008 lawsuitHasbro accused Scrabble of infringing on its trademark. Boyden says that Hasbro is unable to take on most knock-offs like Zynga’s Words with Friends with copyright claims, despite their very similar style of play to Scrabble.

Boyden says that even though the games are similar in style to Scrabble, Hasbro doesn’t hold a valid copyright. This prevents Hasbro’s ability to use it as a protection against any type of crossword-type game where you exchange letters for points.

Wardle was also able to legally make a similar game using five-letter words. Boyden states that the grid layouts of both games are likely to be too basic and repetitive for a copyright.

Typically, when a fair amount of creativity goes into creating something — be it writing a song or a book, or designing a building or computer software — that form of creative expression is protected under copyright law, Boyden says. However, instructions are not protected by copyright law. It refers to the rules of a game, the method in which a game should be played.

Creative works are exempted from the same restrictions. fashion designs — you can’t copyright a type of dress, but a designer can trademark their brand name, for instance — and, especially, cooking recipes, Boyden says.

Boyden states that it doesn’t really matter “if there is a lot creativity involved in designing this particular cake.” You can also copyright the way that you write. [a recipe] — if you add a lot of anecdotes or color to the recipe — but the simple instructions of ‘one cup of flour, two eggs, beat well for one minute,’ that is not copyrightable. The same goes for game rules.

Clone wars

The same logic as Wardle and The New York Times are unlikely to be sued over Wordle, also applies to Wordle-like games and apps online that have sprung up in an attempt to capitalise on Wardle’s successes.

Numerous new online games and mobile appsRecent weeks have seen a slew of word-game sites that aim to attract Wordle users who are unable to scratch their Wordleitch even once per day. There’s QuordleThe game involves guessing four words at once, and Absurdle where your guesses can change the mystery word.

Wardle and The New York Times have little to no control over these knock-offs and clones, as long as they don’t use Wordle in any of their monikers. Boyden asserts that trademark infringement could be the strongest area of IP protection Wordle can seek to protect against ripoff games. The New York Times is already aware. filedFor a trademark of the name Wordle, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office on February 1. 

Wordle has already received some assistance from Big Tech to protect its name. Since Wordle itself does not have a mobile app — the game is played on your web browser — several copycats launched apps called Wordle that Apple subsequently removedIts App Store to stop users being misled into believing they had downloaded an official Wordle application. Even worse, one of the clone developers tried to make money from the game by creating a fake app. publicly apologizedApple deleted his Apple app.

The trademark protection that covers the name “Wordle” for this game will be one of the greatest assets here. [Josh]Boyden states that Wardle’s IP is his. He adds that this is likely why The New York Times would buy the game from the creator, rather than copying it.

If they only wanted to play the game. [The New York Times]They could just have created their own 5-letter word guessing game, and then put it up.

Get started now Get smarter about your money and career with our weekly newsletter

Don’t miss:

‘Bite-sized fun’: The psychology behind your sudden Wordle obsession

Here first business went up in flames — now she’s on a mission to build a billion-dollar vegan empire

[ad_2]