Cloning of hypercasual games
Unique VS Déjà vu
One of the most popular types of mobile games is hypercasual. They are created on the basis of one or two basic methods, therefore neither the user nor the developer are required to have any particular skills.
Due to the simplicity of creation such a game, hypercasual games are often plagiarized. It is critical to note that the final result of any game development is a complex intellectual property object that may contain a combination of other protected objects (such as rights to music, characters, program code, script, graphics, design, etc.) To avoid potential claims from other developers, subsequent litigation, and the imposition of prohibitions and monetary penalties, it is vital to pay close attention to the uniqueness of the game’s major elements throughout the creation stage.
The title, interface, program code, graphic components, gameplay, music, and sound effects are examples of such elements.
The game’s name can be protected as a copyrighted object or registered as a trademark, granting the company a monopoly on the use of its name.
An interface or its component pieces can also be protected by copyright if they visually reproduce a certain unique idea (original concept). The fact of originality must be proven. There is a well-known case when Voodoo filed a lawsuit against the publisher Rollic Games and the developer Hero Games for copying the Woodturning game when updating the free Wood Shop game. The game is centered around carving objects from virtual pieces of wood. Voodoo claimed that the additional features, such as polishing, painting, as well as the ability to construct real-world items rather than abstract forms, were key elements of its own Woodturning carpentry game. The court recognized the fact of cloning the game’s visuals and ordered the removal of Wood Shop from the Google and Apple stores. Rollic and Hero also have to pay Voodoo €125,000 in compensation for “unfair competition and parasitism”.
Software is the most noteworthy component of a game, so the source and object code of a video game is protected from the moment it is created. Copyright infringements include converting the source code into another programming language and producing a derivative game utilizing the source code, which are both deemed processing or adaption of the program code. In 2019, Take-Two Interactive, the creator of the Red Dead Redemption series of games, filed a lawsuit against Johnathan Wyckoff (also known as DemandDev) demanding to prohibit unlawful modifications of Take-Two games (namely, Grand Theft Auto V, Red Dead Redemption and Red Dead Redemption II) and to compensate for the damage caused by the violation of copyright and license agreements. The purpose of DemandDev was to remake and adapt the original Take-Two games, convert them to a PC version, improve graphics and create additional features, i.e., modify the original. During the proceedings, DemandDev admitted that it had infringed Take-Two’s copyrights, so the court did not impose an obligation to compensate Take-Two for damages, but instead merely ruled to prohibit the use of any copyrighted works by Take-Two. DemandDev will only be obligated to reimburse Take-Two for the damages caused if this court order is violated.
Take-Two (Red Dead Redemption) game cover screenshots:
Screenshots of the DemandDev Red Dead Redemption Damned Enhancement Project (“RDR-DEP”):
There are situations when no actual cloning of the program code occurs, but the program has the same or very similar components. In such cases, the copyright to the game may still be violated.
Copyright protects graphic elements of a game that show characteristics of originality. In this situation, the style, shape, and visual expression of items mirror the concept underlying their development. There are cases where certain graphic elements have been registered as trademarks (this is frequently the case with gaming characters).
However, copyright does not cover gaming methods, mechanics, or conceptual rules. This conclusion was made by the US Copyright Office. For example, the game Zuma’s Revenge has many clones (Dragon, Loco) that nearly entirely replicate the game’s aim (to destroy all the colored balls moving in a chain across the screen), methods and concept. At the same time, in these cases, there is a reworking of the original idea of the game without copying the main elements that would infringe copyright. Therefore, there have been no legal disputes in this regard.
Screenshot of Zuma`s Revenge (photo from Steam):
Screenshot of game Drago (photo from the Game Giveaway website):
However, it is critical to note that the legitimacy of using a game idea depends on its implementation: the final result does not have to be identical to the original. Certain combinations of Gameplay features might be regarded as unique: physics, reaction game elements, speed and coordination of movements, platformer elements, etc.
Frequently, a game can clone both Gameplay and graphical elements with an interface. For example, after the release of The Great Giana Sisters, Nintendo accused Time Warp of copying Super Mario, claiming that the game was almost exactly like theirs, except for some graphic elements. They copied the interface, basic game play methods, conceptual rules, and almost all graphic elements. Nintendo did not file a lawsuit, as Time Warp immediately postponed the game’s production and withdrew it from stores.
Screenshot of Nintendo’s Super Mario (left) and Time Warp’s The Great Giana Sisters (photo from Miniplay.com):
There is also a well-known case in which, following the release of the game Area F2 in the Google and Apple app stores, Ubisoft filed a lawsuit against these companies and against the game developer, Ejoy, owned by Alibaba. Ubisoft claimed that Area F2 was so similar to Siege that the average consumer could confuse one with the other: the interface, graphic elements, game methods, conceptual rules — almost all the main elements of the game were cloned. After that, Area F2 was withdrawn from sale, and Ubisoft dismissed the complaint against Ejoy.com, Apple, and Google.
Cover of the game by Ubisoft (Rainbow Six: Siege) — photo from the official website of Siege GG (first) and the game by Ejoy (Area F2) — photo from the Area F2 Facebook page (second):
Since musical works are protected by copyright and their use without permission is prohibited, developers of hypercasual games should be responsible for the choice and application of sound effects and familiarize themselves with the license of the work. There are free platforms where you can find music for games under the Creative Commons license. Such platforms may have several types of licenses, each of which has its own specifics of use, but not all of them are distributed on a royalty-free basis. A developer may also enter into an agreement with a composer and obtain an original piece of music for his/her game, provided that the copyright to the composition is transferred to such a developer.
Thus, there is a significant likelihood of duplicating an existing game while making hypercasual games, as such games are created using a simple mechanism, and most of their elements are protected by copyright. That is why developers risk creating a reason for further litigation with copyright holders. At the initial stage of creating a hypercasual game, you should take into account the basic requirements and the most important elements that must necessarily differ from the elements of original works.
If you need assistance determining if your game violates intellectual property rights, don’t hesitate to contact us: https://digilaw.pro/
The Digilaw team
