SHP Forums

As far as I can tell, the setting for the Coles' new game, Hero U, is in the QFG world. On their website they distinctly name Gloriana, Marete, Silmaria, etc.

I was under the impression that Activision owns all the intellectual property having to do with QFG. If that's true, how can the Coles use an content from an IP that doesn't belong to them? Surely they're aware of the consequences given the whole Hero's Quest/Quest For Glory naming issue, right?

Anyone know what the deal is this? Do the Coles own the names of various places within the QFG world? Did they strike a deal with Activision? If not, I wonder how long it'll be before Activision's lawyers come knocking...

If Activision owns the "rights" - the Coles can still create characters and places with the same name - as long as it doesn't look exactly like it, from what I understand. (So they will probably redesign some of the places and characters, to give them a unique look - which shouldn't be that difficult since the game engine is entirely different.

Kind of like I think there's been comics with presidents in them, and yet they have the disclosure in the front that "any similarity to person or persons is coincidental" or whatever.

Tawmis wrote:If Activision owns the "rights" - the Coles can still create characters and places with the same name - as long as it doesn't look exactly like it, from what I understand. (So they will probably redesign some of the places and characters, to give them a unique look - which shouldn't be that difficult since the game engine is entirely different.

I couldn't create a game that takes place in Gotham City and expect DC Comics to be okay with it. I imagine it'd the same thing with Silmaria and Activision.

Perhaps they would be more worried about the bad PR if they went after the creators of the series. Then again, the game itself might not be so overt about such references.

DeadPoolX wrote: I couldn't create a game that takes place in Gotham City and expect DC Comics to be okay with it. I imagine it'd the same thing with Silmaria and Activision.

I don't think they can do anything with like Silmaria - because it happens to be a real place. So, I think if it's a completely unique name, I don't think they'd be able to get away with it. But I knew I had heard the name Silmaria before (and I could swear there's a story, legend or character with that name {er, outside of QFG}, or something similar but for the life of me can't find it).

EDIT: Or I could have been thinking of this game: http://www.ign.com/cheats/games/valkyri ... ps2-788661

Or it could be some kind of contract thing - kind of like Replay doesn't own LSL, but they're leased the character and rights. The other company (whose name eludes me, it's not activision) actually currently holds the rights. Or Activision may own the QFG name, but not the characters and places within, by some kind of creative contract originally made.

EDIT: It's CodeMasters who owns LSL.

I'd imagine it's like Springfield in "The Simpsons". Because the "where" and "what" is so vague (and in the case of Gloriana, only exists as a passing reference) it can be treated as satire.

If you were to call a place "Gotham City" however, you would be sending up red sparks to DC's lawyers. While "Gotham" itself is actually another name for New York, the name has strong media ties to the Batman universe. Calling a game "Hero-U 2: Gotham City" would be leeching off of DC's marketing (and possible incur the wrath of the band U2 as well). You could get away with it, but you'd have to prove that your Gotham bears no ties to their Gotham, and they'd probably make you keep the word "Gotham" fifty yards away from "City".

I spoke to Lori Cole on Facebook and she told me the following:

"The copyright and trademark laws have always been grey when they apply to games. All we are using that Activision controls are some place names and words. If the lawyers come squawking, then we will change those names. In the meantime, because of Hero-U, Activision will sell more QfG games. So they benefit by what we are doing for them - publicizing how good Quest for Glory was."

So to me it sounds like they're following the "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission" line of reasoning. Activision owns the names and words, so that's more than enough for a cease and desist letter (and possibly more later on).

The fact Lori even says that she and Cory will remove/change the names if Activision's legal department comes after them speaks volumes. They know they don't have the right -- legally speaking -- to use anything even remotely related to QFG, but they plan on doing so anyway.

As for the "it's good publicity for QFG" line, that's pure bullshit. Sure, maybe it is good PR, but the fact remains that's never been legal justification for using someone else's intellectual property. If this could be used in a court of law, we'd see tons of fan-fiction writers making money off their work (which is really just using someone else's IP and twisting it however they see fit) and we know that's not the case.

Now while it's entirely possible Activision may not know about Hero U, they will come across it eventually. Maybe they'll ignore it or demand a cut of the profits if the Coles continue to use names, places, words and so forth from the QFG series. Whatever the case, we might very well see a large patch later on fixing this if Activision has a problem with it and seeing as how the Coles plan to make a profit, I bet Activision will take issue with it.

I see no moral conflicts with the Coles using the names, however, any legal repercussions are another matter and Activision seems to be one of the worse ones in terms of defending supposed IP. That said, far be it from me to question the creators of said IP. If they want to take the chance, it is their chance to take. In the end, I doubt that Activision will say anything. For one, they probably are not even aware of most of the place names in the series. Also, as is, the IP is not worth that much in revenue outside of the trickle of profits from the likes of GOG. They are probably aware the new game and will watch how well it does to see if there might be profit in licensing the IP out for new games. I doubt that they will ever license it for anything that would put it in reach of anything that someone would be willing to pay, but that is another discussion.

No, I see no moral issues at all, but like you said, there could be plenty of legal ones. I know it's the Coles' choice to go this route, but what concerns me is that when Activision hears about it, their lawyers will surround Hero U like hungry sharks.

If I knew Activision wouldn't even bother concerning itself with this, I wouldn't care what legal processes the Coles went through. Unfortunately, there are a lot of companies that will go to great lengths to defend IP that they aren't using and probably have no plan to do us either.