On The Ownership Of Student Games
May 7, 2007 10:07 AM | Simon Carless
Back to Microsoft Casual Games' bizdev guy Kim Pallister, who mentions an issue regarding student games that I've been meaning to point out for a while.
He notes: "In a conversation with some Digipen students at the IGF at GDC (their game was a finalist), I was *shocked* to learn that they didn't actually have the right to commercialize their game, but that the Digipen school owned the rights to any games created by their students... I was also naive. It turns out many of today's educational systems are imposing unreasonable copyright terms on students in their media programs."
One of the commenters on this post is Steve Chiavelli of 2007 IGF Best Student Game winner Toblo, who explains directly: "We knowingly (naively?) signed away the rights to everything we would make when entering DigiPen. Personally, it seemed like a good trade-off. I would be attending what I had researched to be arguably the best place for learning how to be a game programmer... Unfortunately, I never could have foreseen the whole Slamdance drama. Having the school attach my game (and name) to something against my will was an unpleasant experience, to say the least."
For those not clear on the particular issue, it's written up here: "On January 16th, the DigiPen Institute of Technology -- the college we attend -- overwrote our decision and readmitted Toblo to the Slamdance Festival. We still have very strong feelings regarding the removal of Super Columbine Massacre RPG! from the competition, and we have not been satisfied with Mr. Baxter's numerous rationales for dropping the game."
As Chairman of the IGF, an event which student games figure very heavily in, I definitely feel some unease about schools owning game rights. It becomes a problem if those Digipen (or Full Sail, or USC, or whichever school's) students sign their rights over, but then their views and wants diverge from that of the school's. Obviously, this has happened publicly at least once, with Toblo and Slamdance, and I'm hoping that it doesn't happen again. Maybe someone in the faculty at a game school can comment on why ownership makes sense?
Categories:
13 Comments
To my knowledge, Full Sail only reserves rights to promote student games. The remainder of the rights belong to the students fully. There have already been several student games commercialized.
Ownership of student games makes zero sense whatsoever. In fact, if anything, it's a liability to a school if the students inadvertently tread on a patent in some manner or another.
Dustin Clingman | May 7, 2007 1:14 PM
I use to go to DigiPen and this is the response I got:
1)There may be issues with team members fighting over the rights of the game. When the school owns the whole thing, these issues are avoided.
2)DigiPen also is still very much a company and a school at the same time, and still works using that model, where the company owns everything you do. All the code written at the school belongs to them as well. As a side effect the games cannot use outside art or music, since the school has to own the whole thing.
However, DigiPen does allow games to be published if they are re-made (ex: Portal), which is better anyway, as most of them could use some polish before they are released professionally.
MtB | May 7, 2007 3:48 PM
A big part of it is educational licensing of software the schools are using, I believe.
Depending on your situation you can choose not to sign something. I know of one student who did this--but again, it will depend how badly the school wants you.
Matthew | May 7, 2007 5:36 PM
MtB:
DigiPen also is still very much a company and a school at the same time, and still works using that model, where the company owns everything you do.
I would be surprised if that reasoning stood up in court. The doctrine that companies get to own work produced by employees is that the work is produced "for hire." Meaning, in exchange for financial compensation. Last time I checked, students paid DigiPen to attend class there, not the other way around.
John H. | May 7, 2007 6:18 PM
Out of curiosity, how many student projects might be commercially viable? The closest I can think of would be the Portal example, where an idea developed at Digipen was fleshed out later.
I suspect that there aren't too many examples where a school would directly profit from their efforts. Which, come to think of it, is another good reason to give the rights back to the students in the first place.
-Geoff
http://www.alinktothefuture.com
Geoff | May 7, 2007 6:22 PM
I informed the DigiPen faculty folks of this post, and they said an official response should be forthcoming, I believe.
simonc | May 7, 2007 8:14 PM
A lot of film schools also have the students sign away their rights.
Jon King | May 7, 2007 8:45 PM
DigiPen presumably only followed regular universities when it comes to the (lack of) rights of student-created products.
I recall my university's Computer Science department claimed 50% ownership (and legal rights) of anything made with school resources. There was something about a minimal percentage being made via school resources, but this was back when you were doing most if not all your coding on school accounts on the school network on school computers.
More direct to DigiPen, class projects were often enough treated as full ownership by the university. I had one professor justify it as a work-for-hire relationship. The university requests a project of the students, and pays in both education and credit for that education. You were buying your grades, your passed classes, and eventually your degree.
So I thought nothing special of DigiPen's legal requirements even when they were first announced. It just seemed standard practice. (It also matched many jobs in signing away your rights.)
If it weren't for net success stories and things like the Slamdance controversy, it probably wouldn't even be considered controversial.
Baines | May 8, 2007 12:18 AM
Is this not the same as any other institution that requires some access to the materials created using its resources? It doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me.
Rossignol | May 8, 2007 3:22 AM
I was kinda shocked about this as well when I found out about it 4(?) years ago ... I remember talking to the guys who did Eskimo Kisses about it.
The more I thought about it the more it seemed to make sense, especially after hearing about how much input and advice the professors give; using school resources, and the potential for in-team bickering.
hanford | May 8, 2007 3:51 AM
Full Sail don't retain ownership of student work and, as far as I know, neither does any other game development course. Digipen is the only one I've ever encountered that does.
"Students might argue over the rights," is a terribly patronising reason for the university to keep them. "Most student games aren't commercially viable," is also a poor argument, as the comforts of ownership extend far beyond issues of commodity.
If the university needed some access to the materials students create, then there are plenty of licenses they could utilise that wouldn't entail full ownership.
I frequently have to request permission from indie developers to use content they have created. Usually this involves a quick e-mail, a quick reply, and the only consequence for the creator is increased exposure for their work.
When that content is owned by DigiPen, however, it normally involves a quick e-mail, a two week wait, an eventual reply, two weeks more of e-mail exchanges, and an eventual contract containing a list of unreasonable requests. The result of which is that it's no longer worth the effort.
This process also usually involves a number of apologetic and disappointed e-mails from the creators themselves, as they wish only that their game could more easily reach a broader audience.
If I remember tomorrow, I'll post the official reason I was once given by DigiPen for retaining the rights.
Graham | May 8, 2007 1:30 PM
Why ownership makes sense:
1) Products are developed under educational licenses.
If I may quote:
from section 2: Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, Microsoft grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce the software, prepare derivative works of the software and distribute the software or any derivative works that you create, solely for academic purposes.
(Visual Studio Academic License)
You cannot make commercial software with this license. DigiPen students can make games, but cannot sell them.
One might argue that students could still 'own' the games that they cannot sell. If any students started 'selling' the games, it would open up DigiPen to litigation from software providers. Number 1 is just showing that there is little reason for the students to own the game.
2) DigiPen does not want to be in the business of competing with industry. DigiPen is clear about being an educational institution, and enjoys the friendship of many local businesses. In fact, graduates get snapped up by local companies that would be competitors if students sold products.
3) The games made at DigiPen are not the effort of a single individual working in a vaccuum. Students work in teams of 4-5, and they are constantly receiving feedback and advice from faculty and other students. To try to separate out how much 'ownership' of the IP belongs to which students and how would bog down a creative academic process which currently runs freely.
4) If the students had a problem with the Slamdance festival, they needed to bring up the issue with the administration. If they didn't feel that they were being dealt with fairly, then they need to bring it to the faculty. Some of the Toblo members went directly to the festival and tried to remove the entry. Did all team members and contributers agree to this? How can the 'team' be sure of it? They are not bound in a firm legal structure as a team, so any internal conflict would be a legal nightmare for the students involved. Allowing the school to 'own' the game provides a legal framework for decisions to be made. The school makes them, and no students will be taking any other students to court any time soon.
These are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of DigiPen.
CD | May 8, 2007 3:11 PM
I attended Full Sail a couple of years ago. For my final project, my team of about 12 people did a game called Super Pillow Fighter which was entered in the IGF Student Competition. It didn't win, but later I was approached by Moondance Games to have the game published in an "Independent Games" collection.
It sounds like if I had gone to Digipen instead of Full Sail, legally I wouldn't have been able to have the game published. I would be very, very angry, because this was an INVALUABLE learning experience about dealing with publishers and contracts.
As someone who has had direct experience with having a student game published, I'd like to address some of the arguments brought up about why students shouldn't own their own games.
1) "Products are developed under educational licenses."
At Full Sail, a copy of Visual C++ Standard Edition was included in the price of admission. Even if the game was produced with the Academic product, if I wanted to sell the game commercially, all I would have to do is buy the standard or professional versions and recompile it.
2) "There may be issues with team members fighting over the rights of the game."
As I said before, there were 12 people on my team, including programmers, artists, sound engineers and composers. If no agreements are made ahead of time as to who owns what, legally everyone owns an equal share of the final product. When the opportunity came up to have the game published, all I had to do was email everyone and ask if it was okay. If anyone had said "No" I couldn't have gone through with it, but they'd be silly not to want the extra exposure (not to mention being able to put "Worked on a published game" on their resume.)
3)"...As a side effect the games cannot use outside art or music, since the school has to own the whole thing."
I think this is silly because as students they are allowed to use copyrighted material under Fair Use laws.
Dan Manning | May 9, 2007 9:11 AM