The sentence "games are not copyrightable" isn't particularly meaningful. That does not inform what is or is not protected. The link in question does not say that games are not protected. It says, and I quote, "Copyright does not protect the idea for a game". Keyword: idea. The idea is not protected. The expression is.
What is a game if not an expression of an idea? I would not call the idea for a game a game. I would call the expression of an idea a game. Therefore I would consider games protected by copyright. At least in casual conversation. When speaking in legal terms there is a lot more nuance.
If you re-created Mario 64 from scratch but art swapped every asset with something original you would get bitchslapped in court. Hard. The layout and configuration of levels is not an idea. It's an expression of an idea. If you want to make a different level using different assets but using the same mechanics of Mario 64 then that is probably acceptable. You're making your own expression.
It does get a little tricky if you start copying the physics of Mario 64 precisely. There are lots of platformers. Why copy the exactly moveset from Mario 64? Why meticulously reverse engineer the physics of jumping from Mario 64? Copy too much and you run risk of losing a copyright suit as demonstrated by Tetris.
A set of rules. Such rules are potentially eligible for patent protection. They are not eligible for copyright protection.
> On one hand you can say that games are not protected. Tetris however is. And has successfully been defended us such in court.
I suggest you read the actual text of the Mino decision, which rests heavily on visual elements, not gameplay. I also suggest you not put too much stock in the decision of a single district court judge. District court decisions are not binding precedent. Especially ones obviously written by a judge who either doesn't understand what the functional elements of a game are, or was looking for an excuse to find for Tetris.
> The layout and configuration of levels is not an idea.
For you and I to have a meaningful discussion we would need to not use the word game. I'll just leave it at that.
At least you agree with me that layout and configuration of levels is protected by copyright. At least I assume you believe that assets are protected. You don't specify.
All of these waters are largely untested. It doesn't take much discussion to hit them. Good luck.
What is a game if not an expression of an idea? I would not call the idea for a game a game. I would call the expression of an idea a game. Therefore I would consider games protected by copyright. At least in casual conversation. When speaking in legal terms there is a lot more nuance.
On one hand you can say that games are not protected. Tetris however is. And has successfully been defended us such in court. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/06/defining-tetris-how-co...
If you re-created Mario 64 from scratch but art swapped every asset with something original you would get bitchslapped in court. Hard. The layout and configuration of levels is not an idea. It's an expression of an idea. If you want to make a different level using different assets but using the same mechanics of Mario 64 then that is probably acceptable. You're making your own expression.
It does get a little tricky if you start copying the physics of Mario 64 precisely. There are lots of platformers. Why copy the exactly moveset from Mario 64? Why meticulously reverse engineer the physics of jumping from Mario 64? Copy too much and you run risk of losing a copyright suit as demonstrated by Tetris.