Is it legal to adapt a video game franchise into tabletop RPG for private use?

Question

If a video game franchise like Warcraft, Dota, Diablo, StarCraft gets converted to tabletop RPG, will this require a license from owners if this RPG is private only?

Ilmari Karonen · Answer 1 · 2022-05-12T19:00:31.493

49

The practical answer is that, if your adaptation is truly for private use only, then whether it's technically legal or not doesn't really matter, since you're very unlikely to get sued (or even to get asked to cease your infringement, which would be the typical first step before an actual lawsuit if someone did object to what you were doing) for two main reasons:

If your use is truly private, then no-one outside your private circle of friends — including the owners of the intellectual property that you're using — should even find out about it in the first place.
Even if your word of your "private" use got out, e.g. because you documented it online, and the owners of the IP found out about it, they'd have little if any motivation to sue you as long as you weren't making any money off their IP, competing with them, or tainting their public image with your use.

(That is, of course, assuming that you're actually not doing any of the aforementioned objectionable things. If you were e.g. distributing your game outside your private gaming group, charging money for playing it, or featuring "unsavory" elements in it that the IP owners might strongly object to, things might be different.)

Basically, your private adaptation would most likely fall into the wide legal gray area known as fan works. Most of that is not strictly legal, but there's a lot of it around anyway, and media companies and content creators usually tolerate it at least up to a point, because strictly enforcing their legal rights would cost a lot and bring little if any benefit to them. Lawsuits are expensive, and even "cease and desist" letters sent to fans can be costly, in terms of PR if nothing else. Companies normally don't waste time and money on them without a reason.

Some companies may even explicitly encourage at least certain types of fan works, and may have explicit "fan content" policies that may offer you you additional guarantees of protection beyond just "we probably won't bother to sue you." Of course, such guarantees typically come with additional conditions and restrictions, which can vary case by case, and which you'll need to research yourself.

In some parts of the world local laws may also offer some additional protection for certain types of "fair use", but again, such laws (and precedents in their interpretation) will vary between jurisdictions.

In practice, your best bet is typically to look around to see what kinds of fan works already exist for the franchise you want to use, and how far the companies owning the relevant IP (trademarks, copyright, etc.) seem to tolerate it. If you don't push the envelope in that respect — and especially if your use is indeed private and not publicly disseminated — you're unlikely to get into trouble.

And, of course, if you do receive a "cease and desist" letter, comply with it. Or, if you really don't want to, consult with a local lawyer on what other options you may have.

edited May 12 '22 at 19:00

answered May 12 '22 at 18:34

Ilmari Karonen

24,384
7
64
97

3

I think yours is definitely the more comprehensive, and cautious, and answer. – Sean Duggan May 13 '22 at 12:19
If one were to post on-line a set of instructions for e.g. how to capture the graphics from the game, import them into a graphics program, apply some recommended color balancing and scaling adjustments, and print them, along with recommendations for how many of what kinds of card to include in a deck, would that be considered any form of "derivative work"? I would think that a derived work would need to contain some content from the work of which it is considered a derivative. – supercat May 14 '22 at 19:42
@supercat: That's… kind of a complicated question. If the copyright / trademark owner wanted to sue, they could probably come up with an argument that the instructions themselves were derivative (e.g. if they included copyrighted character names, stats, etc.) or that their purpose was to facilitate piracy (which could amount to contributory infringement). That said, one could also quite easily argue against both of those claims, and if the whole thing got to court, it could really go either way depending on the details of the case and ultimately the whims of the judge. – Ilmari Karonen May 14 '22 at 20:42
… In some ways, what you describe is similar to how ROM hacks for retro console games are usually distributed: when you download one from a "legit" site, the file you get isn't a complete modified game ROM (which would be clearly infringing) but a patch that you need to combine with a binary dump of the original game (which you're supposed to extract yourself from a legitimately owned game cartridge). It's not at all clear whether that really makes such ROM hacks legal — but in practice it seems to be enough of a fig leaf that the companies who could sue generally turn a blind eye to it. – Ilmari Karonen May 14 '22 at 20:49
(Your question also reminded me of a related question I answered some years ago on gamedev.SE, concerning a hypothetical computer game with an copyright-infringing mod. It's not exactly the same situation, but the short answer in both cases is "maybe, it's complicated and there's a wide gray area".) – Ilmari Karonen May 14 '22 at 20:55
@IlmariKaronen: Fair use should apply, even if the works were somehow a "derived work". The third and fourt fair use factors would be absolutely solidly favor somoene who posted such instructions, since they would be seeking to absolutely minimize the amount of content used, and the set of instructions could not be used as a market substitute for the original work. Unless the character of the derived work was particularly outrageous, I can't see any plausible argument against fair use, but I would think it unclear what "copied" aspects would be considered copyrightable. – supercat May 14 '22 at 21:12
1

@supercat: Sure, that's one argument that could be made. It could even stand up in court. That said, if I was a lawyer and wanted to argue against it, I'd ask why you're so sure that the instructions "could not be used as a market substitute for the original work". The original work is a game, with characters from (presumably) a popular franchise. The instructions are for making a game, with characters from the same franchise. Sounds like a substitute to me. (Or, at least, sounds enough like one to maybe convince a judge…) – Ilmari Karonen May 14 '22 at 21:35
1

… I'd also predict that your next argument would probably be something like "but you have to own the original game already to be able to follow the instructions!" To which I'd say (if I was still a lawyer for the game company) that the original computer game (almost certainly) has copy protection that makes it hard to pirate, whereas your instructions can be used to make lots of derivative card games from a single original. And I'm sure the cards have no protection against secondary copying, either. – Ilmari Karonen May 14 '22 at 21:39
1

Anyway, my point isn't that you're necessarily wrong, or that you'd definitely get sued and lose. You might well be right and completely safe. And the company that owns the game might not even care. But if they did decide to sue you over using their intellectual property like that, it's not guaranteed that you'd win. And even if you did win in the end, they could certainly make the fight expensive for you. – Ilmari Karonen May 14 '22 at 21:52

score 19 · Accepted Answer · answered May 12 '22 at 16:16

19

The issue at hand is likely that of Trademarks.

Trademark law protects distinctive words, phrases, logos, symbols, slogans, and any other devices used to identify and distinguish products or services in the marketplace.

If you do not attempt to market your game, which would include selling or giving away the ruleset, material related to it, or marketing an experience with it (such as selling gaming sessions playing your homebrew Starcraft game), then trademark does not apply any more than referring to your holiday punch as "Blotto Coca-Cola" among your friends at the party.

answered May 12 '22 at 16:16

Sean Duggan

10,553
3
27
64

8

tl;dr: if your usage of their copyright is public enough for the respective copyright holder to hear about it, you're probably close to or are infringing on their copyright. – PixelMaster May 12 '22 at 16:20
31

I am an attorney in Nevada that practices in intellectual property. I decline to give advice in a forum like this, but I will very respectfully say that this is a dramatic oversimplification of the issue. If you need an answer for any reason beyond satisfying curiosity, you may wish to consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. – TimothyAWiseman May 12 '22 at 17:08
5

In all seriousness, if you're not commercializing or otherwise profiting off the copyright (or trademark) infringement (even on behalf of a charity etc.), what's the copyright (or trademark) owners recourse? I can paint Disney characters on my child's nursery walls, but not on the wall of a room in a daycare I run, because I don't monetarily benefit off the first use case, but I do off the second. – GOATNine May 12 '22 at 18:04
23

@GOATNine I still decline to give advice in a forum like this, but please note that in the USA at least copyright law provides for statutory damages without the need to prove actual damages under some circumstances. While the fact a use is non-commercial can carry some weight in a fair use analysis, it is not a defense by itself. And it is quite easy to find examples of some very petty copyright lawsuits for non-commercial uses. – TimothyAWiseman May 12 '22 at 18:19
@TimothyAWiseman: Despite the existence of statutory damages, they aren't applied in cases where even the higest remotely plausible estimates of actual damages would be trifling. If everyone who wanted to do anything with a work had to officially request permission, the cost of responding to requests for uses that would otherwise involve trivial levels of damages would exceed the value of the damages in question. – supercat May 14 '22 at 19:25
4

Trademark is not the only concern that would be involved. Using people, places, or things from a copyrighted work can make your work a derivation of that work, which means the copyright holders have the right to stop you from distributing it (even just to your friends). As a practical matter, they can’t enforce those rights if they never hear about it, and even if they somehow did they may not care if the distribution is sufficiently-limited, but the point remains that they have the right to, which this answer does not address. OP accepting this makes me worry that they’re ignoring that. – KRyan May 27 '22 at 19:15
2

Making money off copying something does not change the facts of whether you copied it without permission of the copyright holder. Seperately, only finished works can be copyrighted, eg: the final product be it a book, painting, movie or game. If you are not copying that thing you may be creating your own copyrightable work. – orathaic May 27 '22 at 19:23

score 6 · Answer 3 · answered May 15 '22 at 10:45

Technically it violates civil law, but a lawsuit is unlikely.

An adaption of a video game into a tabletop RPG is a derivative work, which falls under copyright law. I am not a lawyer, but here's what Wikipedia says:

In the United States, according to 17 U.S. Code § 106, the copyright holder has exclusive right to prepare derivative works based on a copyrighted work. This is a civil offense; i.e. Activision Blizzard would have grounds to sue you.

To count as criminal copyright infringement, it would have to be shown that you wilfully infringed on for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain. It would also have to be on a substantial scale, i.e. over $1,000.

There is an exception to copyright known as Fair Use, but it only applies in limited situations, and the definition is somewhat subjective. It may count in your favor that it does not impede Blizzard's ability to make money from their own work, that you only used a limited amount of copyrighted material, and that your RPG is not a commercial product.

Of course, it's highly unlikely that Activision Blizzard will actually sue you over a private tabletop RPG group.

coffee · Answer 4 · 2022-05-15T07:11:13.110

Ilmari Karonen's answer seems the most practically applicable.

I just wanted to address a point that wasn't addressed yet by any of the existing answers. Sean Duggan mentions trademark, but trademark is far from the only thing you need to pay attention to. Copyright is extremely relevant, and you do not have to be involved in the marketplace to violate copyright law: non-commercial uses can infringe copyright.

An adaptation from one medium to another is a clear-cut case of a derivative work. Therefore, you are practically certain to infringe copyright if what you mean by "converting" is using the world or any of the specific characters or entities found in the video game franchise.

Copyright does not cover ideas, only their expression, but if the aim of your project is to convert a video game franchise to the tabletop RPG format (rather than something like "creating a tabletop RPG with the feel of this video game franchise" or "that has similar gameplay to this video game franchise") it is probably likely you will infringe copyright even if you avoid the use of any trademarks.

Some relevant former questions:

Is it legal to adapt a video game franchise into tabletop RPG for private use?

4 Answers4

Technically it violates civil law, but a lawsuit is unlikely.