Royal Game of Ur

>>53396481
copyright violation

>>53396481
I imagine that the historical reproduction is trademarked by the British museum.
Whoever did this would have had to produce an original board since the game mechanics can't be copyrighted in and of themselves.

>>53397056
Pretty sure you can't copyright antiques or reproductions of antiques. If anything they could copyright their interpretation of the rules since the rules are complete conjecture based on nothing more than finding the original board.

>>53399175

They actually found a tablet describing betting variants from which they could pretty reliably extrapolate the basic rules. The idea that it's a backgammon-style game also seems pretty plausible.

You can't copyright game mechanics though. On the other hand, any action from the British Museum whether or not they have an actual case would be enough to get funding at least temporarily suspended.

>>53396509
If this is true, it's the most surreal and gross misuse of IP law in the last 6000 years. I would say you're wrong and there's no way that can be right but I've seen some really baseless as fuck lawsuits in my time so why not?

>playing worse backgammon

>>53399175
>>53402503
The British Museum already did a run of these with some table top company so while outright copyright can't be applied as already noted I'm sure some sort of obscure trademark law regarding the 'likeness' of the product could enter into play.
But this is just speculation and we would need a British copyright & trademark lawyer to confirm. Someone could try to ask TotalBiscuit.

>>53402503
The thing is that even if they're wrong and they have no case, the fact that they made an issue out of it would be enough to suspend the Kickstarter (at least until the issue was resolved either way) and in all likelihood put a stop to the entire project because in the end it's a matter of money, like all copyright claims.

If the claimant has more money and lawyers than the defender, they can just make it so expensive to defend yourself that it stops being viable and you have no choice bu to swallow your pride and roll over. They probably just decided it wasn't worth even trying on a budget of a few thousand.

>>53405154
It hurts less under British law as in all cases the loser is compelled to pay all legal fees.

>>53405345

That doesn't include private expenses like counsel does it? Otherwise, it seems like crushing someone under a mountain of superior legal resources would be even more damaging.

>>53402670
I don't know how to play backgammon and it doesn't look interesting enough to bother learning

>>53405345
>in all cases the loser is compelled to pay all legal fees
Sure, after they lose. Which makes the point moot if you can't afford a lengthy legal process to begin with. That's the whole point.

They don't have to win, they just have to outlast the poor sob on the receiving end.