Just an Average hello!

I am not familiar with the UK IP laws, but there is a fairly common understanding about protecting your IP when making a game.

First, you will need to register and literary or artistic items with the copyright office. That covers the specific artwork and specific wording such as your rule book and any the specific wording of any written component of your game.

Second, you would need to register your particular combination of mechanics with the patent office. It will only protect you from direct duplication of your mechanics, not similar ones.

You will need to look up the specific process on your governments Copyright/Patent laws to find out the process though. There will generally be a nominal fee involved. If you are really, really concerned, get a legal advice from a lawyer. A small investment that could potentially save you a bundle down the road.

Hiya

I’m from the UK and I know a little bit about protecting your original creations over here.

The previous advice is pretty much spot on the money

Copyright exists as soon as you make public your idea with the little copyright symbol. It doesn’t offer a whole lot of protection, but it offers some.

Obtaining a patent for your idea will cost a small fortune and entail a very lengthy process. Having obtained a patent it WILL cost you even more to defend it. And it’s debatable whether your chance of success warrants the defense (irrespective of the other party being at fault).

Board games are still a grey area when it comes to protection. The appearance of a game can be protected quite easily. However, the mechanics are very difficult to protect. It’s all nonsense really and the system is hopelessly out of date.

To anyone with a working knowledge of board games the mechanic is what defines a game and the resulting game play. The theme or appearance is, more often than not, secondary in importance. The majority of consumers buy a game for the game play and not as an object or collection of objects to look at. So it would seem to make sense to focus on the element that the buyers of the product are actually buying.

However, assessing the uniqueness of collected game mechanics is a lot more difficult and time consuming than assessing something that can be viewed with the naked eye. I would hazard to guess that the reason for the current system of authentication is purely one of simplicity over actual merit.

The system becomes more bizarre when you look at some of the things that can be protected and the similarity they have to the board game or video game model.

A musical score can be protected, even though it is in essence the same stock notes arranged in an original combination to create a unique sound. The visual representation of this sound is demonstrated in physical form by the notations on a music sheet.

However, anyone with an awareness of music will know that Mozarts musical score sheets do not adequately convey the composers full intentions for the piece and many different variations are possible from the same score – while keeping true to the musical notations.

So the orchestration of notes on a music sheet can be viewed as an objective re-imagining of stock notes, even though it can be interpreted in numerous ways. The music sheet stands as the written source to be protected and the sound is the resulting output when used.

In comparison a rule sheet, comprised of letters arranged to physically communicate orchestrated game play, is denied protection, because it is only accorded the status of an idea.

Why the unique grouping of game mechanics, as portrayed in a set of game rules, is denied the same protection is beyond me. Unfortunately, that’s how it is with game protection.

That being said, protection for a game is possible. It’s one of the reasons why game publishers add their own artwork. This gives them something they can protect in terms of visual appearance and the protection can be gained relatively quickly and cheaply.

Cheap isn’t a word that is often associated with protection (ask the warrior with the card stock armour), but when you take into account the realistic financial returns for a game then cheap is the realisic way to go. If the game becomes a smash hit then adding further protection at a later date may be an option, and any existing protection will make the process a lot easier.

So what is available in terms of cheap protection for an idea/product?

First up, cheapest and least protection is a copyright – which is free and only involves the public expression of an idea in written form.

The next one is a Trademark. If you Trademark the name of your game it will stop anyone else from using the same name for another ‘game’ related product. If you are looking to make a series of games or you have the intention of releasing expansions to develop a product range then a Trademark will also help to protect the developing brand. A Trademark will also offer benefits in relation to licensing your game.

The next option is a Registered Design. This protects the appearance of your game and anything that can be seen. This type of protection will cover the visual elements of your game, such as game components, layout and artwork – making it difficult for anyone to directly copy your game.

However, a Registered Design doesn’t protect any internal workings that can’t be seen by simply looking at the product in its given state (which can sometimes apply to internal workings). This is why it can be a good idea to submit product applications where pictures/representations of the product are taken from a source with a transparent outer casing – and subsequent products are produced with the normal retail casing.

Both of these options will grant the game some protection and they can be acquired relatively quickly and for very little expense. When applying for these forms of protection the designer can also opt for National coverage, European coverage or Worldwide coverage – each having a different price point.

Welcome to the community ManAverage.