Talk:Micro Star v. FormGen Inc.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Micro Star v. FormGen Inc./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PresN (talk · contribs) 20:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I did your last GAN, so lets clear this one out too. --PresN 20:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• "The case Micro Star v. FormGen Inc. 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998) is a legal case" - Don't need "case" twice, can just start "Micro Star v. FormGen Inc."
• "Game publisher FormGen counter-sued claiming" - comma after sued
• "based on Duke Nukem 3D, and infringed their copyright." - no comma
• "telling new tales of Duke's fabulous adventures."" - period outside of the quote, since you're not quoting a full sentence. Same thing when you use this quote in the Appeals section
• "Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order" -> "The court, therefore, reversed the district court's order" - awkward to start a sentence/paragraph with a conjunctive adverb
• Link GT Interactive (either directly or to its redirect target Atari, Inc. (1993–present))
• "is a clear violation of the Duke Nukem 3D copyright" - italics
• "noncommercial in nature" - you spelled it "non-commercial" earlier
• As a general note, you mentioned that Lindstrom wrote in 2020, but don't have years for any other analysis; I feel like they would be helpful to have to indicate if they were close to the ruling or more recently, as the ruling is now 25 years old. For example, Burk's article saying that esports broadcasting may be illegal has a different context once you know it was written in 2012, not yesterday.
• "Still, Zvi Rosen of the" - "Still" reads oddly here; "Regardless" seems better
• You have mixed date formats in the references; pick "day month, year" or "yyyy-mm-dd" (probably the first, since you have a lot of "month year" dates so they mix in better

Not too much here, it's a tidy little article. --PresN 20:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your recommendations. I spent some time to fix all the comments except for the date issue for several reasons. The 2020 date is the only one in the page because this case is still the determinative and relevant precedent on ownership of derivative works including mods, machinima and esports. The older reactions might make this precedent seem out of date but it is not; the legality has not changed while the industry has. That is why the legacy section ends with the comment that the industry does not generally enforce copyright and has actually embraced modders and YouTubers and broadcasters. There might be a way to make this more clear but I believe that adding a date for every reaction would only add cruft and without being informative. Jorahm (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point, I was thinking in terms of demonstrating what the context was compared to when the articles were written as if it could change societally without other legal cases creating new precedent, but you're right that that's not how legal context works. Ok, passing this as-is, good job! --PresN 00:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Micro Star v. FormGen Inc. ruled that video game copyright owners have the exclusive right to make sequels? Source: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2537&context=faculty_scholarship [Citation 15]
  • ALT1: ... that some scholars have cited Micro Star v. FormGen Inc. as a pivotal legal holding on the issue of unauthorized derivative works, including mods and other user-generated content? Source: Gard, Elizabeth Townsend; Gard, W. Ronald (January 12, 2017). Video Games and the Law. Taylor & Francis. p. 52. doi:10.4324/9781315209210. ISBN 978-1-351-80598-8. , Dannenberg, Ross A. (2010). Computer Games and Virtual Worlds: A New Frontier in Intellectual Property Law. American Bar Association. pp. 72–73. ISBN 978-1-60442-750-9.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Casey Newton

Improved to Good Article status by Jorahm (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 19:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Micro Star v. FormGen Inc.; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I have watched lots of other editors come in and make these DYK templates after I've done the work on GA. It is nice to see but I am not sure if I am supposed to comment or if I can even provide any kind of input. I would change a few words to make the DYK comment more accurate:
  ALT2: ... that the video game case Micro Star v. FormGen Inc. affirmed that copyright owners have the exclusive right to make sequels?
  Technically the precedent for this is much older but Micro Star is a more modern case applying it directly to video games. Jorahm (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Long enough, new enough. ALT2 short enough and sourced (to an offline source). No maintenance templates detected, no copyright violations detected, no neutrality problems detected. QPQ done. Good to go.--Launchballer 15:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)