Okay, I know I said I'd leave it alone, but this afternoon I think something unlocked in my brain that might both, explain some of my concerns, and also, potentially, help those looking to protect potential IP. I promise this isn't another rant, and really has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with the legislation.
A lot of this is ideas here I got after reading this article:
Daniel J. Schaeffer, "
Not Playing Around: Board Games and Intellectual Property Law," 2015. Published in Landslide, Vol. 7, No. 4, March/April 2015, by the American Bar Association.
I want to talk about the intersection between architecture vs games. I went this direction, because when viewed from an architects point of view, a golf course is a piece of property then everything that Forrest is arguing flows naturally. However, I've always viewed golf on golf courses as a game, similar to pinball, where the golf course is the playfield. If you've read anything I've written, you might notice that I'm commonly making direct comparisons from golf holes to board game and video game mechanics.
This is where I think things get weird for copyright, and it gets weird in a way that might undermine this law before it's even passed. If you read through that article, you'll notice that many of the copyright lawsuits between different games have been look-and-field similarities and not the actual game mechanics:
Monopoly vs a game called "Anti-Monopoly":
- Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 684 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1227 (1983).
PAC-MAN vs a game called "K. C. Munchkin" (via
Justia):
- Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir. 1982)
I know the game we are all playing here is "golf," but I'm not sure that that matters here. I came along to this line of thinking when researching whether or not pinball playfields were copyrightable, because if this a direct parallel between that and golf courses; that is, golf and pinball are always the same "game", but are always played on different playfields. I could not find any cases that went to court, but there does seem to be
plenty of evidence where the exact same playfield was published by two different companies, just with different themes. If you can't copyright playfields because they ultimately reduce to game mechanics, I could see it potentially being an issue for this law.
I obviously don't know if there are any implications for this line of inquiry, or if I'm just an idiot who doesn't know what I'm talking about, but when I look at these cases, it comes back to, over and over again that the game's theme matters heavily in these court cases, and not the actual playfields or game boards.
If we pretend there is merit to this line of argument (I'm not saying there is, just humor me please), then it would would really behoove our architects to focus heavily on creating a theme/feel for each golf course if there is any weakness in copyright claims here. Since golf courses are just natural features, I see how this could be challenging, but the more I think about it, I do see themes in the courses I read about. The look-and-feel of a Scottish links seems to be a theme that is replicable, and is done so intentionally. The look-and-field of a desert course seems obvious. I think you could even go as far as the setting, sea side vs parkland, types of trees, color of sand, and maybe even the grass types.
I'm obviously not sure, I've just been too fascinated with this thread, and I thought I'd share what I've been researching.