安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語(日文)
한국어(韓文)
ไทย(泰文)
Български(保加利亞文)
Čeština(捷克文)
Dansk(丹麥文)
Deutsch(德文)
English(英文)
Español - España(西班牙文 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希臘文)
Français(法文)
Italiano(義大利文)
Bahasa Indonesia(印尼語)
Magyar(匈牙利文)
Nederlands(荷蘭文)
Norsk(挪威文)
Polski(波蘭文)
Português(葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙)
Português - Brasil(葡萄牙文 - 巴西)
Română(羅馬尼亞文)
Русский(俄文)
Suomi(芬蘭文)
Svenska(瑞典文)
Türkçe(土耳其文)
tiếng Việt(越南文)
Українська(烏克蘭文)
回報翻譯問題
Zork is absolutely not public domain. Activistion bought Infocom and holds all of their trademarks.
EDIT: Turns out that Inform port is a bizarre mish-mash of the three games, not a direct port of the first one.
... and I just realized how old this thread is. Oh well.
Trademark/copyright law is infinitely more complex than that and has numerous jurisdictional differences. Many Ultima fan games have been operating with EA/Activision's knowledge. Many of the fan projects would have viable arguments for meeting fair use standards as well.
Given this title is offered for free (at least today it is), is transformative (there were no graphics in the original Zork nor any specific exact depictions, the gameplay mechanics are completely different, etc), and it's market penetration being so insignificant as well as the project being marketed differently as to not really be a competitor to Zork, it would have a potentially winnable case.
The only issue is if this game incorporates all of the text and areas from the original Zork game, which would be a debate mostly over text vs. visuals (this title doesn't actually copy all of the text itself from Zork, does it?)