Who holds the IP for Richard Burns Rally?

[Turbo Nozomix]

Wondering who owns it now.

[SeriousSpy]

Nobody, the devs and publisher are both dead, and so is Richard Burns.

[Turbo Nozomix]

Someone still holds the IP.

[SeriousSpy]

Let's put it this way:

You cannot buy it first-hand anymore legitimately, and nobody can make money off of it.

Nobody owns the rights to the game.

[SeriousSpy]

Originally posted by x_kevlar_x:

Originally posted by SeriousSpy:

Let's put it this way:

You cannot buy it first-hand anymore legitimately, and nobody can make money off of it.

Nobody owns the rights to the game.

It was published by SCI which later became Square Enix.

Legit place to purchase:

https://uk.gamesplanet.com/game/richard-burns-rally-download--2693-1

Publisher: Eidos - Square Enix

They won't make any money off it, and even if they do, who cares? They didn't do any of the world, the dev did.

[SeriousSpy]

I think I know why he's wondering it...

The answer to the question that he's probably asking: Go ahead, they dev's can't earn any money off of it, and neither can Burns himself.

[Turbo Nozomix]

Well I want to email them asking for a Steam release, that seeks to use the community updates (with agreements from their makers) for modern compatibility. There are other products that have officially released using community content, to success (like Gothic 3, Age of Empires II HD), and DiRT Rally shows that there's plenty of hunger for hard-core rally centric simulation. And re-publishing old games has been a big and celebrated theme of the past few years.

[SeriousSpy]

Right, that won't happen, because the devs are defunct, and it would sell terribly.

ALSO, they probably don't have the license anymore, seeing as Burns is dead.

[SeriousSpy]

Even then, it's impossible.

Squeenix don't own the license anymore, these things are timed, and 1. the game is 10 years old, 2. Richard Burns is dead.

The same reason that CM had to take Colin McRae Rally 05 and Race Driver 3 off of GOG.

[arby]

Originally posted by SeriousSpy:

I think I know why he's wondering it...

The answer to the question that he's probably asking: Go ahead, they dev's can't earn any money off of it, and neither can Burns himself.

What question do you think he's asking?

[DocStrangelove]

Originally posted by SeriousSpy:

Squeenix don't own the license anymore, these things are timed, and 1. the game is 10 years old, 2. Richard Burns is dead.

Timed? How? I thought if a publisher acquires an IP, they hold it until it's sold? And what does it matter if it's 10 years old? I mean, id still owns and sells Wolf3D and Doom etc.

And what does it matter if Richard Burns is dead? I mean, Colin McRae Dirt 2 was released two years after his death, and just a year ago they released the latest game with McRae's name.

And I thought once a publisher has full ownership of "Richard Burns Rally" they can do pretty much what they want with it?

Also, if a legitimate store like Gamesplanet sells a game which names Eidos / Square Enix as publisher, certainly there's some ownership involved?

Not trying to argue, I'm just not that familiar with this stuff and am surprised to hear that.

[Turbo Nozomix]

Steam is filled with games older than RBR, and new games with graphics like games from 15+ years ago. That's not a problem to anyone.

The only timed part of the RBR IP could be the RBR name, and the car licenses. The IP is owned by someone, probably Square Enix, if SCI owned the IP at the time they originally published the game.

Whether the use of the RBR name and car licenses were stipulated to be determined by years, or by product release, the case might be either. I think that more modern games are more likely to be limited by years, but for an earlier game, that foresight of re-releases might not have been there.

[SeriousSpy]

Originally posted by DrStrangelove:

Originally posted by SeriousSpy:

Squeenix don't own the license anymore, these things are timed, and 1. the game is 10 years old, 2. Richard Burns is dead.

Timed? How? I thought if a publisher acquires an IP, they hold it until it's sold? And what does it matter if it's 10 years old? I mean, id still owns and sells Wolf3D and Doom etc.

And what does it matter if Richard Burns is dead? I mean, Colin McRae Dirt 2 was released two years after his death, and just a year ago they released the latest game with McRae's name.

And I thought once a publisher has full ownership of "Richard Burns Rally" they can do pretty much what they want with it?

Also, if a legitimate store like Gamesplanet sells a game which names Eidos / Square Enix as publisher, certainly there's some ownership involved?

Not trying to argue, I'm just not that familiar with this stuff and am surprised to hear that.

No, it's nothing to do with the IP.

The Richard Burns license would have been a timed one, like most licenses are, for instance, ISI could not re-release their old F1 games, because they no longer own the license.

A couple of years ago, CMR05 and Race Driver 3 were released on GOG, they were taken down later, because their licenses for the cars have run out.

Licensing a person or franchise usually works the same way as licensing a car, it'll be a timed thing.

It has nothing to do with the age of the game, but simply that their license will have run out.

[DocStrangelove]

Ah, so the licence with FIA WRC, for example? That would make sense. Or so I guess. But why does Gameplanet sell the game then?

[SeriousSpy]

I dunno... maybe they're key resellers?

Or maybe they don't even use CD-keys and just give you a DRM free version of the game.

Either way, I'm not 100% it's entirely legal.

[Simon said EAT DUST PLAYER_1 !]

Originally posted by DrStrangelove:

Ah, so the licence with FIA WRC, for example? That would make sense. Or so I guess. But why does Gameplanet sell the game then?

Either the license was not timed, then - or - there was no FIA license? But individual ones for the cars and so on?
Either way: hope that no stupid legal reason will prevent people from getting a legitimate copy of this classic should they seek one. It is a work of art. If there were no agreements made as to limit the number of copies then it should be allowed for the ip-holder to sell additional copies of an entitiy that has been completed within the licensed time-period and never been altered since. It is a work of art of 2004. The copy they sell now should thereby be looked at as a 2004 issue.
Brave new world!