Sounds fishy to me. (Destiny)

by narcogen , Andover, Massachusetts, Saturday, February 06, 2016, 02:59 (3308 days ago) @ Cody Miller

That is absolutely false, at least according to everything I have seen and read. The entire point of Bungie going independent was to retain ownership of their own IP.

You of all people should know that the leaked contract isn't even close to the actual agreement right now.

Actually I don't know any such thing, other than the fact that anything can be changed when you can't see what is going on, and the document is old.

The document lays out specific rights and responsibilities for both parties with respect to IP ownership. It sets out what each is allowed to do, and conditions under which these rights and responsibilities change.

If, for instance, Bungie had failed to ship a single Destiny game, the rights situation would have changed. That did not occur.

Ownership of its own IP was one of the central reasons for Bungie becoming independent again, and while Destiny was apparently delayed and changed a lot, nothing, not even Marty O'Donnell's departure, would trigger anything in the contract to change the ownership status of the IP, nor do I see evidence of a change in circumstances that would give cause for Activision to attempt to change those conditions, nor for Bungie to agree to such a change.

Such conditions MAY exist and we're simply unaware of them, but that is a far cry from saying someone should back down from an apparent bogus claim that may not even be from Activision at all, and probably isn't from Bungie.

I'm guessing that, if it is legitimate, someone in Activision's legal department is being overzealous and considers this creation to come under competing with toys that Activision either does, or plans, to market. That of course would be difficult and expensive to combat, even if on the face of it, the agreement we have seen does not allow it.

In an ideal world, whomever initiated the takedown would have to produce the basis for their claim (not just a form) that they own rights that have been infringed, rather than forcing the creator of this particular work to go to court.