Posted Apr 23, 2006 20:00 UTC (Sun) by pm101
Parent article: Rockbox's jewels
It does feel like it might be plagarism to me. The graphics were
a) Clearly redrawn from scratch
b) Clearly redrawn to resemble the originals, down to (as dvdeug pointed out) the same shape-color mapping
(a) shouldn't prevent this from being a copyright violation, at least in some jurisdictions. If you take a book, rewrite each sentence (say, switching passive and active town), change character names, etc., it remains a copyright violation.
What's interesting about (b) is that, as some people have pointed out, xjewel used mostly (but not entirely) the same shape-color mappings as bejeweled. While not a direct copy, the Bejeweled images are based on xjewel (or some intermediary) images, to a similar (slightly lesser -- a couple of the gems were redrawn) extent as Roxbox are based on Bejeweled. If Roxbox is a copyright infringement of Bejeweled, then Bejeweled (barring any licensing we do not know about) is mostly likely a copyright infringement of xjewel. By winning a lawsuit against Roxbox, Popcap would be setting up precedent for a lawsuit against itself by the authors of xjewel (or whoever originally created the graphics).
Popcap was founded in 2000. xjewel is from 1990/1992.
to post comments)