Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gamification and Law

On the Legal Implications of Using Gamified Elements

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Gamification in Education and Business

Abstract

Games require rules, without rules there would not be any Gameplay (Kapp 2012: 29). Games are defined by the Game Design, which lays out the path: players may be able to choose a path on their own, or they may be bound to a certain route. Whether these rules (Salen & Zimmermann. Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2003: 259) describe how a game is played (“Operational Rules”), are underlying formal structures which dictate game functionality (“Constitutional Rules”) or govern the social interaction between players (“Implicit Rules”), they are mandatory to keep the game system alive. In a game, a Game Master has to ensure these rules are followed (and everyone who has ever played Scrabble knows how hard this is), while in real life this responsibility is carried out by law enforcement authorities, courts and lawyers. This chapter will describe the legal implications involved, so stakeholders can avoid common risks and are also able to communicate to legal counsels efficiently.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.gamification.co/2011/02/11/gamification-law-ftc-guidelines/

  2. 2.

    for a Translation, with Interpretive Essay see Bartlett et al. 2011.

  3. 3.

    See http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=gamification.

  4. 4.

    http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2013.pdf.

  5. 5.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/entertainment_gaming_in_the_uk/html/3.stm.

  6. 6.

    http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2013.pdf.

  7. 7.

    http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf.

  8. 8.

    http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Tax-Consequences-of-Virtual-World-Transactions.

  9. 9.

    Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., 601F.2d 516 (10th Cir. 1979).

  10. 10.

    Urt. v. 22.10.2012, Az. I-6 U 241/11 (Judgement).

  11. 11.

    http://readwrite.com/2012/12/11/augmented-reality-game-gets-player-arrested-the-first-of-many#awesm=~ogDVhQMCyxL1cI.

  12. 12.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_v._Linden_Lab.

  13. 13.

    Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., 487 F.Supp.2d 593 (E.D. Pa. 2007).

  14. 14.

    e.g. § 305 German BGB (Civil Law Code), § 6 Austrian KSchG (Consumer Protection Law),

  15. 15.

    LG Bielefeld (Regional Court), 30.10.1991 - 1S 174/90.

  16. 16.

    http://tosdr.org.

  17. 17.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/05/06/itunes.terms/ .

  18. 18.

    http://fold.it/portal/communityrules .

  19. 19.

    http://fold.it/portal/legal.

  20. 20.

    for more details see “Copyright”.

  21. 21.

    https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome .

  22. 22.

    https://www.mturk.com/mturk/conditionsofuse.

  23. 23.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/15/business/technology-a-real-life-debate-on-free-expression-in-a-cyberspace-city.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm.

  24. 24.

    Electronic Arts shut down service of “The Sims Online” in August 1, 2008 (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9931757-1.html).

  25. 25.

    http://alphavilleherald.com/.

  26. 26.

    Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879).

  27. 27.

    see also Harris, The Legal Protection of Ideas, http://www.copyrightlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Protecting-Ideas1.pdf.

  28. 28.

    PUBLIC LAW 105–304—OCT. 28, 1998 (retrievable under: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ304/pdf/PLAW-105publ304.pdf).

  29. 29.

    ABl. EG Nr. L 167/10,22.06.2001.

  30. 30.

    see https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca or http://eucd.info/index16ea.html?English-readers.

  31. 31.

    17 U.S.C. § 107.

  32. 32.

    Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).

  33. 33.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3753001.stm or see what happened with the game “Uru” in Pearce, Communities of Play 174.

  34. 34.

    Wu, Virtual Goods: the next big business model, http://techcrunch.com/2007/06/20/virtual-goods-thenext-big-business-model.

  35. 35.

    http://virtual-economy.org/blog/blacksnow_interactive_the_docu.

  36. 36.

    Gatto/Leavitt/Duranske, Copyright Registration for Virtual Goods: The Benefits of Timely Filing (http://www.pillsburylaw.com/siteFiles/Publications/29FA2776F2E9C643EC6CDCF8462D7FD4.pdf).

  37. 37.

    Lex Julia de Annona.

  38. 38.

    OLG Frankfurt GRUR 1983, 757 “Donkey Kong Junior I”; OLG Frankfurt WRP 1984, 79 “Donkey Kong Junior.

  39. 39.

    OLG Frankfurt GRUR 1983, 758.

  40. 40.

    http://picknplay.se/

  41. 41.

    (German) BGH, 17.7.2013 – I ZR 34/12.

  42. 42.

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52013PC0813:DE:NOT.

  43. 43.

    http://www.kutv.com/news/features/gephardt/stories/vid_474.shtml.

References

  • Bartlett, R. C., & Collins, S. D. (2011). Nicomachean ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belkin, J., & Noveck, B. (2006). The state of play: Law, games, and virtual worlds. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castranova, E. (2001). Virtual worlds: A first-hand account of market and society on the Cyberian Frontier. CESIfo Working paper, 618, 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castranova, E. (2006). The right to play. In J. Belkin & B. Noveck (Eds.), The state of play: Law, games, and virtual worlds. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Management Review, 70(11), 35–36 (AMA FORUM).

    Google Scholar 

  • Erenli, K. (2009). Virtual persons + virtual goods = real problems in Daras. Petros; Mayora, Oscar UCMedia, 2009, 265–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairfield, J. (2005). Virtual property. Boston University Law Review, 85, 1047; Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huizinga, J. (1971). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapp, K., (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education

    Google Scholar 

  • Klickermann, P. H. (2007). Virtuelle Welten ohne Rechtsansprüche? MMR, 766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, P., (2006). Die rechtliche Bewertung virtueller Gegenstände auf Online-Plattformen, JurPC Webdok 57/2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lastowka, G. F., Hunter, D. (2003). The laws of the virtual worlds, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series 03-10 (2003) p. 57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lastowka, G. F., & Hunter, D. (2006). Virtual crime. In J. Belkin & B. Noveck (Eds.), The state of play: Law, games, and virtual worlds. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lober, A., & Weber, O. (2005). Money for nothing, Der Handel mit virtuellen Gegenständen und Charakteren. MMR, 653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, T. (1998). Property and the right to exclude. Nebraska Law Review, 1998, 730–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, C. (2011). Communities of play: Emergent cultures in multiplayer games and virtual worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salen, K., & Zimmermann, E. (2003). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. (2009). International competition law: A new dimension for the WTO? New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trzaskowski, J. (2011). User-generated marketing: Legal implications when word-of-mouth goes viral. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 20, 1–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/ear012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zichermann, G., & Linder, J. (2013). The gamification revolution. Berkeley, CA: Mcgraw-Hill Professional.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fachhochschule des bfi Wien Ges. m.b.H., Maria Jacobi Gasse 1/3.4/Media Quarter Marx, Vienna, 1030, Austria

    Kai Erenli

Authors
  1. Kai Erenli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Erenli .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Systems, Curtin University, Bentley, West Australia, Australia

    Torsten Reiners

  2. Dept. of Business Information Systems, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

    Lincoln C. Wood

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Erenli, K. (2015). Gamification and Law. In: Reiners, T., Wood, L. (eds) Gamification in Education and Business. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_27

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation