[britknight]

IANAL, but my understanding is that the fact that the clone was written from scratch doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it infringes on copyright. The clone uses the name "Agar.io Clone" and copies the look and mechanics of the original game, thus making it substantially similar in appearance and use to the copyrighted work. Unless they have found some way to invoke fair use (educational purposes, etc.), the clone you mention is also infringing.

An analogy: if someone were to write a book called "Harry Potter - Clone" in their own words about the adventures of young wizard, you could expect them to receive a notice of infringement pretty darn fast, regardless of the fact that they didn't copy the original word-for-word.

[dsp1234]

IAANAL, but I do deal with these topics from a technical point of view.

"look and feel" are generally a part of Trademark law, not Copyright law. More specifically, Trademark law deals with concept of "customer confusion".

Copyright deals generally with "expression", and generally does not cover what something looks like. So for example, it's possible to copyright the textual rules of a game, but it's not possible to copyright a particular style of game. Which is why it's generally legal to clone something.

It would not legal to do what the person has been been accused of here, which was to substantially copy the original code.

The reason why Trademark/Copyright generally get mixed up with regards to clones is because:

1.) It's actual copy of the original source code, and thus is a copyright violation

2.) It's a "from scratch" clone of the game elements, but mentions the original work in a way that doesn't make it clear to the consumer that it's not actually the original, which is a Trademark violation

3.) It's a "from scratch" clone of the game elements, and mentions specifically that it takes inspiration from the original, but makes it clear that it's not the original. But the original creator doesn't like it, and they are really mad that "anyone can steal my work", and the original creator bills it as a Copyright/Trademark infringement when it's really not.

Assuming the complaint is correct, this is obviously a case of #1. It's been ruled that a literal translation from one language to another is a "mechanical translation", and is not deserving of it's own copyright.

Obviously this is a very coarse overview of a very complicated framework, but should hopefully provide a little more insight in to what the actual law is.

[x0054]

In the above mentioned link to Agar.io clone the copyright infringing part is the "agar.io," not the actual reproduction of the game. The game play it self can not be copyrighted, and it can not be patented because there have been several prior art games with exact same gameplay (or very similar). There is a very similar planet like game for the iOS that I used to play back in 2010, and that's just off the top of my head.

In the main link Agar.io has a very fair DMCA claim if their JS has been literally copied, even if it has than been subsequently altered. However, if one was to make a game like "Bob's Better Floating Balls that Eat Each Other" from scratch, I don't think Agar.io would have a fair claim. I am guessing that they also have a trademark out on Agar.io.

[plonh]

"Agar.io" is not copyrighted. It is trademarked if anything.

[x0054]

You are right, Trademarked, you can't copyright names. It would be an easy trademark case to make though.

[smoyer]

No exactly, they'd receive a notice of Trademark infringement. You could however write a parody about a wizard named Parry Hotter that would be okay under "Fair Use".