Copyright and Intellectual Property.

Interesting read. I hadn't really thought of it, but that Master Chief model I'm using in CS is probably not allowed.
 
Wow I read the hole thing, I think thats the first time I understood it in an easy to understand kinda way.
 
Be origional, be creative, and don't rip-off other people's ideas. Don't complain, because you would bitch if people were ripping off your levels and characters.
 
Interesting read, though not particular strong arguments. Using QIII Vs. Duke Nukem 3D (released almost five years apart) isn't as valid as say some current modding attempts.
Nowadays, it's modding for movies (XXX, LotR) and other games (WarcraftIII, Starcraft) just to name a few. But I guess the article in itself was old too.
 
I seem to remember the article as being more informative in nature than persuasive in nature. Of course I dead this after reading through nearly the entire US Copyright law pdf document.
 
Of course its OK to make a mod from a book or event that's in the Public Domain
 
Javert said:
Interesting read, though not particular strong arguments. Using QIII Vs. Duke Nukem 3D (released almost five years apart) isn't as valid as say some current modding attempts.
Nowadays, it's modding for movies (XXX, LotR) and other games (WarcraftIII, Starcraft) just to name a few. But I guess the article in itself was old too.
Click to expand...
The argument is strong, if you don't own the copyright to something then your breaking the law using it in a way not laid out by the creator/copyright owner.

-

Rincewind, yes, but only if its for free and you make it clear who's it actually is.
 
What's the stance on using music? Do you have to get permission from the song writer/composer, or the performing artist or both?
 
babywax said:
What's the stance on using music? Do you have to get permission from the song writer/composer, or the performing artist or both?
Click to expand...
i think you can use a few seconds of some music without paying for it, past that you need permission and to pay the artist for it. Or something like that.

but like with everything, its always better to ask first, atleast there's a 50/50 chance of them saying its ok, there's a 100% chance of them saying no if you don't ask.
 
hmm, i might be talking out of my ass here, but i'm pretty sure there's a life+99 copyright for copyrighted stuff.... ie, you can't use it w/o permission for 99 after the person dies.
 
quote: , you can't use it w/o permission for 99 after the person dies.

this has been updated several times by some major companies, mainly Disney to keep people from using theor precious Mickey Mouse character.. if i remember it's 75 years now.. they push the years back further if it gets too close to being outdated. I hate it, cuz after i'm dead they can use my work for anything as long as i'm truly dead.
 
john121 said:
quote: , you can't use it w/o permission for 99 after the person dies.

this has been updated several times by some major companies, mainly Disney to keep people from using theor precious Mickey Mouse character.. if i remember it's 75 years now.. they push the years back further if it gets too close to being outdated. I hate it, cuz after i'm dead they can use my work for anything as long as i'm truly dead.
Click to expand...
not if you give all rights to your work to a company and ensure some legal entity continues to keep that company going in some form. The copyright should remain safe then.. or setup an estate, same sort of thing basically, legally speaking the point of it is anyway.
 
I'm off to slap a few of my modding friends around the head with this link. At which they will say "Aww I can't be arsed to read all of that" Thus I will shoot them.
 
phantomdesign said:
Be origional, be creative, and don't rip-off other people's ideas. Don't complain, because you would bitch if people were ripping off your levels and characters.
Click to expand...

The wonderful bunch of jackasses down at Games-Fusion have been releasing Fusion Packs for a long time and HARDLY EVER/NEVER Give credit to the makers of the models and they don't do a damn thing, they could learn alot from this article.
 
Dalamari said:
The wonderful bunch of jackasses down at Games-Fusion have been releasing Fusion Packs for a long time and HARDLY EVER/NEVER Give credit to the makers of the models and they don't do a damn thing, they could learn alot from this article.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've only used a Fusion Pack once and then I learned that they did not give out much credit, so I don't download + visit their site anymore..
 
Andy you bitch when did you raise your head up?

The article was useful but frankly the original mods are the best so you don't need to steal to make a good mod!
 
PiMuRho said:
http://www.3dactionplanet.com/features/q3dmhellchick/iplaw/

Read.

Learn.

Understand.

(FYI - Caryn "Hellchick" Law is now a community manager at Acitivision - she knows her stuff)
Click to expand...
Just a small but rather obvious note on this subject. Just because it's illegal doesn't make something necessaring wrong from an ethical standpoint. I know this has no real relevancy to the point you were making, most likely explaining why you'll remove anyone making a mod that violates copyright from this site, but I felt it needed to be said anyway.

Oh yes, and the article contains one glaring flaw. Copyright does not require the owner to defend it. It's only trademarks that must be defended to be kept, not copyrights.
 
Ethics have no bearing on this at all.

Ethically, you shouldn't be using someone else's intellectual property anyway.
 
Pi Mu Rho said:
Ethics have no bearing on this at all.

Ethically, you shouldn't be using someone else's intellectual property anyway.
Click to expand...
Well, ethics don't have anything to do with administrative decisions, of course not. When it comes down to it you have to keep it legal to keep the site out of trouble first and formost before anything else.

I was merely feeling the need to make a statement after deciding to read the heavily biased and slanted pro-copyright-cartel article posted. As for ethics, it seems like you're equating intillectual property to physical property. Which it obviously is not.

I can share with you an idea, and we both can enjoy it in full without either being deprived of anything. If I tell you my trick to remove headaches, that's not taking anything away from me. I can still use it, so can you, and then you can tell more people and it takes nothing away from me.

That's not like sharing a snack, or letting you borrow a TV. An idea can be copied infinitely without taking away anything from anyone.

The "loss" talked about as far as IP violation. This is based off of the assumption that every time someone copies that idea, it equates to a lost sale, which is laughable. As it's impossible to prove and definitely not true 100% of the time, as those who pirate something may often go buy it later.
 
This article wasn't posted in order to keep certain mods off our site. It was a heads-up to the hordes of potential mod makers that think they can just go ahead and create a mod that uses someone else's IP.

They can't. It's really very simple. If it's not yours, you can't use it.

Analogies about headache cures are irrelevant. As has been seen on many occasions, using someone else's IP without permission will usually lead to a mod being shut down. It doesn't matter how much you argue.
 
Pi Mu Rho said:
This article wasn't posted in order to keep certain mods off our site. It was a heads-up to the hordes of potential mod makers that think they can just go ahead and create a mod that uses someone else's IP.

They can't. It's really very simple. If it's not yours, you can't use it.

Analogies about headache cures are irrelevant. As has been seen on many occasions, using someone else's IP without permission will usually lead to a mod being shut down. It doesn't matter how much you argue.
Click to expand...
I was never arguing the legality and even said my statement had nothing to do with the intended point you were trying to make; I even pointed it out several times. I just felt the need to say something about some of what almost seems like propoghanda in the article.
 
Propaganda? An article that points out that you can't use someone else's IP without permission is propaganda?

Right....
 
I just had to link somebody to this article - they wanted to do a Duke Nukem: Source mod. Considering DN Forever is 'actively' under development (apparently) I had to tell them it was a definite no-no.
 
Pi Mu Rho said:
Propaganda? An article that points out that you can't use someone else's IP without permission is propaganda?

Right....
Click to expand...

It was using misleading and incorrect (in the case of the part that said a company must defend the copyright or lose it) language to try and justify it ethically. It didn't just reflect on the law but rather tried to make people feel like what they're doing is okay from an ethical standpoint, which I disagree with.
 
You disagreeing with it doesn't make it propaganda.
 
In your opinion.

The gist of the article is unarguably correct - you do not have an automatic right to use someone else's IP without permission. Your nitpicking does not change that, nor your bizarre statements about ethics.

If it's not yours, you can't use it.

Nice, simple rule.
 
Pi Mu Rho said:
In your opinion.

The gist of the article is unarguably correct - you do not have an automatic right to use someone else's IP without permission. Your nitpicking does not change that, nor your bizarre statements about ethics.

If it's not yours, you can't use it.

Nice, simple rule.
Click to expand...
legally, no you don't. And I repeat for the umpteenth time, I never argued the legality. Why do you keep bringing this up over and over again?
 
I'm waiting for your actual point.
 
Pi Mu Rho said:
I'm waiting for your actual point.
Click to expand...
That's just it, there was none. I felt like I needed to make a response to an article I felt portrayed information in a deceptive light. It had zero relevance to any legal matters or your intended point of posting the article.
 
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Pi Mu Rho is right. It's illegal, wrong, inethical, and just plain bad. And I should know - look at my username.

Although I have to say that 'If it's not yours, you can't use it.' should be changed to 'If it's not yours, you can't use it without their permission.'

-Angry Lawyer
 
Angry Lawyer said:
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Pi Mu Rho is right. It's illegal, wrong, inethical, and just plain bad. And I should know - look at my username.

Although I have to say that 'If it's not yours, you can't use it.' should be changed to 'If it's not yours, you can't use it without their permission.'

-Angry Lawyer
Click to expand...

Inethical? Sounds like you didn't spend enough time in law school. :p

And if you're going to take a position on the issue; Please, by all means tell me why is it unethical, in your opinion?
 
It's spelt 'inethical' because of the budweisers that preceeded my post. Spelling is the first thing to go, followe by grammatical consistency :)

Consider it this way - IP laws protect everyone. From your lowly shmuck, to your high-end business man. You write a novel, the ideas are your own, you own the IP. That way, nobody can go taking your ideas, writing their own novel based on them, and making money out of it. But, being a law that applies to all, software companies get protection too. If the ideas man of a company invents a storyline, creates some characters - they're legally his. That way, other companies can't go building games based on it, and profiting from it. In the same way, the little people can't touch the IP, whether they're planning on profiting or not. But in the same way, a company can't touch a little person's IP.
With IP, there'd be no point in having IP licensing - EA wouldn't be too pleased if anyone could make a LOTR game after they spent so much aquiring rights. It'd make the rights worthless.

Of course, you can use IP if you have permission. And IP violations are un/in/an/on/en/something/ethical from the standpoint that if a normal person is let off for doing it to a company, what stops the reverse happening?

-Angry Lawyer
 
It's unethical because you can either take credit so to say from someone elses work(ie get really popular on someone elses work), or you can give them and their IP a bad name(by making a sucky game, or something that badmouths the IP/company/author).

Ask for permission before you do anything that might violate IP, if you don't, there's a VERY good chance you're project will be axed, and if you have EXTREAMLY bad luck, court timeth.
 
Angry Lawyer said:
It's spelt 'inethical' because of the budweisers that preceeded my post. Spelling is the first thing to go, followe by grammatical consistency :)

Consider it this way - IP laws protect everyone. From your lowly shmuck, to your high-end business man. You write a novel, the ideas are your own, you own the IP. That way, nobody can go taking your ideas, writing their own novel based on them, and making money out of it. But, being a law that applies to all, software companies get protection too. If the ideas man of a company invents a storyline, creates some characters - they're legally his. That way, other companies can't go building games based on it, and profiting from it. In the same way, the little people can't touch the IP, whether they're planning on profiting or not. But in the same way, a company can't touch a little person's IP.
With IP, there'd be no point in having IP licensing - EA wouldn't be too pleased if anyone could make a LOTR game after they spent so much aquiring rights. It'd make the rights worthless.

Of course, you can use IP if you have permission. And IP violations are un/in/an/on/en/something/ethical from the standpoint that if a normal person is let off for doing it to a company, what stops the reverse happening?

-Angry Lawyer
Click to expand...

And I agree with what you're saying, to an extent. For-profit protections are part of IP law I do agree with. However I do not agree with the idea of using it against not-for-profit fan games or mods.

I don't believe ethically you have the right to make money off of another man's ideas, but I don't see what's so wrong with a little personal tinkering for fun. As you're not depriving the IP owner of any income (since you are not asking for any money) I don't see why this should present a problem.

The only concievable circumstance I can see would be if company X made game Y then mod team A was making a mod that was basically the equivilent of game Y only freely available. That's the only circumstance where I can see having any rational logic in stamping out a fangame. Yet, we have corporations like square, who've publicly stated there will be no more chrono trigger games, stomping out a CT fangame, and for what?

It strikes me as unethical because it feels like the company is being miserly with their control of an idea, which I might add, is waaaay more powerful then was originally intended (copyright was originally 14 years with the option to extend to 28.) and being used to bully others, much like (badly issued) software patents are often used to bully open source developers.

Why is it so wrong from a purely ethical standpoint, for a fan who enjoys a franchise, to make his or her own little tribute to it through a fan creation? If it's not going to be some elaborately made fan-project competing directly with the IP owner's commercial works, why is it wrong then?

It takes no money away, it doesn't even have an assumed loss in most cases.
 
Fallout2man said:
And I agree with what you're saying, to an extent. For-profit protections are part of IP law I do agree with. However I do not agree with the idea of using it against not-for-profit fan games or mods.

I don't believe ethically you have the right to make money off of another man's ideas, but I don't see what's so wrong with a little personal tinkering for fun. As you're not depriving the IP owner of any income (since you are not asking for any money) I don't see why this should present a problem.

The only concievable circumstance I can see would be if company X made game Y then mod team A was making a mod that was basically the equivilent of game Y only freely available. That's the only circumstance where I can see having any rational logic in stamping out a fangame. Yet, we have corporations like square, who've publicly stated there will be no more chrono trigger games, stomping out a CT fangame, and for what?

It strikes me as unethical because it feels like the company is being miserly with their control of an idea, which I might add, is waaaay more powerful then was originally intended (copyright was originally 14 years with the option to extend to 28.) and being used to bully others, much like (badly issued) software patents are often used to bully open source developers.

Why is it so wrong from a purely ethical standpoint, for a fan who enjoys a franchise, to make his or her own little tribute to it through a fan creation? If it's not going to be some elaborately made fan-project competing directly with the IP owner's commercial works, why is it wrong then?

It takes no money away, it doesn't even have an assumed loss in most cases.
Click to expand...

Didn't alot of open-source developers in Europe have problems with this issue (Knoppix Linux) in the last few years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Community Interviews: Tony Newton, co-creator of Redemption
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
SpotEnemyBoats
EA: "Steam sales cheapen intellectual property."
Replies
37
Views
3K
ríomhaire
ríomhaire
-smash-
Valve and The Road to GDC 2015
Replies
10
Views
44K
Engineer123
E
Krynn72
Six year old handcuffed at school and taken to the police station
Replies
39
Views
3K
Tyguy
Tyguy
Back
Top