There are lots of excellent images I've seen around that I'd love to convert and post on CivFanatics. However, I don't know what the copyright laws are on these things. The reason I've converted SimCity 3000 graphics was because I've seen ones posted before.
The things I'd like to convert are from Ikariam (http://ikariam.org/), Rollercoaster Tycoon 2 and The Sims 2. Don't ask me what, because I can't remember all the items off the spot.

Caveat: I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY! That having been said, my understanding of the US copyright laws is that limited "excerpts" can be taken/used ONLY if not for commercial use.

For massive use (e.g., converting all of a game's unit gfx) soliciting the company in question for their permission is a good idea - Steph did this with several games.

So "utilizing" a few source gfx shouldn't be a problem - there have already been, or instance, a number of Rise Of Nations buildings "borrowed" already.

Best,

Oz

The graphics remain the property of the company who made them.

In theory, if you use them, even for a non commercial use, they could sue you. Of course, it is likely they won't do it, as the cost vs the benefits are probably not worth it.

However, if you try to use some graphics and the company find it, if they ask you to remove it, you'll have to do it.

And if you don't and they contact us, we'll have to do it for you, and you'd get infraction and/or ban...

So I think the best course of action is to contact the company, to explain what you want to do, and say you want to give them credits so it can make some free advertising for their game. Ask them if you can use the graphics for a FREE mod, ask them what credits they would like you to include.

Usually, you should get a positive answer: I got one for all the conversions I did, and you'll be happilly converting without any bad conscience.

I have tried contacting Ikariam through email twice, but they haven't replied to either, so should I just post the stuff, or wait for an answer, because I'm not sure if they will reply.

DONT!!! contact them they'll just say you cant use their graphics

just post it and if they find out about it and have a problem take it down

I have tried contacting Ikariam through email twice, but they haven't replied to either, so should I just post the stuff, or wait for an answer, because I'm not sure if they will reply.
When did you contact them? Did your wait long enough for them to reply? They may be busy?

DONT!!! contact them they'll just say you cant use their graphics
just post it and if they find out about it and have a problem take it down
If you think they would say no if you contact them, it is a good reason NOT to post the graphics.

After the first one, I gave them a week and a half before emailing again and it must have been about a week since I last emailed them.

Perhaps you could try a third email, saying that "without answer from them, you will consider it a tacit agreement?" And adding that of course, if they do not agree, you will remove the graphics.

OK, as usual, I've done some research and my original recollections of the relevant law are out of date. Here is the appropriate statute, with pertinent sections in bold and sometimes underlined:

U.S. CODE TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 106

Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

[...] the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

I'd say Steph would make a great lawyer :)

Best,

Oz

If we were all sticking to the rules as Steph and Ozymandias have put it, half of the custom content on this forum wouldn't exist, e.g. all mods/graphics that relate to Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Warhammer, FF, Fallout etc., all copy'n'paste work (= nearly all buildings and wonders, since even that grassy background from Civ3 buildings is technically copyrighted material). Also, if you look at Civ3 EULA, particularly the "EDITOR AND END-USER VARIATIONS" part, you'll see that every mod posted on this site is breaking the EULA precisely because of copyrights (well, except for the BIQ-only "mods").

If companies were to find and persecute every single unimportant use of their intellectual property on the internet, they would go bankrupt. That would be senseless waste of resources.

The use of copyrighted material on this site generally goes under fair use. That is of course up to interpretation, but use common sense and answer these questions:
- are you making profit?
- are you copying the whole work or using part of it for something else?
- are you causing any sort of damage to the copyright owner?

Basically 3 x No = fair use. Of course it's more complex than that and any lawyer would be able to win this one but obviously no one will even try. At worst they'll send a C&D to which CivFanatics would comply (I'm curious if it ever happened - I doubt it though). I really don't understand why would you even mention a ban Steph, considering the amount of third party intellectual property posted on this site... all within the same guidelines of fair use, too.

Crediting the original author/source is another thing, but that's an obvious to-do thing.

I really don't understand why would you even mention a ban Steph, considering the amount of third party intellectual property posted on this site...
I mentionned it only if
- Someone reuse graphics without authorizaiton
- The company with the copyrights realize it and ask him to remove them
- He doesn't comply
- The company contacts CFC staff and complains

As you can see that's a lot of If, and is really unlikely. Any sane modders would probably just remove the stuffs if asked.

The use of copyrighted material on this site generally goes under fair use. That is of course up to interpretation, but use common sense and answer these questions:
- are you making profit?
- are you copying the whole work or using part of it for something else?
- are you causing any sort of damage to the copyright owner?

Basically 3 x No = fair use.

That was essentially my original recollection as to the spirit and general guidelines regarding this sort of use.

IMHO, e.d. is quite right, so, Tally-ho!

Best,

Oz

The only one that cares is BLizzard and the makers of Halo I believe, when it comes to poeple reproducing any of their stuff.

They are not the only one, when I converted Legion animations we initially got an angry message from the game company, but after some emails and explanation, I got their blessing.

Moderators are not attorneys.

If we give someone permission to do something it increases the legal responsibility of the site (Thunderfall) for what is done.

If something out of line is brought to our attention that we were unaware of it is straight forward to take corrective action.

Fair use is intended to apply to quotations in such things as academic articles or critical reviews. I have worked in a publications center at a campus of the University of California, and designed and taught courses at Teachers College, Columbia University. Even in those settings it is sometimes difficult to get permissions for extended quotations. I was told at one point that the institution could be held liable anytime more than one page of a book was photocopied. Ridiculous, but there it is.

"Everybody else is doing it" is not an effective argument in kindergarten, let alone anywhere else further down the road.

Major corporations that are paranoid about their copyrights probably have some version of Echelon that they apply to forums, chat rooms, etc. But then maybe I'm paranoid as well.

Personally, I prefer discretion & maturity to "common" sense. ;)

Fair use is intended to apply to quotations in such things as academic articles or critical reviews.

Eh, nowadays fair use is used in journalism, art, music, IT e.g. search engines operate solely on the basis of fair use. This surely isn't just academic work (http://www.ccianet.org/artmanager/publish/news/First-Ever_Economic_Study_Calculates_Dollar_Value_of.sht ml).

It wasn't so much about permissions, but when someone asks about copyrights, I thought it's fair to inform him both about copyrights and fair use, that's all.

embryodead, if we're going to be picky, please notice the "such as" phrase in my quote. ;) It's a clear-cut example of the types of situation that are considered "fair use", not an exhaustive list. "Fair Use" is precisely about permissions. " Fair Use" delimits the situations where lack of prior written permission does not cause undo legal problems.

Which do you think is a better guideline to fair use for people here - a link to an economic analysis regarding intellectual property rights, or a simple "quote but don't plagiarize"?