Intellectural Property rights/ownership for mods

[Ryuga]

This post is the continuation of IP discussion that derived from another post. Continue here as some people demonstrated desire to continue this off-topic, but in this forum

To the best of my knowledge, posting your creation up to the internet doesn't constitute waiving your IP to what's called public domain.

Concur. No one is denying this logic.

Thus, it's a misconception to think anything that are released to the internet are in "public domain". Making your work available to the public, be it through paper, CD or internet, doesn't automatically make destroy your ownership of the IP of your creation. Rather, it serves as an evidence that you have created your work and you can use the release date as evidence of earlier creation to claim infringement of your IP when you think someone else has infringed your IP.

Instead of misconception, please re-read my earlier post. It seems there is a mis-reading. Never mentioned releasing to internet = release to public domain.

No software companies loss their IP by releasing patches through internet. And unless contrary evidence are presented, the best argument should be that the IP of derivative works are owned by the original owners and they allow other users/modders to use those works under the restriction agreements. And try to carbon copy NY Times's web page and print it out for sale, and you'll get sued immediately.

Concur.

EM has been correctly focusing on this point and stating again and again, many works in this and the previous warhammer fantasy mod are original creations of the people here.

Concur mostly. The key here is "original creation". Content that are created based on IP owned by others are derivative work.

For example, if someone took the the cannon pcx from Firafix and changed the color and modified some lines to make their own custom cannon, the cannon would not be considered original.

The work for bug-clearing, balancing stats, and choosing/begging for various art and units to be included are IP and should be considered as original creations that are owned by this fantastic team.

The work is not necessary IP as the final product is. Mod itself is based on GW IP and mechanics is based on Firafix IP.

Balancing stats is derivative of Firafix combat mechanics. Merely changing end results does not constitute IP itself as it is derivative work. Bug clearing is result of conflict of Firafix engine and additional content. Any work/blood or sweat modders put into creating derivative work, well, does not make the derivative work their original creation...

Other people may borrow the artworks and units from this forum as mtrn and EM did for the creation for this mod, but the .biq file that this team worked out and maintained are clearly hardship that deserves respect and recognition.

No one is disputing the hardship they spend on making the .biq file. Respecting the hardship is one thing. What is defined by law is another...

Thus, use this 2.5/2.51 mod under the terms set up by this team of owners.
No no for releasing derivative works of this mod.

Since it has been established in previous posts that the mod itself and some content are derivative works of GW and Firaxis IP and some content created by modders are original, the usage of the mod itself is governed by the IP set out by GW and Firaxis unless the original content by modders are included.

 

[Bill3000]

The entire concept of Copyrights suck.

 

[Masquerouge]

The entire concept of Copyrights suck.

The entire CURRENT concept of Copyrights suck.

 

[Ryuga]

The entire CURRENT concept of Copyrights suck.

Call the congressman, or run the public office. Even better, start the revolution, .

 

[Bill3000]

The entire CURRENT concept of Copyrights suck.

Well, it's your country's fault for making a copyright system in which stuff is automatically copyrighted on creation.

 

[Kozmos]

I'm a pirate so I make my way around.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I know Masquerouge is from France but I have no idea where Bill3000 is from. So I don't know exactly which copyright laws are being discussed.

Intellectual property should be protected. The problem is that they should not be protected indefinitely. And when we start getting into patent law...

 

[Ryuga]

I know Masquerouge is from France but I have no idea where Bill3000 is from. So I don't know exactly which copyright laws are being discussed.

Intellectual property should be protected. The problem is that they should not be protected indefinitely. And when we start getting into patent law...

Were discussing US laws.

 

[Masquerouge]

Well, it's your country's fault for making a copyright system in which stuff is automatically copyrighted on creation.

My country being?

Were discussing US laws.

oh oki then. I thought we were discussing the general concept of copyrights, something I agree with.
The big issues I have with US copyrights laws are:
1. It's too easy to patent an idea.
2. The interaction with the US justice system works in such a way that it's often best to settle a copyright lawsuit even if you're in your rights than go to court and win
3. Too often the copyrights laws have been modified due to intense corporate lobbying (see Disney) and as such they've been extended way beyond their initial scope.

and speaking of France (my country ) you might want to check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_copyright_law
for another perspective on copyright laws.

 

[embryodead]

Since it has been established in previous posts that the mod itself and some content are derivative works of GW and Firaxis IP and some content created by modders are original, the usage of the mod itself is governed by the IP set out by GW and Firaxis unless the original content by modders are included.

Why did you waste all my evening arguing how wrong I am, only to, in the end, repeat what I've been saying?

Additionally, the mod itself is not a derivative work of GW and Firaxis, but a derivate/collection work of IPs of: GW, Firaxis, a number of other companies (publishers of AoK, Majesty and other RTS games whose graphics were used) and a large number of individuals.

 

[Shadylookin]

The more time goes on the more I'm beginning to feel that intellectual property is a crap concept and that you should only be able to own the rights to what is tangible.

 

[Ryuga]

Why did you waste all my evening arguing how wrong I am, only to, in the end, repeat what I've been saying?

Additionally, the mod itself is not a derivative work of GW and Firaxis, but a derivate/collection work of IPs of: GW, Firaxis, a number of other companies (publishers of AoK, Majesty and other RTS games whose graphics were used) and a large number of individuals.

Yes, we were agreeing on most points and misread some. That's what happens when posting fast, .

 

[Souron]

As I see it, if you make a new skin, map, level or anything else, then those modifications would be considered your work, and therefore your IP. However, that does not make the a game that uses your mod your IP, even if the modification involved modifying the most crutial part of the game.

This is much like how every word document is not owned by Microsoft. Or how office software macros are not owned by Microsoft.

 

[Bill3000]

My country being?

WAsn't the idea that a work is automatically copyrighted upon creation part of french copyright law? It was only a recent addition to US copyright law; in 1989, IIRC. If not, my mistake.

 

[Souron]

US work is automatically copyrighted too. You just can't expect to a high return in court if you don't register it.

 

[mdwh]

Well, it's your country's fault for making a copyright system in which stuff is automatically copyrighted on creation.

The Berne Convention which this comes under started in Switzerland, and is now followed by 163 countries.

And I think this is a good thing - a registration process would just reward big companies who'd register everything, and penalise individuals / small companies who wouldn't register and then get their worked ripped off by companies (who'd then register the derivatives).

The big problem with copyright is the excessive length, and that it can be extended retroactively.

 

[JoeM]

It is my opinion that enforcing "intellectual property rights" over published material is a fundamentally flawed paradigm and inherently pointless.

If you are set on going down that road expect to retain ownership to useful level in 80% of cases.

 

[kraaa]

The entire CURRENT concept of Copyrights suck.

I won't say the concept of copyrights suck, it's a noble concept, i think. But the devil is in the details and there's still lots to improve in the laws that implement this concept.

I think the lack of 500-1000 years of refinement is a good excuse for why we have what we see today... but it won't be an excuse for not improving the law

I agree that in US, the high risk- high return style of litigation encourages settlement, such as apple's settlement with creative(?). But well, there're things money can't buy, and in US it depends on how astronomical the sum you're willing to pay.

 

[Ryuga]

My country being?



oh oki then. I thought we were discussing the general concept of copyrights, something I agree with.
The big issues I have with US copyrights laws are:
1. It's too easy to patent an idea.
2. The interaction with the US justice system works in such a way that it's often best to settle a copyright lawsuit even if you're in your rights than go to court and win
3. Too often the copyrights laws have been modified due to intense corporate lobbying (see Disney) and as such they've been extended way beyond their initial scope.

and speaking of France (my country ) you might want to check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_copyright_law
for another perspective on copyright laws.

That is an interesting perspective, especially different aspects of moral rights. I wonder if US laws have some the aspects of the French copyright moral rights such as the right to respect of the work and the right to the protection of honor and reputation.

 

[Masquerouge]

That is an interesting perspective, especially different aspects of moral rights. I wonder if US laws have some the aspects of the French copyright moral rights such as the right to respect of the work and the right to the protection of honor and reputation.

Well...

WAsn't the idea that a work is automatically copyrighted upon creation part of french copyright law? It was only a recent addition to US copyright law; in 1989, IIRC. If not, my mistake.

If Bill's right, then the US took the "worst" of the French copyright laws...