SneaksieDave on 23/3/2005 at 20:07
I didn't get specific on the subject matter in the post description, in hopes that it won't inadvertently attract the would-be evil-doers just such a post might attract. I even put an intentional typo in the description in case said evil doers run a simple Search for such a topic (hey look, to be fair, 'Paranoid' was taken as a 'nick when I registered).
That said, on to it: am I missing it, or does the editor not have an End User License Agreement? If it's there, please point it out. Now sure, one might say "Yippee! That means I can sell my level!" but that also means someone ELSE can sell your level, and we won't have EIDOS' legal backing. Don't say it can't/won't happen - FMs have already been put up for sale on ebay in the past. The legal constraints are the only thing keeping it from happening like crazy.
I'm thinking we should contact EIDOS directly about this, for the sake of everyone's copyrights protection. Thoughts, concerns?
Gingerbread Man on 23/3/2005 at 20:27
I contacted people a while back about the lack of EULA shipped with the editor. They are going to get back to me, apparently.
I would assume that the game's EULA already covers shipped resources like matlibs and models and sounds etc.
Quote:
This End-User Licence Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you and Eidos Interactive Limited ("Eidos" or "we") for the computer game software stated above, which includes computer software and associated media, materials and other documentation together with any updates to the original game software which is provided to you ("Software Product").
To what degree that applies to FMs / custom content, I'm not sure. In all likelihood, it can be argued that without the software covered by the existing EULA no other content creation (FMs etc) is possible, so it's kinda grandfathered.
OrbWeaver on 23/3/2005 at 20:44
The lack of an EULA is not an issue. The issue would be whether it is legal to redistribute Fan Missions which contain textures, scripts, meshes and other level resources that are the copyright of Eidos.
Presumably, the release of an editor implies the sanction of Eidos to redistribute missions created with it, but I am not a lawyer so it may well be wise to seek clarification from them.
SneaksieDave on 23/3/2005 at 21:23
I'm not worried about free distribution - as EIDOS allowed us to have the editor, the permission is certainly implied. My concern is someone trying to sell the stuff, and if we'd have EIDOS legal backing us up, should some scumbag attempt to do just that.
OrbWeaver on 23/3/2005 at 21:24
Quote Posted by SneaksieDave
I'm not worried about free distribution - as EIDOS allowed us to have the editor, the permission is certainly implied. My concern is someone trying to sell the stuff, and if we'd have EIDOS legal backing us up, should some scumbag attempt to do just that.
Then they are violating Eidos' copyright.
The licence to redistribute may be implied by the editor release, but the license to sell derivative works using Eidos' assets is certainly not.
demagogue on 23/3/2005 at 22:21
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
Then they are violating Eidos' copyright.
The licence to redistribute may be implied by the editor release, but the license to sell derivative works using Eidos' assets is certainly not.
This is right ... but just to push the idea (this is the lawyer coming out of me :cheeky: ), it might be important what counts as a *derivative work*, e.g., how much an FM duplicates the *look and feel* of Eidos's Intellectual Property in the Thief franchise. An FM which is distinct-looking enough might pass through (not to give anyone ideas).
I have no idea what standard they'd use for "look and feel", except that it's "thick" protection. Probably might require a lot of very unthief-looking custom textures, objects, AI. As for gameplay, that's a big ?? (By the way, the Darkmod would have to answer these same questions if they were really worried about it).
I'm not sure what using Eidos' editor means...
If it were thought of as an application more like Photoshop in the same situation, then it's harder to claim that there's an implied license to redistribute but not sell, since the work is by-design always going to be "original", and the application won't much influence the character of the work.
But for a game-editor custom designed to make Thief levels (i.e., reproduce Eidos's IP "by design"), there will be a huge influence on the work, and it's much easier to claim there could be an implied license to redistribute but not sell. But what about FM makers that aren't using the editor as it was "intended"? Another big ?? (Think about Contest Missions, which are always a bit "out there")
There's grey area here in the (at least US) law because there hasn't been much caselaw on video-game modding and nothing I know on the public release of game-editors.
Now I really hope I haven't given anybody ideas... But if we want to protect ourselves, it's always good to know where the law is clear and where it's less so.
OrbWeaver on 24/3/2005 at 12:34
Quote Posted by demagogue
I have no idea what standard they'd use for "look and feel", except that it's "thick" protection. Probably might require a lot of very unthief-looking custom textures, objects, AI. As for gameplay, that's a big ?? (By the way, the Darkmod would have to answer these same questions if they were really worried about it).
The Darkmod is fine. Ideas cannot be copyrighted, only the expression of those ideas as text, graphics, sounds, program code or whatever. As long as the Darkmod is not using any materials from Eidos (which it almost certainly isn't) it has nothing to fear in legal terms.
The Darkmod could even use Garrett, the Hammers etc. as long as the names are not trademarked, as this form of protection is the only one that can be applied to single words or short phrases.
Gameplay could not be copyrighted, but it could possibly be patented. It would seem very unlikely that Eidos would have done this, however.
demagogue on 24/3/2005 at 17:37
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
The Darkmod is fine. Ideas cannot be copyrighted, only the expression of those ideas as text, graphics, sounds, program code or whatever. As long as the Darkmod is not using any materials from Eidos
I'm not really worried about the Darkmod because I can't see Eidos stooping that low to worry about thieflike mods on another engine (as long as they aren't being sold; it's in the same vein as most fanwork on the web) -- esp if they've already given us T3Ed and are going to have such mods floating around anyway. And anyway, now we have Bono on our side!
Just on your last point though (though I've a feeling we're going to loose the whole non-lawyer crowd in this discussion :p ) ...
Of course this is right. But at least US law gives very "thick" protection to for artistic works, using a "look and feel" standard for when a derivate work is copying the original work's expression, not just its ideas ... so not using Eidos material by itself isn't a guarantee, if the material they do use starts to track too closely the material Eidos used.
The leading cases I was thinking about are things like someone copying a greeting card which didn't copy a single identifiable element, but had the same 'look and feel' and the original (same aesthetic, same basic forms in very similar patterns: flowers and vines in a wavy pattern, etc...), or a copy of a Spiegelman poster which very obviously had the same 'look and feel' but didn't also copy a single identifiable element. Both were still violations.
My feeling is the Darkmod isn't *this* close -- particularly since much of the impetus behind using the Doom3 engine is that it's dark-gritty aesthetic is (ironically) more thief-like than T3's (copyrighted?) bluish-anasceptic aesthetic. But my point was, just not using Eidos textures, etc., isn't a guranteed safe harbor.
As for using Hammerites & Keepers, etc., this reminds me of some of the cases of people using characters from copyrighted works to use in their own novels (e.g., some random novelist cashing-in with a book about Chewbacca, a violation), writing works with similar plotlines, and cases on derivative works (e.g., movies about books).
I think the gist is, you can copy a character if the character is not the *core* expression of the original work (which isn't the case here), or if the character isn't very highly defined by the original work. That is, I think if they use Hammerites in general, but not *specific* Hammerite personalities from the original work they'll be ok.
Plot isn't really an issue here, I don't think, not in the traditional sense. I thought an argument might be made that gameplay could get protection in the same way plot does, if the gameplay elements were *very* similar (not just thieving, but the same use of lightmeter, loot-jingle, waterarrows, etc...), it starts to look like the novel-copying cases, where you can copy the basic outlines of a plot, but not the fine details of its narrative-thread. I don't have an opinion on it yet, really; I can see arguments both ways, though my sympathy is, of course, that it would be okay... But there's no precedent so far as I know, so it's still an open question.
Well, the point is, we both don't think the Darkmod has anything to worry about. But I don't think it's to be taken for granted. For example, I don't think Eidos would be so complacent if Darkmod FMs started being sold for profit, and if they wanted, they could really try to push some of these doctrines -- and I can't say that with some good lawyering they couldn't find a good argument for a violation. As long as they aren't being sold, though, I don't think it will be a problem.
NB, to stick to the topic of this thread, all of these points have implications for T3 FMs. They are even *more* likely to be viewed as egregious violations of Eidos's copyright if sold (sans a license) for these same reasons, which makes a strong case that such a license is *not* implied by the Editor's release (although free distribution is implied).
nobody on 24/3/2005 at 21:08
a lot of people seem to be of the opinion that simply not selling something makes it ok. from what I understand of USA legalese, that's not enough. violations occur when the legitimate owner feels a loss in sales or potential sales. I am a fan of Japanese Anime and this question comes up a lot amongst hard core fans because some of us hard core folk like to get copies of shows that haven't been liscensed here in America but shown in Japan then do our own translations, and subtitling followed by a free or at-cost, no proffit release. some of the fan subbers out there do pretty high volume work. this can be a violation of copyright even when it was done BEFORE a company becomes the legal holder of the copyright because it can be construed as depriving them of potential sales (because if you own a fansub copy why do need to buy an official release?). fortunately there have been few to no actual cases of companies sueing for this but, as I understand it, they COULD. personally I think that the DarkMod is safe enough they don't need to worry as would the NB people at blackcat. I also think that we have very little to worry about on the point of people selling FMs on ebay and the like. yes it happens, and with fansub anime too, heck I've heard of a guy who opened up an auction on Ebay for nothing. that's right, he listed his product as nothing. the sad part is people actually bid on the nothing, or so I'm told.
the point is while people will sell anything on ebay or eslewhere the legality of it won't stop them and if you think a EULA is going to either scare them off or require Eidos (or any other big comapny) to protect your (or anyone else's) fan missions from such stuff, then I think you're fooling yourself. especially on the issue of fan missions as they still require the person running them to have purchased the game unless they get a bootleg copy of the game at the same time, but that's an entirely different story. the last thing to consider is that anyone who wants a fanmission enough to buy one is probably smart enough to know where to get it for free (Komag, etc.) and thus won't buy it. and if the guy selling it is the original author of the FM (I deem this unlikely) then what difference will one FM less in the vast jungle of FM's make to the community? my answer: negligable. so I'm not worried about this whole EULA thing, the only reason we will see it is if EIDOS decides it is need for the legal protection of the company, not us.
:bored: :bored:
[\rant] sorry for being so longwinded :o
Forje on 24/3/2005 at 23:02
Quote Posted by nobody
violations occur when the legitimate owner feels a loss in sales or potential sales
In the case of fan missions though, it seems to potentially benefit the company, at worst there is no change, seeing that in order to even play the fan missions you must first purchase a copy of the licensed software... unless you get a pirated version, which is obviously a violation, and is already covered by the retail EULA, so your other point is valid.
There's no way to prevent people from breaking laws. We've seen FM sales occur on ebay for Thief 1 and 2 missions (not to mention other titles, or even other pirated products altogether). I'm sure it'll happen again at some point. Has there ever been any intervention from Eidos (or other game companies)? This is only half-rhetorical; I don't personally remember hearing of any, but perhaps there was. In my experience, it's been the community that have been the watchdogs in these instances. Messages go up at this site and elsewhere and the people selling these things get overloaded with angry emails from fan mission authors and players alike. They stop. It's up to us to keep our eyes and ears open.
In regards to just the act of making FMs with the new editor... what GBM said.
