Art, Derivation, Legal Mumbling

[Pxtl]

Well, the concept of a biotech army isn't very unique, and it's hard to say any specific units of the Zerg and the Tyranids that look like clones of each other. I mean, the Hormigaunt looks more like a ripoff of a Giger alien than it looks like a Zergling, once you get past the big arm-claws, and the resemblance is even less for the other units.

Likewise the Eldar/Protoss. I mean, you want to have a race that is obviously "superior", you create a race of space-telepaths with star-trek technology while humans are primitive. Then there's some similar styling - baroque architecture, crystals, and gold... but still, individually it's hard to point at any Protoss unit and say "it looks just like a farking Eldar unit".

The point is that _all_ of the art styles you see in the Blizzard and Games Workshop are old hat. You'll see those concepts incestuously reflected in comic books, old sci-fi work, fantasy artists, etc. going back several decades.

It's very hard to look at anything specific and say X is ripped off from Y. Of course the overall concepts have massive similarities, but it's hard to look at any specific artistic details and say "see, this is directly lifted from that".

[KingRaptor]

Don't really care about this, but ARGH-TYPE POSTS DETECTED

Funny how many E-Lawyers this forum has though.

thus spoke the pot to the kettle

Cavedog / successors didnt own a patent, copyright, trademark on any of the tank designs.

Under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, an artistic work is copyrighted upon creation, registered or not. Please show where Berne does not apply to TA models, or Cavedog explicitly waived that copyright.

differentiate between just a model and a mod directly based on copyrighted material.

CA wriggles off the hook (as far as Mr. D models are concerned at least) here if such a distinction is made, where doe that leave *A mods which are specifically set in the TA universe (i.e. the ones using these models to begin with)?



Regardless, as PL said, yes; Mr. D, don't fret about the legal complications. The Spring Engine itself is separate from the content people run on it, and any copyright issues are for the mod/game developers to worry about. We'll be the ones to take the fall for anything that happens.

[Gertkane]

Don't really care about this...

Seems like you do lol.

Under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, an artistic work is copyrighted upon creation, registered or not. Please show where Berne does not apply to TA models, or Cavedog explicitly waived that copyright.

Somebody has been surfing wikipedia thanks to troll itch and yet still couldn't come up with a relevant post.

Ill spell it out for you in simpler terms - You make a model, you own the copyright to the model, but not the design.

[KingRaptor]

Somebody has been surfing wikipedia thanks to troll itch and yet still couldn't come up with a relevant post.

Ill spell it out for you in simpler terms - You make a model, you own the copyright to the model, but not the design.

nice ad hominem

So by that logic, all I would need to do to avoid copyright infringement on the OTA models would be to make from scratch a 1:1 duplicate of each given model - after all, they do not copy the original models themselves, only the design! Ditto exact or near-exact copies of the Master Chief, an X-wing, the USS Enterprise, or Wall-E, or or...

If you'd actually bothered to look up some actual references (for instance, a court case that rules that a model and its "design" can be separated so easily) instead of projecting troll behavior on to others, you might have come up with something like Muller v. Triboro Bridge Authority, which is taken as ruling that recreations of a physical object in an image do not infringe on the copyright of the image itself (contrast with LB (Plastics) Ltd. v. Swish Products Ltd. and British Leyland Motor Corp. v. Armstrong Patents Co. in Britain and followed by other Commonwealth countries, which rule that a physical object reproduced from an image do infringe on the image copyright).

Mr. D's models were made based on images of Cavedog's render models, and he lives in the US, so he may be safe under US copyright law, depending on whether a 3D model made from a 2D image (itself based on another 3D model) counts as a physical object or simply a change of format.

So.../thread

[Gertkane]

So by that logic, all I would need to do to avoid copyright infringement on the OTA models would be to make from scratch a 1:1 duplicate of each given mode

I tried putting it into simpler terms yet it seems you still couldn't figure out the point. I wont say how i judge your intelligence level basing on that but i will say that i feel sorry to have been part of the thread derailing train. Apologies to Mr.D.

So.../thread

Um, what?

[Neddie]

Gertkane, let me put this simply...
You hypocritically entered the discussion and asserted a legalistic position, you then attacked others for discussing law using basic and transparent abusive ad hominem, notably attacks upon qualification and intelligence for reference, with cute if ineffective conversational backsliding. KingRaptor applied your assertion to a general model and then met the burden of proof in argument. He "figured out your point" and dismissed it on argumentatively valid grounds - you ignored the content of the argument and continue to beg the conclusion.

Admittedly, preferable to the combination of false dichotomy, appeals to Murphy's Law, appeals to authority and appeals to consequence which infest this forum. Nonetheless, essentially trolling.

In addition, failing to provide your own support for an argument and instead requesting proof of other views is a caddish method of dodging the burden of proof. Dismissing the relevant responses is simply argumentative failure.

Anyway, I've split this thread off so the actual art discussion can continue. I can and will punish people for abusive argumentation, and the only reason I do not close this thread is out of a need to be fair to all involved.

---

On a related note, I've always found the veneration of actual law quite humorous - I do not regard it as a professional career since the practice of law is, in essence, the study and application of analogy. Analogy is neither emotionally nor logically preferable - due to the glut of information, you can argue virtually anything and since all the proof necessary in the system is precedent, often analogical conclusions will not prove satisfactory under any other metric. I thus humbly assert that the functional distinction between lawyers and "e-lawyers" is overstated - all we know for certain about lawyers in comparison to amateurs is that they formally studied for around six years and they do this for pay. Since when has formal education been the most effective means of developing even a simple skill? Since when has being paid for a talent indicated that your talent is greater? Analogy is to reason what poetry is to expression - limited, complex and often learned best by the autodidact.

[TheRegisteredOne]

fucking fail. You idiots rather sit here argue over the legality of new models instead of trying to replace the 100% illegal rippoffs in BA. Nevermind the fact that Atari does not care.

[Radagast]

Has anyone even asked Atari? The way I see it is if they say no you haven't lost anything cause no one is doing anything anyway for fear of what might happen.
If they say yes? well there isn't anything to worry about then is there.
There is also no fear of alerting Atari of this cause im sure they are fully aware of Spring.

[SpliFF]

Hmmm.. Dangerous logic. My brother once told the dole office they were over-paying him and instead of thanking him for bringing it to their attention they screwed up all his paperwork and put him through 3 months of interviews and chasing money.

The point is that in large bureaucracies employees often let things slide until you make somebody responsible for the issue. If you email an Atari lawyer and tell him/her you're willfully breaking their copyright you put that person in a difficult position. If they take no action then not only are they not doing their job but they're also contributing to further dilution of their IP protection.

I strongly recommend leaving well-enough alone.

[Snipawolf]

Indeed. No need to put anybody on the spot, then they are forced into action.

[Gertkane]

I actually saw much point in what Raptor said in his last post and i give him props for looking up examples. However, these arent exactly about digital models for use privately/non-commercially, which goes under fair use. That is why in earlier posts i pointed out that it all goes down to how and where these models are used. I do admit becoming too aggressive in my demeanor and pushing the derailing of the thread from Mr. D-s remakes (which i think were awesome and i would seriously like to see more), yet i do not see how my point still does not stand:

The models, by themselves, are not law infringing- all comes down to how and where they are used.

[SpikedHelmet]

Making reproductions of models isn't the same as using illegal copyrighted material.

All the mods out there for various games that reproduce someone else's original work -- like the LOTR mods for the Total War series, or smoth's Gundam RTS -- are not cases of the law being broken.

Sure, owners of the IP in which those assets are derived from may well not like it, and may well request a C&D from the creator, and if said creator refuses may well try and prove to a judge that the continued creation of those derived assets is somehow damaging financially or some such, then sure, you may get into a tight spot -- but nobody is going to sue you out of nowhere for anything unless you're pretty much costing them tens of thousands of dollars in revenue and refuse all of their requests for C&D of your work. But again, that does not mean you have broken any law.

A project like BA however is technically illegal right off the bat due to their use of the original unmodified work owned by Atari.

[KingRaptor]

On the fair use defense

The models, by themselves, are not law infringing- all comes down to how and where they are used.

What is the how and where in this case, though?

Two of the fair use criteria are:
Purpose and character
Effect upon work's value

Simple noncommerciality isn't enough to claim fair use (cf. all those foxed mod projects, and a few court decisions). The big problem lies in whether TA +1 models directly upset the commercial viability of the originals.

The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original.

In themselves, MrD (and Cremuss models) likely fulfill this factor since they can be used independently while TA models are not sold by themselves but as part of Total Annihilation. However, TA-based mods that rely on such models (and other than future IP-free CA, they're the ones who would be using such models) are still open to attack. (Though since we're really more worried about the artist and his models than any mod, I suppose this doesn't matter)

For the first criterion, purpose and character:

Under the first of the four 107 factors, "the purpose and Page II character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature . . .," the inquiry focuses on whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or whether and to what extent it is "transformative," altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message."

There's not much "expression, meaning or message" in either the originals or the remakes; they're simply game models. Not much help here.

Best bet would probably be to argue on the artistic value of the remake, appealing to the text of the Copyright Clause of the US Constitituion: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..."

In the end though, the specifics don't really matter. The threat isn't so much being found guilty of infringement as getting a SLAPP.

[Gertkane]

I'm absolutely sure you don't think Mr.D would get sued for making those models even for just a slapp, as i now see we just had a miscommunication and thought you were just here to argue about grey-area law issues while you just misunderstood my poistion on Mr.D-s models.

A mod that is in essence still TA can get slapped, then Mr.D would still be safe from the hounds, same goes for mod that is not in essence TA and uses Mr.D models with i.e. core logos removed.

In any case, maybe my recognition skills are failing me but i see we have consensus as to whether Mr.D will go to jail if he makes more models or not :D

[KDR_11k]

Making reproductions of models isn't the same as using illegal copyrighted material.

All the mods out there for various games that reproduce someone else's original work -- like the LOTR mods for the Total War series, or smoth's Gundam RTS -- are not cases of the law being broken.

Oh yes they are. Otherwise you wouldn't need a license to make merchandise for someone else's work, you could make a Harry Potter movie without paying J K Rowling a cent.

[SpikedHelmet]

First of all its still not criminal as AFAIK there's no criminal code for it; SWAT isnt going to bust into their houses and arrest them pending criminal charges. It is all for the protection of profit-making; if someone does something that the owning person thinks devalues or damages their product they can sue but not have them arrested.

I could draw a picture of Hermione banging Ron up the ass with a strapon -- that's reproducing Rowling's work, am I going to get sued? Maybe if I printed lots of copies and sold them, and if Rowling thinks its somehow devaluing Harry Potter (and oh, it would be). In the end it is up to the owner of the IP to decide whether or not they like what's being done with their IP and worst case scenario if a judge and/or jury agrees if a lawsuit is filed. Remember, the owner must prove that whatever the person is doing is damaging and devaluing their commercial product. AFAIK there's no Gundam RTS out there that smoth is devaluaging by drawing players away from purchasing it, neither does ATARI have comparable RTS which BA/CA/etc are devaluing.

BLah blah anyway dumb topic boo.

[Neddie]

How would that be devaluing the property, Spiked? That would be a tremendous content improvement. It at least demonstrates more complex characters and interaction than included in the source texts.

[smoth]

AFAIK there's no Gundam RTS out there that smoth is devaluaging by drawing players away from purchasing it

why am I being picked on?

and no there isn't, which is why I am doing this. :\

[Saktoth]

The problem is not being sued. Thats probably never going to happen.

The problem is operating within this legal black hole, with the stigma of being just mods of a 10 year old game rather than a geniune open source game on a quality open source engine.

It means we cannot really advertise. It means we will never become the darling of open source gaming. It means we can never really get respect from the open source community, get into linux distros, do what Wesnoth did (only, we are 100x better), get on steam, break out of this 'ex-OTA-players and enthusiasts' black hole which limits the growth of both spring as a whole and all mods to date (no mod as yet as a solid playerbase not drawing from this same insular community).

It means nobody who does any of this work will ever get any recognition, our games wont get played, you cant put it on a CV 'Worked on game with pirated content'.

Mr.D's clearly derivative models are the commander, vech factory, nuke silo and weasel. The raider/ravager and goliath might possibly be suspect. Everything else has more than enough creative liscence taken that it shouldnt matter at all if the logos are scrubbed.

[CarRepairer]

How would that be devaluing the property, Spiked? That would be a tremendous content improvement. It at least demonstrates more complex characters and interaction than included in the source texts.

Should I imagine you typing this post with a straight face, or not?