Intellectual Property Discussion - Move if necessary

[Ilsamir Lord]

Hi everyone,

Recently I've been considering the role that intellectual property has to play in original modification concepts - specifically mine . This is a post I made at our main forums, and I thought people might be interested in considering it if they have nothing better to do.

Here are a few points I have considered:

1. When is material you submit no longer under your control?

2. When does material you submit remain under your control?

3. What are your rights, or what do you think they should be, with regard to seperately releasing material you have made?

In considering these questions I had to take into account what the aspirations of a mod team member might be. Here are some possible ideas, in no particular order:

1. Notoriety in the community - you wish to be known for your skills among modders and players of mods, whether through being creditted in a major modification or through a proliferation of released content.

2. Notoriety among professionals - you hope to use your work in a portfolio to garner the respect of professional developers/artists etc. perhaps one day leading to a paying job in the field.

3. Financial gain - you wish to make your living through the distribution of your work, whether through direct sales or royalties. It can be said that this is the least likely outcome as mods are by their nature freely given and voluntarily made.

4. Enjoyment - it may just be your hobby, something you enjoy for its own sake and from which you expect nothing more than a sense of accomplishment from your efforts.

Now for some hypothetical situations:

1. You produce concept art for a modification based on descriptions provided by a writer. Who owns the concepts you produce? Is it the writer, without whom the concept would never have been produced? Or do you own it, being the producer of the art? Is the ownership joint - you and the writer make decisions regarding the work together? If you wish to disttribute your concept art on other websites do you owe it to the writer to request their permission, do you need to acknowledge them?

2. You produce models for a modification based on concept art (by person B ), which is in turn based on written descriptions (by person A). Again, who owns the models you produce? Is it you - the person who has spent the time and effort to make the model itself? Is it person B - the artist without whom you would have nothing to base the model on? Or is it person A - the writer who was the original genesis of the process? Is ownership joint - all three are involved in decisions regarding the work? Within these discussions should one person be more influencial than another? Say you wish to publish images of your models on a seperate website. Do you need to ask for permission from any of the other people involved, do you need to acknowledge them?

I later added this post in response to someone's points on the influence of history, culture and upbringing on our artistic output and where that output become "copyrightable". The question of an individual's differing interpretations of the written word was also put forward and it led me to these points - note: I can quote the posts if that isn't clear -

The picture wouldn't exist without the original writing, and it wouldn't look like it does without the way that writing was written.

If I say - "Draw a spear" I'll get a stick with a metal spike on the end, the stick may be long or short, the spike may be one-edged, double-edged etc. based on the interpretation of the artist. But if I say -"Draw a spear with a curved head, a cross-guard, a wooden shaft 5 feet long and a star-shaped carving on the blade" I'll get just that. It will be as close as possible to the way I have imagined it, unless I then correct them further with precise measurements.

Even if I just ask for a spear initially, I can then say to the artist: "make it a bit longer" or "no, no, not like that, make the blade two-edged, not single-edged, remove the curve."

It all amounts to the same thing - my imagination (which is a product of my culture, my knowledge and my personal taste) represented as a 2-dimensional image. Without me there would be no source on which to base the art, and also no mod at all.

If an artist chooses to depict something that I have described, they are becoming involved with my intellectual property, just as if a modeller (or a sculptor, or an engineer etc.) makes a model based on that picture they are becoming involved with my intellectual property, via the intellectual property of the artist.

Just to be clear, I'm not claiming full ownership of all materials made for the mod, I'm just asserting my right as the creator, writer, director etc. to have some control over materials which are made for and based on my work and which would not exist without it.

Models based purely on historical references, and not on concepts at all, I of course will have no control over, but no concept drawn so far [for the mod] could be claimed to be based solely on real-world historical examples.

What it boils down to I think is that, just like in an academic article, or in a university or school essay, you must acknowledge your sources, even if they are ancient and out of copyright, and in certain circumstances, seek the permission of the owners of those sources to distribute their work whether in its original or re-interpreted form.

What are your views?

[Andres]

I think there's no "simple" answer to your questions.

About the drawing and the writer: I think the picture, the art is property of both: the writer and the artist. The picture or piece of art as it is, as it exists, couldn't be created by only the writer or only the artist.

The question about your mods: If you feel you should get credit for it and one needs to have permission to use it, you should let it protected by an organism (in Belgium we have SABAM, you go there with your work and ask them a, well, let's call it an license. You pay a small amount of money and voilà, your work is protected, nobody is allowed to copy it without permission).

I always feel its kinda contradictory if somebody makes, let's say a guide, and on the one hand makes it publicly accessible, for free, and on the other hand claims it's copy protected and you can't use it without permission of the author. If you put something for free on the internet, you can't hope nobody will use it without your permission. That's just a stupid (or better: naive) idea.

Just a few thoughts, hopefully somebody specialised in intellectual property rights will look at your post and will post a more professional opinion, so all those fine modders (respect guys! most be hard work!) here will actually learn something valuable.

[GodWillsIt]

I am no IP expert, but it seems to me that if your art is original and your mod does not follow the authors storyline, and you charge nothing to download it then you have nothing to worry about.

The author has his own concept of how the characters look and act and you have yours...the storyline is the big question here.




-GodWillsIt

[Banquo's Ghost]

II always feel its kinda contradictory if somebody makes, let's say a guide, and on the one hand makes it publicly accessible, for free, and on the other hand claims it's copy protected and you can't use it without permission of the author. If you put something for free on the internet, you can't hope nobody will use it without your permission. That's just a stupid (or better: naive) idea.

It's not naive at all. It's called copyright. Just because something is available on the internet does not make it your property, unless the author cedes all rights. Charging or otherwise does not affect copyright. There is the concept of personal responsibility of the readers too - one has to trust others to respect IP. If you break the law with the reasonable expectation of getting away with it, it doesn't make you any less a criminal.

Obviously, if one's ideas are remarkably commercially sensitive, posting on the internet may not be a sound idea. But the internet is just another medium. You could argue that the act of publishing a 'guide' or article or whatever on paper, such as a magazine or book makes it publicly accessible. People can still use it - and do. Most authors who submit to the 'net cede the right to copy and reproduce for non-commercial uses, but not to substantially change or charge.

But the author's rights are unaffected by the medium. If someone publishes on paper or the internet and includes a notice saying they retain rights*, you are in breach of copyright if you use it without permission. You're stealing. And the more people who do this, the less people will share information of worth.

*NB. The notice is not necessary - copyright is inherent. Only a notice giving away rights is necessary.

[Andres]

I meant you don't have to be amazed if someones (ab)uses your work for own profit if you put it on the web for free.

But you're absolutely right: readers (and in general people who use the internet) have their responsibilities too. Even if it's for free, if the author/artist/creator doesn't want you to use it without permission, you shouldn't. And if you do so, it's not only despicable behavior, but also stealing.

You actually made me change my point of view.

[Ilsamir Lord]

Interesting views indeed. Just to clarify, the mod is actually my concept, not some other author's, that's why I'm worried about it .

So is appending a notice to your intellectual property necessary to copyright it? Or is it assumed that it is copyright upon publication? Do you only need to append a notice if you wish to cede your rights, in other words?

It seems to me that, yes, just because something is free doesn't make it public property - or rather, it doesn't make the intellectual side public property, because of course the actual object/file etc. you make available is public property in that the public has free access to it.

I'm glad to hear your views on this, they are very interesting indeed.

[sbroadbent]

The simple answer, in a situation where there are really no simple answers is that copyright protects the expression of a work. In this case, you own and can decide what happens with your specific description of the work. If you have an artist render visual expressions of your text you enter the complicated world of joint copyright. The artist has copyright over his particular expression of the work, but the work as a whole is in all probability jointly owned by both parties. It all depends on how closely the final work represents your text expression. In your spear example, if you simply asked for a spear, and you were given your artists concept of a spear, the final work would unlikely be considered to have joint copyright.

Shades of Gray...

In this situation the simple solution is to have all the work done in a "Work for Hire" relationship. This is where you pay or compensate the person for the purpose that you will own the sole copyright over the work. The compensation is of course negotiable between the different parties, but should respect contract law. It could be as simple as having the artist's name appear in the credits section.

It's times like these that make me wonder what I was thinking when I decided to go to school for Law Clerk for the sole purpose of helping me in my failed attempt in getting into the RPG publishing industry....

[Oaty]

It just dawned on me that you could possibly legally sell mods to games as long as it is an addon and not modifying the executable. The skins can be legally sold for sure it's the modified text documents that make em work that would be the grey area in selling them. Making the buyer of the skins manually making them compatable. I'm not familiar with the end user agreemants as I never read them. So for the EULA in RTW, I believe it says the executable is not be modified w/o consent and modifying the other files is allowed and has there legalities with description. So it would be how the EULA can be interpreted to allow the selling of the other modified files.

Next would be the lawyers to deal with. They and the company are backed with money and you are not. So even if you can legally do it, you don't have enough money to prove you can legally do it.

On top of that you'd be ousted by many internet communities and there would likely be none to buy it, therefore saving you the lawsuit due your not really tapping the developers revenue. If somehow it became successful, you can rest assure yourself letters for court appearances.

You can make a game for a console and legally sell it. Many items are sold as addons to something another manufacturer made and in just about all cases no royalties are paid.

The only other part is if your work was used and sold, you can make the sales cease, if you can prove you are the one who did the work.