Webmasters posting "Stolen" mods

[Manx]

WE NEED A LAWYER QUICK! = LAWYER! - Where are you!

Ok, i'll spend all my time trying to authenticate everything that is submitted to CMHQ and you'll all have to wait just a little bit longer for all those juicey mod screenshots that you see on this board and thaat you can't wait to see on your HD.

I'm sorry, but here was me thinking that this COMMUNITY gave ALL for nothing. That's what i've (and a lot of others) have been doing for the past one and a half-two years. CM websites haven't asked for NOTHING! Basically, we have given you everything you have wanted.

Running a CM website uesd to be fun, but going on my own past experiences and the way things are going now, then i really don't hold out much hope for a Community (is that the right word?) that has to watch it's back and be very careful about what is released to it.

Other CM webmasters are more than welcome to join in! For instance - How do you feel about having to check that every service that you provide (for FREE, and WITHOUT clauses) has the potential to be scrutinised and and f* about with by others?

[aka_tom_w]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Even this might be a little complicated, given that several of the current mods are based on mods based on mods based on ..., mixed with details from mods based on mods based on...

A complete list of everybody that put any work in from original to present version might easily reach ten or more names, with very little of the original art shining through.

If adding changes to an existing mod, it should be sufficient to accnowledge the final author of that mod, and if possible point to where that can be downloaded.

It's also fine to discribe the changes done.

Those interested can then trace everything back to some original work, and those not interested probably don't read the info file anyway.

Cheers

Olle<hr></blockquote>

In academia this is the concept of citing your sources through a bibliography or list of refernences, this concept of giving credit to the authors and artists upon which your "New" art work is based is the HEART of this "stolen mods" issue.

In academia the theft of an idea without a credit is called plagerism, some would extend that concept to the theft of artwork without crediting the source. BUT as we all know plagerism is not exactly a crime an not punisable by law (as long as it is not copywrite infringement. which must be pursued and ligated solely by the owner of the copywrite if that individual can prove he has established copywrite protection in the first place)©2001 aka_tom_w

-tom w

[Treeburst155]

Vanir,

I will not sue you only because I have enjoyed your posts over the many months and almost always agree with you. I first noticed you on the old "Jeep Recon" thread many moons ago; which BTW,I started back when I was "Smoker".

Treeburst155 out. @copyright

[AndrewTF]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Unless the © copyright sign appears on the art work WHEN it Is posted it is considered in the public domain.

I have not seen very many mods with that magical little © copywrite symbol on them.

and this means you need to use your real name or the name of company you have incorporated like this ©2001 Big Time Software

once this is written on the art work then the owner or author (the author could have sold the artwork and the copywrite of the artwork to the owner) of the work has copywrite protection, and will have the option to protect his copywrite at his own expense through litigation if necesary. In Canada copywrite infringement is not a crimminal act , meaning it is up to the owner of the copywrite to protect and enforce non-licenced use of the work or copywrite infringement of the work.

without the name of the copywrite holder and the year of the copywrite NO copywrite protection can be "assumed" or legally granted.

.... and NO, I am not a lawyer but I work very closely with graphic designers and I know how this stuff works, at least in Canada anyway.

-tom w

<hr></blockquote>

I'm not a lawyer either (thank god ) but as I work with art, artists, and intellectual property issues on a daily basis, I'm pretty sure that US copyright law applies to any work of art created regardless of the © symbol. As soon as a work is created by an artist, the copyright belongs to him for his lifetime plus, I think 50 years (I could be wrong here). The © symbol helps, as does registration, but neither are legally necessary to prove copyright.

If you made it it's yours. End of story.

[Richard Morgan]

I am with Treeburst on this one. It all seems rather childish. If you are reading this Manx, what do you intend doing with your painstakingly executed artwork now it has been withdrawn? Answer: NOTHING - it will just sit on the cyber shelf gathering cyber dust doing no good to man or beast. Please remember: there are actually people out there who like your work!!!!!

My father (a lawyer himself) said that 90 percent of all the disputes that he dealt with could have been settled easily and amicably over a drink. Could you PURLEEEZE adopt this approach in future Christmas is coming - anyway, the Oxford St and Regent St Christmas (London England) have been turned on.

Bah humbug :confused:

Richard.

[Manx]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AndrewTF:

Geez guys, this mod "disagreement" is getting out of hand

As a mod artist myself, I make mods and distribute them for a few different reasons:

1. It's fun

2. It's a way to learn new Photoshop tricks and techniques that I can apply in my "real life".

3. I want a specific mod that may not be available, so I make it myself.

4. I want to make a contribution to the CM community.

5. What's the point of keeping them all to myself when they can make other people happy.

<hr></blockquote>

I agree with you entirely!

[Richard Morgan]

Err - make that Regent St and Oxford St Christmas lights

R.

[AndrewTF]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Manx:

I agree with you entirely!<hr></blockquote>

Thanks Manx!

I forgot to add to my rant that I believe we can also count on conscientious CM-site Webmasters to help the CM community police mod infringements, if need be. If the offending mod is not available for download, then any problems are effectively ended.

I think mod artists depend on people like Manx to respond to complaints of plagiarism and unauthorized use in a fair and prompt manner.

[Slapdragon]

The reason why we need a basic agreement for modder, to which a modder agree to follow or else their mods are not posted, distributed, e-mailed, or referred to in print (if possible) is just because of the crap that a single whiner has spun off onto Manx, and because technically a single whiner can bring down the whole show.

Here is how copyright works. Once you publish a piece of artwork it is enjoys copyright, no ifs, ands, or buts. People may only use that work under what is termed "fair use", which means partially and cited. Anything further requires written permission to use the work.

In most cases a derivative work requires permission of the owner of the work. The owner can forbid changes, period. If the owner forbids changes, then the work MUST be substantially different than the original. I cannot merely take OGSF's H-39 mod and run unsharp mask on it and send it out to the masses. I must change the so much that even a skilled viewer could not tell the two products were substantially related.

Copyright lasts life plus 25, 30, or 50 years, depending on what nation you live in and what creative product you are working with. No need to even worry about that right now

A violation of copyright is a civil, and not a criminal matter, as long as fraud does not occur (and identity theft is fraud, so if you pass out mods saying that they are Mad Matt Mods and they are not, or if you e-mail a set of mods made by Kwazydog to Manx and say that Manx has permission to use them, pretending you are Dog, then you are committing identity theft, a criminal matter). In civil matters, it is up to the wronged individual to take you to court, prove you are a scoundral, that you caused damage, and that the damage warrants recompense, and that the damage was not an act of GOD. Then you need to hire a thug to collect the money from the crook who grabbed your mod after calling you a goathead on the forum.

In all, it is a huge bunch of work for a case that will pay nothing (maybe a little if you can get a ruling in small claims court) since modders don't, as far as I know, make anything off their mods. Pain and suffering and all that crap would need to prove malice, which is far fetched. Unless some guy grabs your mods and makes money off of them (in which case there is something to recover and a proof that you could have made more money if given the chance) then all of this is just spinning wheels.

All in all, it is again better if the mod sites just make the modders sign a waiver in perpetuity, no taking it back, and if the waiver protect the modders by specifying that mods may not be modified.

[aka_tom_w]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AndrewTF:

I'm not a lawyer either (thank god ) but as I work with art, artists, and intellectual property issues on a daily basis, I'm pretty sure that US copyright law applies to any work of art created regardless of the © symbol. As soon as a work is created by an artist, the copyright belongs to him for his lifetime plus, I think 50 years (I could be wrong here). The © symbol helps, as does registration, but neither are legally necessary to prove copyright.

If you made it it's yours. End of story.<hr></blockquote>

But what about the notion of the public domain?

if you issue a mod and post it on the internet for free distribution, and you do not write somthing like "©2001 Mod Artist Supreme" on it , is that art work not instantly devoid of any copywrite protection and in fact in the public domain so anyone can do ANYTHING they want with it, including passing off an edited version of the artwork as their own?

I ask this in all seriousness??

-tom w

[Richard Morgan]

Sorry, case of mistaken identity (it has been a long day) Previous post refers not to Manx, but to the modder in question.

Apologies

[Philippe]

The fact that this thread has started flirting with an amateur legal discussion of intellectual property issues is unfortunate. The legal questions can get quite involved, especially since several different countries and legal philosophies and systems are involved here (Common Law vs. Civil Code vs. International Agreement). I do not practise intellectual property law and do not feel competant to comment on matters of copyright, the need for consideration as a test in public domain issues, or the use or non-use of an English symbol by a German to establish ownership. And those who are competant to discuss such matters are quite expensive.

We should not be taking this discussion down this path. This community works because it is a voluntary association based on goodwill, good manners, and a certain degree of civility (apart from the Peng thread). If we have to resort to legal arguments when we should be working things out among ourselves in a civilized fashion, then we are in danger of losing something very important indeed.

Philippe

[SurlyBen]

A few things:

At least in the US, Copyright attaches from the moment of creation. It used to be that the copyright notice was required, but since 1978(? I think) no such notice is required.

Like it or not, authors have control over their work, and they may be able to compel webmasters to take it down. On the other hand, depending on the license it was published under, the webmaster may be free to leave it up (I'm not 100% clear on how easy it is to change a license post publication...)

My view is that if someone requests to have their mods removed, the webmaster should probably remove them. It isn't likely to lead to a flood of such requests, other people will make more mods, and it just seems like the right thing to do.

As far as licenses and so on, a GPL like license would be excellent. I poked around for something like that for art when I released my skies, but didn't come across anything. My intention was to have them spread far and wide as long as no one charges for them. (I was delighted to see them on that Polish language CM site...)

Re: scenarios and maps. This issue has come up for scenarios a few times. If I recall correctly, one of the reasons the scenario depot exists is to provide a way for people to get scenarios that is more respectful of people's copyrights than just having them all in a big zipfile. On the flip side, there was that ASL site that got taken down...

Surlyben

[Treeburst155]

I'm with Philippe

How do I make the copyright symbol "c" with the circle around it?

Treeburst155 out.

[AndrewTF]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

But what about the notion of the public domain?

if you issue a mod and post it on the internet for free distribution, and you do not write somthing like "©2001 Mod Artist Supreme" on it , is that art work not instantly devoid of any copywrite protection and in fact in the public domain so anyone can do ANYTHING they want with it, including passing off an edited version of the artwork as their own?

I ask this in all seriousness??

-tom w<hr></blockquote>

I think Slappdragon addresses the issue of copyright quite well in his post. Copyright is copyright and every work of intellectual property is copyrighted from the moment of creation. The owner of said copyright can either choose to make an issue of it or not. A work of art is considered to be in the public domain once copyright runs out. I believe that unless the work is expressly declared to be in the public domain by its copyright holder then it should be assumed that it is protected by a copyright.

It seems to me that mods are freely distributed for use within the CMBO application. Once again, there's no money changing hands, so knock yourself out and pass it around all you want. Just because a mod is distributed for free with permission to freely distribute it, does not give anyone the right to alter it and offer a new version for public consumption without the original artist's/author's consent.

Despite my discussion of legal issues here I think I have to agree with Phillipe in that it's the wrong thing to be dwelling on.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: AndrewTF ]</p>

[AndrewTF]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Philippe:

We should not be taking this discussion down this path. This community works because it is a voluntary association based on goodwill, good manners, and a certain degree of civility (apart from the Peng thread). If we have to resort to legal arguments when we should be working things out among ourselves in a civilized fashion, then we are in danger of losing something very important indeed.

Philippe<hr></blockquote>

Amen!

[aka_tom_w]

Again.... The public Domain issue:

"Under copyright laws, copyright protection is automatic as soon as the work is "fixed" or "published" in some format outside the creators mind, whether or not the work is actually registered with the copyright office. However, to truly protect the work, a copyright notice should be affixed somewhere visible on or within the work. ©

When a work is put forth (considered to be "published)" publicly without such a notice, or after the legal time period specified for end of copyright by the laws, a piece is considered to have entered the public domain, and is freely usable by anybody at any time, in any way. This is why people add copyright notices to works of art and articles that are published in magazines and books, and to song lyrics included with music on disk, so their copyright is protected and they can retain control of how the material is used."

From this web page

All Mods artists should read this page:

http://www.mindymac.com/copyright.html

also found at the bottom of that page:

"The boring legal stuff: All original work anywhere on this site © 1999 Mindy Machanic, unless otherwise noted. Permission to use quotes granted under "fair use" laws, with credit to this site and/or Mindy Machanic, as appropriate. No reprinting larger sections in any format (print, electronic, video, etc.) allowed without prior written permission and full credit. "

-tom w

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]</p>

[Manx]

Again, and i can only speak for myself - if i find out that a mod has been released WITHOUT the permission of the original author, then i WILL take it off. What bothers me is the implication (read other threads - this has been implied) that a CM webmaster is somehow held responsible for the fact that it was made available in the first place. Like i have already said -- we have to take it that ANY submission has been granted permission from ALL parties (directly and indirectly) involved.

What else do you want us to do!??

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

But what about the notion of the public domain?

if you issue a mod and post it on the internet for free distribution, and you do not write somthing like "©2001 Mod Artist Supreme" on it , is that art work not instantly devoid of any copywrite protection and in fact in the public domain so anyone can do ANYTHING they want with it, including passing off an edited version of the artwork as their own?

I ask this in all seriousness??

-tom w<hr></blockquote>

Ehm, AFAIK if someone posts something as Freeware or Public Domain (talking about free programs) he has usually included a readme where he states that he renounce on his copyrights.

Boys, get back to the ground. Why the noise.

a) The modders says it's wrong to use other peoples work if the author don't want this.

The webmasters say that they don't post material if they know it's against the authors authorization.

c) Everyone else more or less agrees to this.

So god damn, include a ****ing disclaimer in your mods, and if somone violates your rights, call the mob (us ), and we will roast the thief over a small fire. Can we agree to this?

Do anyone believe that any human being with a piece of brain in his head want to be hunted by a horde of mad wargamers?

[Battlefront.com]

I'm with Manx on this one, 100%

It is up to the indivdual making the submission to be honest about the materials. If a webmaster fines out later on that this did not happen, and is asked to remove the work, then it should be removed promptly. But it is not the responsibility of the webmaster to do a background check on each and every BMP, WAV, or scenario file. Period

However, I suppose if the webmaster has a reason to suspect dishonesty (say for example, a past problem with the individual) then the webmaster should ask point blank if the individual has the right to submit the stuff. If the answer is "yes", then it is innocent until proven guilty. If someone repeatedly lies, the the webmaster should just ignore submissions from that person for ever more (legit or not).

I also agree that it would be good to have a standard "form", or "forms", for modders to include with their work which outlines the modder's intents. It should be pretty easy to get an agreement on such stuff, so I suggest going for it.

And yes, our BIG beef with that German company was that they were obviously intending to sell other people's work for a profit. We were also not happy with the way they were using our registered trademark game name and not mentioning our company. This is an entirely seperate issue.

Steve

[Darknight (DC)]

My God!!! :eek:

Following these arguments (it no longer seems like simple discussion) is like listening to people argue about religion.

When I made additions to the existing work by Andrew Fox, I created an example and sent it to him BEFORE ever considering that it would be released for public consumption. I made the mods for myself first b/c I wanted to and then was supported by Andrew and Michael Dorosh (another person whom I credited b/c I drew much from his original source material as well) in making them available. It is very easy to contact the original mod artist and I don't think there's many who would prevent another from adding to their work....the contact is a necessary courtesy and should be made (we're all friends here, are we not??? ). I think that this entire issue has created too much bad feeling all over again.

And someone explain to me why anyone is picking on the web-masters? These guys are putting in hours of their own time (and sometimes money) to allow all of us to be a Community. As Manx said, if he is made aware of a problem, it would be corrected....I think that's all anyone could ask.

Sorry if I'm rambling on too much but I was a lurker for far too long b/f deciding to become an active part of this community. It seems sad that we're now discussing legalities and lawyers and such....it seems to be flaying the fun away from the game (which is why we all got involved here in the first place, right??? )

[aka_tom_w]

posted in good Cheer..

Oh come on!

some of us are battle hardened "rules lawyers" from Way back, I thought it was fun to haggle and debate over copyright law....

Since I'm at work that was almost as much fun as actually playing the game.

I have no clue who did what to who or who was the wronged party.

And Sure, I agree completely with Manx.

-tom w

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Darknight_Canuck:

My God!!! :eek:

Following these arguments (it no longer seems like simple discussion) is like listening to people argue about religion.

When I made additions to the existing work by Andrew Fox, I created an example and sent it to him BEFORE ever considering that it would be released for public consumption. I made the mods for myself first b/c I wanted to and then was supported by Andrew and Michael Dorosh (another person whom I credited b/c I drew much from his original source material as well) in making them available. It is very easy to contact the original mod artist and I don't think there's many who would prevent another from adding to their work....the contact is a necessary courtesy and should be made (we're all friends here, are we not??? ). I think that this entire issue has created too much bad feeling all over again.

And someone explain to me why anyone is picking on the web-masters? These guys are putting in hours of their own time (and sometimes money) to allow all of us to be a Community. As Manx said, if he is made aware of a problem, it would be corrected....I think that's all anyone could ask.

Sorry if I'm rambling on too much but I was a lurker for far too long b/f deciding to become an active part of this community. It seems sad that we're now discussing legalities and lawyers and such....it seems to be flaying the fun away from the game (which is why we all got involved here in the first place, right??? )<hr></blockquote>

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]</p>

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Darknight_Canuck:

....it seems to be flaying the fun away from the game<hr></blockquote>

Which game?

[AndrewTF]

I agree that there is a perverse fun in the copyright law discussion...

Another down side of this mod-rights paranoia: I don't want genuinely useful people like Darknight to be scared away from actually improving upon a mod release! He's done something that I never would have done, and has put in an amazing amount of work and research in creating his commonwealth unit patches for my uniform mod.

I would really hate it if, as a result of this bickering, people with good ideas like Darknight are discouraged from attempting things like this.

[ParaBellum]

OK, call me a jerk. I just don't understand the whole issue...

1.) I myself have "modded" a few BMPs just for my own use.

If I decided to release these mods to the public, I surely would first contact the author of the mod on which my work was based.

If he gave me an OK, fine. If not, hey, it's his right. Without his work I would not have been able to do this mod myself.

Since all the modders don't get money for their work I think it's only fair to give them the credit.

2.) Of course a webmaster shouldn't have to check out the background of all BMPs and WAV files. Hey, it's easy. If you as a modder use another person's work as a base for your own, just drop the original artist an email and ask for permission if you want to publish it under you name.

just my 2c