Should banned user mods/maps/etc be deleted from these boards?

[Muse]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

What do game mechanics have to do with this? And you don't provide any evidence either.

"Like." An analogy, obviously.

"You're wrong because I said so. Prove you're right."
My evidence is in the letter of international copyright law, which you claim I've misused out of hand, most likely without reading yourself.

Public Domain is literally and shortly defined as: "That which is not covered by Intellectual Property rights."
For the United States: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

So if I make a mod based on the IP of both dom3, and warhammer and release it here it is in the public domain? I doubt it.

(And you could always argue that the creation of the mod itself constitutes the creation of a original piece of work).

You can argue anything, the law may state differently.
"For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work."

If you genuinely care, you can start with L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder.

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

If I where to post a mod here in which I used my own sprites, and my own fantasy nation you couldn't. I would still have the copyright on that.

The data on the fantasy nation is copyrighted as original work.
The mod itself is not. The mod is public domain, and may be freely distributed.

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by Muse

Public Domain is literally and shortly defined as: "That which is not covered by Intellectual Property rights."
For the United States: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

Yeah, and the faq doesn't really answer the question what is covered by intellectual property rights. It does nicely show when something is in the public domain.

" “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. "

But it fails to list these requirements.

Originally Posted by Muse

The data on the fantasy nation itself is copyrighted as original work.
The mod itself is not. The mod is public domain, and may be freely distributed.

Actually the mod is programming code. So in that way all the normal rules for software code apply. And software can be copyrighted. Sure it isn't software in the strictest sense. But I think you could argue that it is a form of computer code. And in this sense the creation of these mods is a creative act.

Sure if Sombre had used sprites released in a games workshop game for his mods, and perhaps edited them a little bit it would not have been creative. But in this case I think it is.

Sprites are also an important part of the mods. Are they not original work? The statistics abilities and the description of the different units are also data. And thus original work. And while rules of games cannot be copyrighted, the specific expressions of these can. Which I think would also consider the different statistics and abilities given to the different mods.

Ps: did you just really call mod creators uncreative? So the creation of the different Warhammer mods by Sombre is a "uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work." And not a creative reinterpretation of earlier work in a new environment?

And sure L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder show that a copy that clearly looks a lot alike doesn't fall under copyright. But that doesn't apply in this case. Lets take the example of the Sombre warhammer mods again. The creation of these sprites is a variation of the physical models and drawings that Games Workshop has made. But not an uncreative one. As Sombre has used a new medium, sprites. Instead of the traditional ways games workshop shows their different fantasy models (pewter, and normal drawings). So I don't even think that in the case of the creations by Sombre it constitutes as uncreative.

See Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. for example.

[thejeff]

The warhammer mods certainly could be argued to be derivative works, of both dominions and Warhammer. That doesn't make them public domain. If anything, it makes them copyright infringement. (Assuming them to be done without the permission of whoever owns Warhammers copyright. They can be assumed to have at least implicit permission from Illwinter.)
That still doesn't put them in the public domain. If they're infringing works, they can't be in the public domain, or the holder of the copyright being infringed couldn't do anything to stop distribution.

[Muse]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

" “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. "

But it fails to list these requirements.

You've stated in an earlier post: "Sure the creators of the mod do not gain the copyright for the mod."

Therefore, by your own admission, I've used the term 'Public Domain' correctly.

Humorously, the rest of your post argues that Sombre should be sued for creating a Derivative Work without permission of the original copyright holder.
That is a danger of taking an uninformed stance for pointlessly erudite banter.

Originally Posted by thejeff

The warhammer mods certainly could be argued to be derivative works, of both dominions and Warhammer. That doesn't make them public domain. If anything, it makes them copyright infringement.

It is a Fair Use work in the public domain.
Claiming anything else serves as a detriment to a potential author's creativity, since it will call forth the threat of infringement contentions.

[ExHeretic]

I smelled the coming flame war when i first saw this tread.

But not this kind

Very amusing

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by Muse

You've stated in an earlier post: "Sure the creators of the mod do not gain the copyright for the mod."

Therefore, by your own admission, I've used the term 'Public Domain' correctly.

I have since realized that my statement is incorrect. They do gain copyright regarding certain parts of these mods. Sprites, content that was invented to create the stats and abilities. Stories written, and not copied verbatim from other sources.

Originally Posted by Muse

Humorously, the rest of your post argues that Sombre should be sued for creating a Derivative Work without permission of the original copyright holder.

"Could" is not the same as "should". You are putting words in my 'mouth'.

And yes he could be sued. But I think trademarks are more a problem here. In the case of a lawsuit he would probably be asked to stop. Not that there where any damages done. But it wouldn't be a move GW has not performed before.

And now you are trying to make me change my point just to defend Sombre. Which I won't sure, the works are Derivative Works without permission of the original copyright holder. But that still doesn't change my original point. No Public Domain.

Originally Posted by Muse

That is a danger of taking an uninformed stance for pointlessly erudite banter.

Classy.

Originally Posted by Muse

It is a Fair Use work in the public domain.
Claiming anything else serves as a detriment to a potential author's creativity, since it will call forth the threat of infringement contentions.

What? So to prevent mod creators from potential lawsuits we should ignore the law and create our own reasoning to protect something that you probably cannot protect in court?

And it will not call forth the threat. Because it is already there. (Not that this will cause big problems, as there is no potential lost revenue in this case of derivative work).

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Muse]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

I have since realized that my statement is incorrect. They do gain copyright regarding certain parts of these mods. Sprites, content that was invented to create the stats and abilities. Stories written, and not copied verbatim from other sources.

One cannot be granted Derivative Work copyright protection without the permission of the original copyright holder.
You cannot gain personally from a crime.

Honestly, just read the definition of 'Fair Use.'

The only parts of a mod granted protection under the Berne Convention are those that pass the originality test, or Derivatives with explicit permission of the original owner.

The rest is a Fair Use work incorporating multiple copyrights for the betterment of the public.

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

What? So to prevent mod creators from potential lawsuits we should ignore the law and create our own reasoning to protect something that you probably cannot protect in court?

I'm not suggesting 'we' change the law to this, I'm suggesting the law is already as above to encourage creativity.

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by Muse

One cannot be granted Derivative Work copyright protection without the permission of the original copyright holder.
You cannot gain personally from a crime.

Copyright infringement is only a crime when it is done on a commercial scale. If it isn't it can be brought to the courts as civil suit.

Large scale copyright infringement is covered by a the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. TRIPS. Which was signed by most of the WTO countries. This agreement forces countries to make large scape copyright infringement criminal.

In this case it is neither large scale, nor commercial.

[Muse]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Copyright infringement is only a crime when it is done on a commercial scale. If it isn't it can be brought to the courts as civil suit.

Large scale copyright infringement is covered by a the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. TRIPS. Which was signed by most of the WTO countries. This agreement forces countries to make large scape copyright infringement criminal.

In this case it is neither large scale, nor commercial.

Oh, alright. You do not like that word?

Originally Posted by Muse

One cannot be granted Derivative Work copyright protection without the permission of the original copyright holder.
You cannot gain personally from a infringement.

Honestly, just read the definition of 'Fair Use.'

The only parts of a mod granted protection under the Berne Convention are those that pass the originality test, or Derivatives with explicit permission of the original owner.

The rest is a Fair Use work incorporating multiple copyrights for the betterment of the public.

I'm not suggesting 'we' change the law to this, I'm suggesting the law is already as above to encourage creativity.

Will that help to reduce the deliberate obfuscation?

[Soyweiser]

Related to the thread, but not the current conversation:

http://z7.invisionfree.com/Dom3mods/...0&#entry141893