03 Oct, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
There seems to be a running misconception amongst mud admins and builders that no matter what, a builder retains onwership of his areas because its not a signed agreement.

In 2000, an act was passed which goes by various names, but most people call it the E-Sign Act. You can google it if you'd like. It gives certain requirements that be followed for the signing of legally binding contracts via the internet, meaning you can own your area just like corporations own the programs produced by their employees.
03 Oct, 2006, Justice wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
It's my personal view that builders are volunteer workers for the MUD. As such, any and all work they provide belongs to the mud specifically. This prevents issues with say… a disgruntled builder demanding you remove their areas from the mud. It also ensures that the staff of the game can modify the area at will for various reasons including balance and theme.

This assumes of course that the builder has not already copyrighted their material before adding it to the mud. In which case, I would probably decline their offer to build.

As a courtesy however, I always allow a builder to obtain a copy of their work.
03 Oct, 2006, KaVir wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Brinson said:
There seems to be a running misconception amongst mud admins and builders that no matter what, a builder retains onwership of his areas because its not a signed agreement.


This is what the US Copyright Office has to say:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.htm...

"Any or all of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent."

If you believe the US Copyright Office is incorrect, please cite the appropriate case and/or references.
03 Oct, 2006, KaVir wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Justice said:
It's my personal view that builders are volunteer workers for the MUD. As such, any and all work they provide belongs to the mud specifically.


Your personal view is not backed up by the law. Unless your builder is an employee (as defined under the common law of agency) or has explicitly signed away their rights (for example, via a work-for-hire agreement) then they are the copyright holder.

See: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.htm...

And: http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/ownershi...

Justice said:
This prevents issues with say… a disgruntled builder demanding you remove their areas from the mud. It also ensures that the staff of the game can modify the area at will for various reasons including balance and theme.


Well you don't need exclusive rights or the copyright for that - you could get them to give you a nonexclusive licence.

Justice said:
This assumes of course that the builder has not already copyrighted their material before adding it to the mud. In which case, I would probably decline their offer to build.


They copyright it the moment they write it - it's automatic.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.htm...

"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work."
03 Oct, 2006, Splork wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
In the old days, we used to have new Immortals sign over their areas to us via email. To be honest, we always knew it was not legally binding. But some of us still make a gentleman's agreement and can abide by them.

Now to paraphrase what we say: "Build us an area. Please do not add it elsewhere. If you do, we will either greatly modify it or remove it entirely."

Strangely enough, I don't think we have had a problem yet.

Splork
03 Oct, 2006, Davion wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Couldn't you put something along the lines of "In building for us, you sign over all rights for your area to us." and that be legally binding? Or hell, what if you're in another country with different copyright laws, are you still legally bound to the US Laws?
03 Oct, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir, I think you're misundertsanding what that paragraph is saying. It lays out two requirements for a copyright transfer to be valid.

1. in writing
2. signed by the owner of the rights

1. In Writing and In Print are not the same. A digital contract is still "in writing" because its not verbal. Its been written down, even if not printed. It is material, defined, prepared.

2. A digital signature means its signed. It doesn't say the signature has to be written. As of June of 2000 the digital signature in all but specifically laid out exceptions(hazardous materials, living wills, ect) carries the full weight of a written signature.
03 Oct, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
Couldn't you put something along the lines of "In building for us, you sign over all rights for your area to us." and that be legally binding? Or hell, what if you're in another country with different copyright laws, are you still legally bound to the US Laws?


There are some international standards. While they hold very little weight, the assumption that people don't have to follow copyright laws in other countries is abserd because those countries almost surely have their own copyright laws which usually allow for agreement with foreign laws. The UCC(Universal Copyright Convention) guarantees the rights of creators in other countries and has been around since the 50s.

And as for just putting "In building for us, yada yada yada.", its not legally enough. But want to know a secret? When they build, you've got the area files, which along with a well written letter will prevent any professional host from running areas they take somewhere else and there's very little chance they'd get anywhere telling you you can't edit their areas.
03 Oct, 2006, Justice wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Justice said:
It's my personal view that builders are volunteer workers for the MUD. As such, any and all work they provide belongs to the mud specifically.


Your personal view is not backed up by the law. Unless your builder is an employee (as defined under the common law of agency) or has explicitly signed away their rights (for example, via a work-for-hire agreement) then they are the copyright holder.

See: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.htm...

And: http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/ownershi...


Having just read both of those sites, I would have to disagree.

First, an area itself can be considered a collective work, being useless by itself. It requires the mud to run it (which I write), and often depends on the work of other builders, admins, etc.

Second, an agreement is made between myself and the builders detailing that they are working for the mud.

This constitutes "work for hire" and therefore the copywrite is held by the mud, and not the builder. I do not hold an exclusive copyright however, as I said, I always give access to the area to the builder so they can reuse their work as they see fit.

According to both sites you presented, I am well within my rights.
03 Oct, 2006, KaVir wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Brinson said:
2. A digital signature means its signed. It doesn't say the signature has to be written. As of June of 2000 the digital signature in all but specifically laid out exceptions(hazardous materials, living wills, ect) carries the full weight of a written signature.


E-Sign applies to transactions in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, with "transaction" defined as "an action or set of actions relating to the conduct of business, consumer, or commercial affairs between two or more persons".

Even if it were to apply to the transfer of copyrights (which I've yet to see any evidence of), it's not going to apply to a non-commercial mud. Nor is it internationally accepted.
03 Oct, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
I'd also like to post this which proves esign applies to contracts:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/...
03 Oct, 2006, KaVir wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Justice said:
First, an area itself can be considered a collective work, being useless by itself. It requires the mud to run it (which I write), and often depends on the work of other builders, admins, etc.


I assume you mean the mud would be a compilation, with the area being one of its parts?

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1...

"The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."

Justice said:
This constitutes "work for hire" and therefore the copywrite is held by the mud, and not the builder.


It's only a work-for-hire under two conditions:

1. The builder is your employee, as defined under the common law of agency.

2. The builder signed a work-for-hire agreement.

Justice said:
I do not hold an exclusive copyright however, as I said, I always give access to the area to the builder so they can reuse their work as they see fit.


There are "copyrights" and there are "exclusive rights", but there are no "exclusive copyrights".

Justice said:
According to both sites you presented, I am well within my rights.


So your builders actually signed work-for-hire agreements?
03 Oct, 2006, KaVir wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Brinson said:
I'd also like to post this which proves esign applies to contracts:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/...


You have a contract with your builders?

How much do you pay them for each area?
03 Oct, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
My builders in the past have.

Currently, all of the things I am working on are open source, so I don't think its necessary, but when I worked on MOOs a while back my builders signed work-for-hire agreements elctronically. I'm a tight ass when it comes to areas. As much as the area was created by the player its a product of the world and part of the enviroment of my mud. When someone else rips it out of context and puts it in some Hack and Slash mud, that's an insult to the world I'm creating, so I take precautions to ensure it doesn't happen. I want a mud with an all original, custom world. My areas won't be ran into anywhere else.


Edit: since when does a contract require a fiscal transaction? My contracts in the past have guaranteed builders be properly credited in all the right places and also lays out the situations upon which, if the mud should fail to be online for a set amount of time, I relinquish the copyright to the builder.
03 Oct, 2006, KaVir wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Brinson said:
since when does a contract require a fiscal transaction?


It requires "consideration" - a mutual exchange, of something of value.

And no, giving them an "immortal character" doesn't count.
03 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Care to share a copy of one of those contracts so that, if they are as good as you say, others can benefit from them too?
03 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Brinson said:
since when does a contract require a fiscal transaction?


It requires "consideration" - a mutual exchange, of something of value.

And no, giving them an "immortal character" doesn't count.


So what would qualify as "something of value" then, if immortatlity (staff status and higher ranked position) with it's additional abilities and responsibilities doesn't? Other than money, that is.
03 Oct, 2006, Justice wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Justice said:
First, an area itself can be considered a collective work, being useless by itself. It requires the mud to run it (which I write), and often depends on the work of other builders, admins, etc.


I assume you mean the mud would be a compilation, with the area being one of its parts?


No, I don't actually. An area is composed of multiple rooms, objects, mobiles, scripts, templates, progs, resets, storyline, quests, etc. Quite often, some of these will be built by someone else… and quite often the areas will be edited. I encourage a mini-zone approach to building, where small sections are added over time. Most areas contain the work of several "builders". While you could possibly argue that each individual is a copyright holder, they are each volunteer workers, the majority of whom have made an agreement with me as the mud owner.

KaVir said:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1...

"The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."

See above.

KaVir said:
Justice said:
This constitutes "work for hire" and therefore the copywrite is held by the mud, and not the builder.


It's only a work-for-hire under two conditions:

1. The builder is your employee, as defined under the common law of agency.

2. The builder signed a work-for-hire agreement.


1. Uh, not according to copyright.gov that you're using for information.
Quote
if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.

The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.


2. Because I've already addressed this twice, I'm going to assume you're simply being argumentative.
03 Oct, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Unfortunately, I no longer have my old contract because this was 3 or 4 years ago, but I'm considering writing up another one accomponied by a php script which enables Digital Signing which meets the criteria of the E-Sign Act.

And what's considerible value? The credit in the help files, area files, areas, ect. They are trading their work for a bit "fame" as it were.
03 Oct, 2006, KaVir wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
Justice said:
An area is composed of multiple rooms, objects, mobiles, scripts, templates, progs, resets, storyline, quests, etc. Quite often, some of these will be built by someone else… and quite often the areas will be edited. I encourage a mini-zone approach to building, where small sections are added over time. Most areas contain the work of several "builders". While you could possibly argue that each individual is a copyright holder, they are each volunteer workers, the majority of whom have made an agreement with me as the mud owner.


Then either they each own the copyright to their own parts, or (if they all agreed in advance) they own a joint copyright to the area file. Unless they explicitly signed away their rights, of course.

Justice said:
KaVir said:
Justice said:
This constitutes "work for hire" and therefore the copywrite is held by the mud, and not the builder.


It's only a work-for-hire under two conditions:

1. The builder is your employee, as defined under the common law of agency.

2. The builder signed a work-for-hire agreement.


1. Uh, not according to copyright.gov that you're using for information.


Yes, it is - I already posted the link twice. You even included it in one of your quotes!

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.htm...

"In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author. Section 101 of the copyright law defines a “work made for hire” as:

* a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

* a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as: … if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire."
0.0/92