I don't know if this is relevant or not. But by you guys posting on this site, do you hold the copyright to each invidual post? And if so, could you revoke your copyright, forcing us to remove all your posts? If not, then how is this different than building an area? You are using the UI I created for you to put in descriptions. You are using my templates for mobs and objects. Balancing your area based on how the world is setup. Maybe you are using some automatically generated descriptions that I wrote, etc etc.

No, that is most likely a requirement for using their copyrighted work - preexisting duty does not count as consideration. If they didn't request giving them credit, and you gave it anyway, that wouldn't count either - it would count as a gift.

Consideration requires (1) a bargain regarding terms of an exchange, (2) a mutual exchange, and (3) the exchange must be something of value.

Yes. However we can quote each other under the 'fair use' doctrine.



In theory, yes, however you'd have extremely good grounds for claiming an implied licence to leave the post where it is - after all, we're the ones who put our copyrighted work there!

However imagine you ran this site for several years, then one day archived up all the posts and snippets, printed them in the back of a book about the history of muds, and sold it for lots of money. You might find some of the posters taking you to court for their fair share!

Couldn't the implied license be used with area's as well? Since they are the ones whom added it there.

Nice, Davion.. and a very good point too. Personally, I'd think that the individual posts are part of the collective of the forum. On the other hand, if I were to get a request from a member of my forums to remove all of their posts, I would need a rather strong reason not to be perfectly willing to comply with thier request. Not that I'd expect Kyndig, for example, to feel that way about his forums.. *shrug*

In my personal opinion, yes, in most situations that would be perfectly reasonable.

However you wouldn't own the copyright to the area, meaning the builder could give out licences to other muds as well. Were they to sell their copyright (or even an exclusive licence) to a commercial mud, you might find your implied licence looking very shaky. Equally, should you one day decide to go commercial, you might find the builder asking for their cut.

So, basically what you're saying is that each builder, generally speaking (ie, unless countered in writing, etc), retains copyright to the areas they've built for your mud, but via implied license you could refuse to remove those areas upon request. Further, unless you've gotten their signature on a contract involving an exchange of value for those areas, they could sue you should you ever go commercial or alter their areas?

Nope - if I post one of my articles here, I don't lose the copyright. If I were to post one of my snippets, I won't lose the copyright. Equally, if I write a post here, there's nothing stopping me from cutting and pasting it to another mud discussion forum (although I couldn't legally post the replies from other people without their permission). The same applies to my mud listing - I use the same description on some other sites, and I'm perfectly within my rights to do so. You don't own my description of my mud, just because I posted it here.

Actually, that does make logical sense, KaVir, though I certainly never really considered it from that perspective before.

An implied licence is just a defence against a lawsuit, and it would really depend on the specific case. If you wrote an area for the builder's port of my fuzzy roleplaying mud, then I suddenly change the theme to something based on forced sexual encounters with satanic sheep and make the mud commercial, advertising it as having "the world design by Conner, Bubba and Buffo" I doubt my 'implied licence' claim would hold up so well.



You only need a mutual exchange of value for it to be a contact. You don't need that for a regular licence (for example, the Diku licence has no consideration and is therefore not a contract, but it still lets you use their work).

You don't need a signature for nonexclusive rights. You could get the builders to grant you a nonexclusive licence to use their work in any way you see fit, and then do whatever you liked with it (including using it for a commercial mud). But they would still be the copyright holder, and could take their work to another mud if they wished.

Ok, KaVir, I think I understand what you're saying now. So, legally speaking, what's the best approach to take regarding builder submissions then, in your opinion?

In my personal, non-legal-advice opinion? Get them to send you an email stating very clearly that they grant you a nonexclusive licence to copy, modify, distribute and display their work in any manner you please, as long as you list them in a publically-accessable way as the original author.

Of course that assumes you don't mind them taking copies of their work elsewhere. Some muds object to that, although it can be pretty annoying for the builder when the mud vanishes and takes all their work with it…

Personally, no, I don't mind if they also submit their areas elsewhere, in fact, if they ask, I'll be happy to provide a copy of their area file to them to be able to do just that with, though for most other muds they'd need to modify the area file format a bit once it has been installed on my mud because my area file format's far from stock now..

Have you found that most of the builders you've dealt with have been willing to go along with sending you such an email?

(and yes, I fully understand that I'm not asking for your professional legal advice that you may or may not be qualified to give but your strictly personal opinion of this legal issue as it matters to most of us who admin muds.)

I am currently working on getting a nice builder-agreement written up, which states that the data an all that fun stuff becomes the sole property of The Mud/Myself. However, i'm leaving in stipulation that if i should ever shut the mud down, that I am bound to release the source-code and area's to the builders.

This is my protection for them, so they can atleast know that, if the mud goes down, I am bound to give them a copy to the builders, solong as the EMAIL address that I have for them is still in use by them.

There is also part of the agreement that if I should release the mud publically, that I have all rights todo-so, so if I choose to release, I don't have to worry about builders not wanting their area's getting out, because they agree'd to it.

As for builders getting a copy of their work, they only get what they personaly keep in their own notepads, unless I ofcourse, as stated above, release publically, or shutdown the mud and give all the immortal-staff a copy of everything.

Its a work in progress, tis taking some time because i've been researching what all in the ways of laws I have to abide by.

Le sigh

Most likely? Gift?

What are you talking about.

I had my builders sign a contract via terms laid out in the E-Sign act which exchanged ownership of the area for proper acreditation. I owned the areas in all legal sense. The requirements for using their copyrighted work aren't predefined, I defined them IN the contract.

What steps would you take if a builder broke your "license"? I find it hard to believe you would actually track someone down and sue/threaten them for using an area on another mud…

I would find it even less likely a court would hear the case once they realized no monetary damages were involved for the breech.

I really wouldn't bother with the courts.

I'd send a letter to the hosting company, get the mud removed.(If I get one of my attorney friends/family to put their name on it. Amazing chance of removal)

If it were on person's pc, I'd contact the ISP.(Very good chance of cancelled service)

If that failed I'd whois them, get their info and send a letter to their house.(Scare the shit out of them)

If all that failed I might would consider legal actions. There are courts that would hear it. Reconstructing the area would be very difficult anyway without the are files(which I don't provide unless the mud is closing).

Boy, I guess the word 'harrassment' has no meaning at all to you.. :sad:

If someone's stolen my areas? My world? My blood? My brainchild? I'm uber pissed :mad: Areas are part of the world. My areas are usually crawling with mprogs. Characters who can tell you things about our history. Their personal life. Their opinion on the current events. Stealing an area is stealing a part of that world. Its an insult to the area as much as it is to the mud.

I want to clear up yet another misconception.

A work for hire contract isn't exactly a copyright transfer.

The contract is signed prior to beginning work. The builder never owned the work he was putting out. In fact, he isn't LEGALLY the author, the owner is.

This laid out in great detail here:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pd...

Simply put, under a work for hire agreement, no copyright law applies to the builder because the owner is considered the author.

And, btw, Consideration is very lenient in the legal sense. It doesn't have to be sizable. I actually just got back from dinner with an attorney friend of mine and asked him about it. He said that a trade for a million dollars for a pencil in your pocket is considered enough. Its really just to ensure SOMETHING is being given by both parties. I then specifically asked him if acreditation for the work in the work as well as in further distributions of the work could be considered that and he said yes.

Just to point out again the point of this post. From the moment a builder starts building under a work for hire agreement he not only has no copyright on the work, but is not even legally the author of the work. :mad: