04 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 42nd comment:
Brinson said:
If someone's stolen my areas? My world? My blood? My brainchild?
I wonder if the Adobe programmers you've been ripping off have similar feelings about the $700 you stole from them….
04 Oct, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 43rd comment:
It is very seldom that two situations are actually indentical and your persistance that those two are is astounding. They, clearly, have a number of differences.
Adobe's products are freely available, where as my areas are never intended to be released. If I hacked adobe's site, stole their beta and started selling it as "Brinson Editor 1.0", then yeah, sure, its the same. But I'm not doing that. That's the difference between a 1% chance of a couple hundred dollar fine and a 90% chance of a multi-million dollar lawsuit.
Its much more comparable to someone coming by my areas but just toying with them and examining the code and how it was made. Having fun with it. But that's STILL not the same because my areas are private property.
Adobe's products are freely available, where as my areas are never intended to be released. If I hacked adobe's site, stole their beta and started selling it as "Brinson Editor 1.0", then yeah, sure, its the same. But I'm not doing that. That's the difference between a 1% chance of a couple hundred dollar fine and a 90% chance of a multi-million dollar lawsuit.
Its much more comparable to someone coming by my areas but just toying with them and examining the code and how it was made. Having fun with it. But that's STILL not the same because my areas are private property.
04 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 44th comment:
Adobe's programs are private property as well. They aren't owned by the government and they're not a communal resource. And the situation is very much the same. You'd sue someone who stole your areas, as a copyright violation. Adobe would sue you for pirating their program, as a copyright violation. The same body of law with the same penalties for violation.
04 Oct, 2006, Justice wrote in the 45th comment:
KaVir said:
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.
KaVir, I've already stated 3 times now… That they have made an agreement with me. Either you don't have a clue what you're talking about… lack the necessary comprehension level… or are simply choosing to ignore it.
KaVir said:
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."
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."
Perhaps you should read this a little more closely. You may not think my agreement constitutes a "work for hire", however, I've been assured by legal councel that it is.
Perhaps you're getting hung up on the term "employee". Employment does not require payment. In fact, volunteer and employee are often used interchangably in law. Having worked as a volunteer for many religious and non-profit organizations, I've been exposed to this before. If I produce a literary pamphlet for the church for example, it belongs to the church in question, despite the lack of payment.
04 Oct, 2006, KaVir wrote in the 46th comment:
Justice said:
KaVir, I've already stated 3 times now… That they have made an agreement with me. Either you don't have a clue what you're talking about… lack the necessary comprehension level… or are simply choosing to ignore it.
And I've already provided the link three times which points out that your agreement is not legally valid without a signature.
Justice said:
Perhaps you should read this a little more closely. You may not think my agreement constitutes a "work for hire", however, I've been assured by legal councel that it is.
If they've signed the agreement prior to working for you, sure.
Justice said:
Perhaps you're getting hung up on the term "employee". Employment does not require payment.
Even if there is payment, they might not be classified as an employee.
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/ownershi...
"The determination of whether an individual is an employee for the purposes of the work made for hire doctrine is determined under "the common law of agency." What this means is that courts will look at various factors to determine whether the individual is an employee, such as:
* the control exerted by the employer over the employee (i.e., the employee's schedule and the hiring of the employee's assistants);
* the control exerted by the employer over how and where the work is done;
* the supplying of equipment for the employee's use; and
* the payment of benefits and the withholding of taxes. "
Do you control your builders' working hours? Do you provide them with a desk and office? Do you provide them with a computer? Do you pay them salary and handle their taxes?
Even if you answered 'yes' to all of the above, they still might not be employees. But I'm guess the answer is 'no' to all of them.
Your builders are not employees. They could sign a work-for-hire agreement, but they are not employees.
08 Oct, 2006, Xorith wrote in the 47th comment:
All I want to know is where's this commercial MUD with forced sex and satanic sheep? Just what I've been looking for to drum up my interest again!
Anywho, be careful when you start touting the word "employee" around. I direct you to this article about a lawsuit back in 2000: http://archive.salon.com/tech/log/2000/0...
While the situation is quite different, with a not-for-profit MUD and a lot less of a workload, the issue still remains. What I mean is if you go through the trouble of making your MUD a legal entity, capable of owning the work your volunteers put into it, they may not consider themselves volunteers anymore. Especially when deadlines and whatnot creep into the mix. It'd be much less of a headache to simply work out an agreement where you are granted the right to use the material they create, but not the right to control it. I'd also never work for someone who wanted to own everything I contribute. If you're so horny on having a unique game, then do it properly. Contracts, NDAs, you name it - otherwise you're just pissing into the wind really.
This is one major reason why my days of offering free work are over. :) Everyone's so wrapped up in who owns what, they fail to realize what they're actually getting. Professional work, for instance, isn't cheap. If I write something for you, code or otherwise, then you best understand the real dollar amount that work is worth. The fact that you're getting it for free should be good enough for you, but to want to own it as well? You're out of your tree.
– Xorith
Anywho, be careful when you start touting the word "employee" around. I direct you to this article about a lawsuit back in 2000: http://archive.salon.com/tech/log/2000/0...
While the situation is quite different, with a not-for-profit MUD and a lot less of a workload, the issue still remains. What I mean is if you go through the trouble of making your MUD a legal entity, capable of owning the work your volunteers put into it, they may not consider themselves volunteers anymore. Especially when deadlines and whatnot creep into the mix. It'd be much less of a headache to simply work out an agreement where you are granted the right to use the material they create, but not the right to control it. I'd also never work for someone who wanted to own everything I contribute. If you're so horny on having a unique game, then do it properly. Contracts, NDAs, you name it - otherwise you're just pissing into the wind really.
This is one major reason why my days of offering free work are over. :) Everyone's so wrapped up in who owns what, they fail to realize what they're actually getting. Professional work, for instance, isn't cheap. If I write something for you, code or otherwise, then you best understand the real dollar amount that work is worth. The fact that you're getting it for free should be good enough for you, but to want to own it as well? You're out of your tree.
– Xorith
08 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 48th comment:
Hi Xorith, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not looking for ownership of the things that have been coded or built for me (though I won't turn it down if you want to go that route), just rights to use and redistribute as I see fit without fear of having you come back years from now and demand that I remove it, especially if I've already released and distributed it. On the other hand, if I ever go commercial, I suppose I'll have a whole slew of other separate issues to become concerned with.
08 Oct, 2006, Skol wrote in the 49th comment:
Xorith, two words… you rock.
Heh, I loved that statement.
Conner brings up a good point though on areas, a consent to bundle them if the mud is released as a deriv etc. Way my mud does it is the builder is building it for our mud, but they can have a copy of their area emailed to them if they want too. They can do what they want with it, but we retain the right to do what we want with it as well (including changes etc). I have yet to have anyone want an area removed after they've left, although I have removed areas. I think if it's built on a mud, for that mud, you're generally pretty safe using it. But heck, I'm no shyster :)
Heh, I loved that statement.
Conner brings up a good point though on areas, a consent to bundle them if the mud is released as a deriv etc. Way my mud does it is the builder is building it for our mud, but they can have a copy of their area emailed to them if they want too. They can do what they want with it, but we retain the right to do what we want with it as well (including changes etc). I have yet to have anyone want an area removed after they've left, although I have removed areas. I think if it's built on a mud, for that mud, you're generally pretty safe using it. But heck, I'm no shyster :)
18 Oct, 2006, JWideman wrote in the 50th comment:
Well, if your MUD is based on books or films, then the areas are all derivative works, owned by the copyright owner for the material in question.
18 Oct, 2006, KaVir wrote in the 51st comment:
Copyright owners can restrict the publishing of derivative works based on their material, but they do not receive ownership of those works. That's why many authors return submissions unread (I'm sure you've heard of the "Darkover" case - see here).
I'd also consider each area a separate work - if you have a Lord of the Rings theme, then your Shire (described to look like the Shire from the books) might well be a derivative work, but a generic fantasy village which you've inserted somewhere else in the world would not be.
I'd also consider each area a separate work - if you have a Lord of the Rings theme, then your Shire (described to look like the Shire from the books) might well be a derivative work, but a generic fantasy village which you've inserted somewhere else in the world would not be.
19 Oct, 2006, Skol wrote in the 52nd comment:
Jwide, a derivative work in that sense would be taking an author's outline for a chapter and his rought draft, then reworking it into a new draft.
Much like writing a mud from scratch vs rewriting existing code in place. The second method is always a derivative, the first is not. Using the names and places however, does derive those from the first. However, you'll find much overlap. Heck, looking at Dragonlance for example, Chislev, and many other names are biblical or of ancient origin. The original concept was based off of Tolkien's work (per Tracy Hickman in his news letter). So does that make his works (Dragonlance) a derivative of Tolkien… a derivative of old English folklore and works such as Sigfried etc…. It never really ends, the question is how much of an original is the work in question.
Authors do retain trademarks and such, but as KaVir pointed out, if I write a prose about Han Solo… Lucas doesn't own the work. Hickman flat out tells people he can NOT look at their works due to them potentially coming back at him if he uses a similar idea (except in workshops where I assume a special waiver is signed). I'm sure the case is the same with other famous authors as well.
Much like writing a mud from scratch vs rewriting existing code in place. The second method is always a derivative, the first is not. Using the names and places however, does derive those from the first. However, you'll find much overlap. Heck, looking at Dragonlance for example, Chislev, and many other names are biblical or of ancient origin. The original concept was based off of Tolkien's work (per Tracy Hickman in his news letter). So does that make his works (Dragonlance) a derivative of Tolkien… a derivative of old English folklore and works such as Sigfried etc…. It never really ends, the question is how much of an original is the work in question.
Authors do retain trademarks and such, but as KaVir pointed out, if I write a prose about Han Solo… Lucas doesn't own the work. Hickman flat out tells people he can NOT look at their works due to them potentially coming back at him if he uses a similar idea (except in workshops where I assume a special waiver is signed). I'm sure the case is the same with other famous authors as well.
19 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 53rd comment:
Hmm, on a related tangent.. how do authors avoid the works of others that they've read before they became a write from influencing their work enough to not have to worry about the same problems you're talking about from fan fiction but from the authors they've read?
19 Oct, 2006, Skol wrote in the 54th comment:
It is a big problem sometimes, I guess that's what editors are for hehe.
Look at Dan Brown and his DaVinci Code… although he made it through it, people claimed he had taken their works as the basis for his as well.
Look at Dan Brown and his DaVinci Code… although he made it through it, people claimed he had taken their works as the basis for his as well.
19 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 55th comment:
I know I've always wanted to write a few books myself, but I've certainly read enough sci-fi/fantasy that it'd be really hard to be certain that my ideas didn't at least have influences from lots of other authors too. :sad:
19 Oct, 2006, Justice wrote in the 56th comment:
KaVir said:
If they've signed the agreement prior to working for you, sure.
Considering I've already covered this 4 times… I'm going to assume you're ignorant.
KaVir said:
Even if there is payment, they might not be classified as an employee.
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/ownershi...
"The determination of whether an individual is an employee for the purposes of the work made for hire doctrine is determined under "the common law of agency." What this means is that courts will look at various factors to determine whether the individual is an employee, such as:
* the control exerted by the employer over the employee (i.e., the employee's schedule and the hiring of the employee's assistants);
* the control exerted by the employer over how and where the work is done;
* the supplying of equipment for the employee's use; and
* the payment of benefits and the withholding of taxes. "
Do you control your builders' working hours? Do you provide them with a desk and office? Do you provide them with a computer? Do you pay them salary and handle their taxes?
Even if you answered 'yes' to all of the above, they still might not be employees. But I'm guess the answer is 'no' to all of them.
Your builders are not employees. They could sign a work-for-hire agreement, but they are not employees.
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/ownershi...
"The determination of whether an individual is an employee for the purposes of the work made for hire doctrine is determined under "the common law of agency." What this means is that courts will look at various factors to determine whether the individual is an employee, such as:
* the control exerted by the employer over the employee (i.e., the employee's schedule and the hiring of the employee's assistants);
* the control exerted by the employer over how and where the work is done;
* the supplying of equipment for the employee's use; and
* the payment of benefits and the withholding of taxes. "
Do you control your builders' working hours? Do you provide them with a desk and office? Do you provide them with a computer? Do you pay them salary and handle their taxes?
Even if you answered 'yes' to all of the above, they still might not be employees. But I'm guess the answer is 'no' to all of them.
Your builders are not employees. They could sign a work-for-hire agreement, but they are not employees.
KaVir, after reading this, I've come to the conclusion that you're ignorant of what you're talking about. I work as a contractor. My clients do not control my work hours. They do not control who I associate with, or subcontract with. They do not provide me with tax with-holdings. They do not provide my work area.
They do however, have full rights to the work I produce for them.
It honestly appears to me that you're repeating "I'm right, you're wrong." Especially considering I've received legal counsel on the subject. Which BAR association are you a part of again?
19 Oct, 2006, KaVir wrote in the 57th comment:
Justice said:
KaVir, after reading this, I've come to the conclusion that you're ignorant of what you're talking about.
I came to that conclusion about you long ago, particularly considering I've repeatedly provided you with links to legal sources which back up my points, while you are just repeating the same nonsense.
Justice said:
I work as a contractor. My clients do not control my work hours. They do not control who I associate with, or subcontract with. They do not provide me with tax with-holdings. They do not provide my work area.
They do however, have full rights to the work I produce for them.
They do however, have full rights to the work I produce for them.
Once again, if you'd taken the time to actually read the links I provided, you'd have seen:
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/ownershi...
"In addition, software developers must be especially careful when hiring contract programmers. In order for the work of contract programmers to be considered a work made for hire, three facts must exist:
the program must be specially ordered or commissioned;
the contract retaining the programmer must be in writing and must explicitly say that the programs created under the agreement are to be considered a work made for hire; and
the program created must fall into one of the nine enumerated categories of work.
The first element will generally be true when the programmer is hired to work on a specific project. The second element can be met through careful drafting of contract programmer's retainer agreement. The third element, however, can be more difficult. Computer software programs are not one of the nine enumerated categories. The best bet is to fit the software program under the definition of an "audiovisual work." While some software programs are clearly audiovisual works, it is unclear whether courts will allow this phrase to include all computer software programs. Thus, a software developer cannot be sure whether the contract programmer is creating a work made for hire.
It is best to draft an agreement which reflects this uncertainty. The agreement should state that the work is a work made for hire. However, the agreement should also state that if the software is not considered a work made for hire, the contract programmer agrees to assign the copyright in the software to the software developer."
19 Oct, 2006, kiasyn wrote in the 58th comment:
audiovisual works… what about something like.. apache, thats not audio or visual, its a backgroudn service :D
19 Oct, 2006, Justice wrote in the 59th comment:
KaVir said:
I came to that conclusion about you long ago, particularly considering I've repeatedly provided you with links to legal sources which back up my points, while you are just repeating the same nonsense.
Justice said:
KaVir, after reading this, I've come to the conclusion that you're ignorant of what you're talking about.
I came to that conclusion about you long ago, particularly considering I've repeatedly provided you with links to legal sources which back up my points, while you are just repeating the same nonsense.
KaVir, once again I ask. Which Bar association are you a member of. I freely admit that I'm ignorant when it comes to certain details of law. The legal counsel I've received however was not. I've read the links you've referrenced repeatedly, and it's my opinion that MOST if not ALL of your arguments are irrelevant.
Until you can prove to me that you're less ignorant than the legal advice I've received, I'm going to assume you don't know what you're talking about.
Edit: I find it interesting that nowhere on bitlaw is this "common law of agency" described. In fact it clearly states that the list given is not exhaustive. It's clear to me after reading the disclaimer that the site gives a very vague overview of copyright law, and suggests that you hire legal counsel. It even gives contact information for the law firm that hosts the site. Ironic isn't it? Vague legal advice and information on how to contact them for more specific legal counsel. As ussual, follow the $$$.
19 Oct, 2006, Justice wrote in the 60th comment:
I should also point out BitLaw has a disclaimer:
Disclaimer: The legal analysis of any situation depends on a variety of factors which cannot be properly represented or accounted for on a web page. The information on the BitLaw web site is intended as general information only, and is not intended to serve as legal advice or as a substitute for legal counsel. If you have a question about a specific factual situation, you should contact an attorney directly. To find a qualified attorney, you should consult your local bar association or review the local yellow pages.
Disclaimer: The legal analysis of any situation depends on a variety of factors which cannot be properly represented or accounted for on a web page. The information on the BitLaw web site is intended as general information only, and is not intended to serve as legal advice or as a substitute for legal counsel. If you have a question about a specific factual situation, you should contact an attorney directly. To find a qualified attorney, you should consult your local bar association or review the local yellow pages.
Random Picks
I don't use builders, but I've used the same approach for giving other people permission to use a codebase. I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if they tried to claim that they now owned my copyright, however.
To be legally sufficient, consideration for a promise must be legally detrimental to the promisee or legally beneficial to the promisor. In some countries the requirements are even stricter (in the UK, for example, the consideration requires something of actual economic value).
If you paid them $0.01 for their area, there would be consideration - they get money (a legal benefit). If you agreed never to run your mud commercially in return for their area, there would be consideration (but only if you normally had that right) - you'd have given up one of your rights (a legal detriment).
But I fail to see how leaving their name in the "author" section of the area file (something you're legally required to do) has any legal value. You're not doing (or promising to do) something you're not legally obligated to do, nor are you refraining from doing (or promising to refrain from doing) something you are legally privileged to do.
But aren't you talking about stealing the builder's areas? I mean, they're the ones who have written those areas. Certainly, if they're from outside the US (or are minors) your arguments would not apply - and even for adults within the US, I'm not convinced that they wouldn't still be the copyright holders.