09 Dec, 2009, Greyankh wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
I'm not sure if this belongs here, but it was, I think, the most closely related topic section for my question.

After scouring the internet for materials for my game development, I have found a couple of table-top RPG themes.

One theme I find the most comprehensive when it comes to source material and information is the Forgotten Realms, currently owned by Wizards of the Coast. Now, I would like to use the basic framework, such as cities, maps, pantheon, npc's and so forth. But I will be making modifications to that, since I would normally do this when I run it during a table-top session.

What are my legal obligations? Do I need to contact WotC and ask permission to use their material, or does the purchase of their reference material give me permission to use it in my world design? I do not plan to market, sell, or receive any monetary compensation. Nor would I add areas to the codebase if I decided to share it with the mud community.

If this is the wrong place for this, I apologize. I just wanted some input from my peers.
Grey
09 Dec, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
You need to contact them and ask permission, but I can tell you right now that they won't give it. In fact I'd be surprised if they reply at all.
09 Dec, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
If the material is copyrighted then you will need permission to copy or adapt it for your own work. You should check the material itself to see what permissions exist as it's possible they allow use within a campaign setting or something like that, which may or may not cover what you want to do with it. If it's a case of "All rights reserved" then you should contact WoTC and ask permission. That's what you should do anyway. I would guess the majority of MUDs that base themselves on tabletop RPGs, books, movies or TV shows don't have permission from the copyright holder and nobody seems to mind. As long as you include the diku credits you should be fine ;)
09 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
It's a funny question IMO because purchasing D&D "adventure packs" that take place in that world clearly give you the right as a DM to run campaigns in that world using the tabletop RPG framework. But I agree with KV and Orrin that this doesn't give you the automatic legal right to run a MUD based on it. I guess the distinction is that the MUD is far more "open to the public" and a permanent republishing of some sort.

To be fully compliant, yes, you'd have to get permission. I don't think anybody would bother suing you if you didn't (unless you became a big enough fish) but that's a different story. As Orrin said, the vast majority of MUDs that use another theme don't have official permission. LucasArts/Film tends to put up with fan fiction, etc., to some extent, so I think that SW MUDs are a slight exception in that (as long as they remain small) they have some form of implicit permission or at least a tacit agreement that LA/LF won't go after them if they're non-commercial and small enough.
09 Dec, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
LucasArts/Film tends to put up with fan fiction, etc., to some extent, so I think that SW MUDs are a slight exception in that (as long as they remain small) they have some form of implicit permission or at least a tacit agreement that LA/LF won't go after them if they're non-commercial and small enough.

Lucas are unusual in that they have explicitly given permission for fan works, see this article for example.
09 Dec, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Is it because a mud is a game? As far as being public, a mud won't get nearly as much traffic
as say a blog. There are millions of interactive blogs out there about copyrighted material, where users
can express there opinions openly, and legally. Also, how many chat rooms are out there that discuss
movies, games, tv shows? A mud is obviously much more than a simple chat room, but where are these
laws written? Or rather, where can one gain access to review the laws in detail?

If I threw a play based on star trek in my backyard, would it be technically illegal?
09 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Orrin said:
Lucas are unusual in that they have explicitly given permission for fan works, see this article for example.

Yeah… I was thinking from a few years ago, when they weren't always too happy about people doing too much with modding their games or making SW total conversions of other games. For example, here's an interesting quote:

An article on Game Chronicles said:
Star Wars was now a hot property for modification teams everywhere, and LucasArts, sensing the change in the wind, began to enforce their legal suzerainty, threatening legal action against mod teams and web sites whose content appeared to infringe upon their trademarks.


This is pretty consistent with the general impression I got back when I was quite active in the SW modding community ('97-'02 or something like that).

I had heard that they'd changed, but it's nice to get more official confirmation of it.

JohnnyStarr said:
Or rather, where can one gain access to review the laws in detail?

There are several pages around that are introductions to copyright law; if you just google for "copyright law" you'll get a lot of material.
The basic principle is that there is a notion of "fair use" – it's ok to discuss copyrighted material "within reason" if you're criticizing or commenting on it. It's ok to quote said material when making said commentary. It's not ok to quote the whole work to comment on it, in almost all cases.

But, basically, the general idea is that if somebody else did it, you need a pretty good reason to be able to reproduce it without their permission.

Quote
If I threw a play based on star trek in my backyard, would it be technically illegal?

Yes, I think so, especially if you used any of the characters from the books/movies/shows/etc.
09 Dec, 2009, Greyankh wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
I probably will contact them.

As previously stated, there are many, many, muds out there that I believe do not have permission. The Wheel of Time genre, DragonBall Z, and a load of others.

I felt that, since I purchased the material, am not selling it, or reproducing it for profit, I should be able to use it in a manner I choose. Once I accept money for the material, then I would be violating the specific clauses.

Now, I fortunately, have an out. Since I am a licensed educator, highly qualified(Under the NCLB Act), I am allowed to reproduce, copy, and use 80% of any material as long as I maintain it as an educational use. Therefore, I shall be making my game as an educational game. All I need to do, is give credit to the source, which I plan to do anyway. I will have a command <credits> which will list all the materials and sources I use, along with special thanks to the people here, for offering your insights and help.

Grey
09 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Greyankh said:
As previously stated, there are many, many, muds out there that I believe do not have permission. The Wheel of Time genre, DragonBall Z, and a load of others.

I felt that, since I purchased the material, am not selling it, or reproducing it for profit, I should be able to use it in a manner I choose.

What you feel you should be allowed to do and what you are actually allowed to do are not necessarily the same thing. And just because others are breaking the law doesn't make it ok for another person to break the law. That said, I agree that the general sentiment of people here is that it is ok, if you're doing it for free etc.

Greyankh said:
Now, I fortunately, have an out. Since I am a licensed educator, highly qualified(Under the NCLB Act), I am allowed to reproduce, copy, and use 80% of any material as long as I maintain it as an educational use. Therefore, I shall be making my game as an educational game.

I think that to state that something is for educational purposes, it has to actually be for educational purposes, ne? Anyhoo, I think this would only matter in a court of law; I don't think the community will be upset with you if you use some D&D setting.

(An important lesson when discussing legal matters in the community is that repercussions from the court of public opinion can be far worse than repercussions from the court of law, mainly because it's very unlikely that somebody will care enough to actually sue you.)
09 Dec, 2009, Barm wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Quote
If I threw a play based on star trek in my backyard, would it be technically illegal?

Yes, I think so, especially if you used any of the characters from the books/movies/shows/etc.


Not 'illegal', that implies you are violating the law. It would be copyright (and probably trademark) infringement which is (normally) a civil matter, i.e. they have grounds to sue because of the grave financial harm imposed by your unauthorized public performance of an unlicensed derivative work; Red Shirt Guy Diaries.
09 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
I think that the distinction between "violating the law" and "infringing upon copyright law" is tenuous at best.

Civil law is still law, even though it's not criminal law…
09 Dec, 2009, Greyankh wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
(An important lesson when discussing legal matters in the community is that repercussions from the court of public opinion can be far worse than repercussions from the court of law, mainly because it's very unlikely that somebody will care enough to actually sue you.)


I totally agree.
09 Dec, 2009, Barm wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
I think that the distinction between "violating the law" and "infringing upon copyright law" is tenuous at best.

Civil law is still law, even though it's not criminal law…


Respectfully David, I strongly disagree. It makes me damn near cry when people refer to EULAs (which are abusive, one-sided wishlists of surrendered rights otherwise provided for and protected by consumer law) as 'contracts' and not heeding them as 'illegal'. Kids are getting brainwashed into thinking DIsney can print legislation.
09 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Barm said:
Respectfully David, I strongly disagree. It makes me damn near cry when people refer to EULAs (which are abusive, one-sided wishlists of surrendered rights otherwise provided for and protected by consumer law) as 'contracts' and not heeding them as 'illegal'.

I didn't say that the contract itself was law (we weren't talking about EULAs and contracts…?). Indeed, contracts and EULAs are not laws. But, copyright law is law. That is the basis on which (civil, yes) courts determine that you did or did not violate copyright law. I am not sure what distinction you are trying to draw between "violating the law" and "infringing upon copyright law".
09 Dec, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Greyankh said:
As previously stated, there are many, many, muds out there that I believe do not have permission. The Wheel of Time genre, DragonBall Z, and a load of others.

Some have permission, some don't. Those that don't run the risk of being shut down by the copyright holders. The question is, are you willing to take that risk as well?
09 Dec, 2009, Greyankh wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Great question.

My answer: No. And I say this not because I fear being shut down, or sued. I just do not wish to compromise my integrity for a game or hobby. I will do the right thing, because it is the right thing.

Grey
09 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
I commend you for that attitude, for whatever that's worth.
09 Dec, 2009, Barm wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
I am not sure what distinction you are trying to draw between "violating the law" and "infringing upon copyright law".


Because infringement is not a criminal act and people do not get sent to jai for it … (deep breath) … except when, like many such delicately nuanced topics, it is. Here I'm referring to specific laws regarding criminal infringement, e.g. Greyankh selling pirate copies of a Star Trek movie. There's no law that says, "Greyankh may not write a play about Star Trek." It's up to the estate of Gene Roddenberry or Paramount Studios to initiate a civil action and convince a judge or jury that his use was improper and seek civil damages (if any). There are scenarios where he could legitimately write his play.

Calling it 'illegal' is incorrect.

Edit: Please don't read into this that I'm endorsing copyright infringement. I'm not.
09 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Barm said:
Because infringement is not a criminal act and people do not get sent to jai for it

Something can be against civil law without being criminally illegal, and without anybody going to jail for anything. If your claim is that "illegal" == "criminally illegal", that clears up the distinction you're trying to draw (civil vs. criminal court cases), although I don't agree with that overly narrow definition of "illegal".

Civil courts don't make decisions that feel good; they make decisions based on the law. The only "convincing" to be done is that an act is not in accordance with the law. (Note that this is what criminal courts do too: prosecution must "convince" the judge/jury that the culprit actually did something and that it's actually against the law; defense must "convince" the judge/jury either that the culprit didn't do it or that it's not actually against the law.)

Barm said:
There's no law that says, "Greyankh may not write a play about Star Trek." It's up to the estate of Gene Roddenberry or Paramount Studios to initiate a civil action and convince a judge or jury that his use was improper and seek civil damages (if any).

There's also no law that says specifically that "Ed the Evil may not murder George the Good"; it's up to "the people" (i.e., the state) to bring a murder charge against Ed and prove that Ed actually murdered George and that it falls under the law making murder illegal, that this murder was improper and to seek criminal penalties (if any).

There is however a law that creates copyright and a whole bunch of law (or legal precedent) for which usages are proper and which aren't. There doesn't have to be a specific law for every person and every work. (That's the great thing about logical quantifiers! They work on everybody…)

Anyhow, your main argument seems to be that things are only illegal if they may be tried in a criminal court, and I respectfully think this definition is wholly incorrect.
09 Dec, 2009, Barm wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Anyhow, your main argument seems to be that things are only illegal if they may be tried in a criminal court, and I respectfully think this definition is wholly incorrect.


I am not a Lionel Hutz-style 'law-talking-guy', but I think 'illegal' means the violation of a statute where copyright infringement would be a civil-wrong or 'tort'. However trying to google it make my head spin.
0.0/93