02 Nov, 2007, Guest wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
That's a nifty little program and intro you've got there.

As far as Lucas and fanfic, I've read in a few places that he's actually fine with it, and even encourages it to a large extent. I had some links to places where it's been documented that they're ok with it as long as you're not doing something to sully the name. But that also only pertains to the Star Wars part of it. John Williams might have some additional input on using the theme music he wrote and licensed to Lucas. So in that respect you might be on thin ice.
02 Nov, 2007, Zenn wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Question: What about a fictional world and the events described in the world? Are they copyrightable? Can I use those in my story?

Answer: It seems unlikely that a FanFic work would include no previous characters but it is not impossible to imagine. Take Tolkien's "Middle-earth" world for example: this world has been taken without the main characters and has been used in role playing games (RPGs) and video games (see the TSR example below). For these cases, it is important to remember that copyright does not extend to ideas. Therefore, incidents, settings or other elements which are indispensable, or at least standard, in the treatment of a given topic are ideas and cannot be copyrighted. For example, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that "elements such as drunks, prostitutes, vermin and derelict cars would appear in any realistic work about the work of policemen in the South Bronx." These "scenes a faire" are therefore unprotected. Likewise, the Seventh Circuit has held that mazes, tunnels and scoring tables are unprotected under the scenes a faire doctrine in video games like Duke Nukem.


(So if this is correct a Star Wars MUD itself is legal. As for the intro, you guys have a point)



EDIT:
Question: How do companies usually react to FanFic?

Answer: Different companies have different methods in dealing with FanFic. Some, like Paramount Pictures, see that FanFic could actually help boost their sales and so encourage the writing of FanFic. Other companies are presumably waiting for more business information and legal clarity before making a decision. For example Universal, which owns the rights to Xena: the Warrior Princess, have yet to go after the numerous copyright violations involving what fans dub the "Xenaverse." The Universal approach is in sharp contrast to Fox Television and Viacom, both of whom resort to harsh cease-and-desist letters against unauthorized Web site creations by fans of such shows as "The X-Files," "Millennium" and "Star Trek."

In order for a corporation to win a cease-and-desist order against a FanFic author, it would have to prove that it was suffering financial damage, something that is hard to prove since much of FanFic actually helps boost sales. This has helped motivate companies to go after ISPs. Being caught in the middle of the battle, ISPs will often put pressure on the FanFIc authors in order to avoid liability, a decision which often leaves FanFic authors without any choice but to remove the supposedly offending material.
02 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
I think there is some confusion about just what it is that we are saying you are in risk of violating. It's not the general theme of space events and the like. It's precise characters, logos, music, etc.

Zenn said:
In order for a corporation to win a cease-and-desist order against a FanFic author, it would have to prove that it was suffering financial damage,

I am not sure this is true. Copyright is copyright, regardless of money being made or not. Even what you cite explicitly says so:
"For example Universal, which owns the rights to Xena: the Warrior Princess, have yet to go after the numerous copyright violations involving what fans dub the 'Xenaverse.' "
Violations are violations, free or not…


Incidentally, it would be good if you gave your sources, in addition to just pasting the text.
02 Nov, 2007, Conner wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
I did give the sources for everything I posted, it was in the left column. :wink:
05 Nov, 2007, Sandi wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
Zenn said:
Why would they use infinite resources to go after a tiny, free, text-based fan fiction that 99.999999999999999999999999999999 % people don't know about? (When there are so many other things out there that infringe on copyrights way more[if at all]?)

There's a difference between copyright law and trademark law. A trademark must be actively protected, or it can be lost to general usage.
05 Nov, 2007, Hades_Kane wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
Zenn, be careful about discussing "themed" MUDs in the MUDing community. Despite the fact it's an extremely tolerated thing within the community itself, you may find yourself quickly pounced on by many of the jackals in the community ready to find someway to inflate their ego by denouncing you as no better than people violating MUD licenses.

I haven't seen it happen here yet, but considering that many of the same people that post on The MUD Connector do so here, I caution you against trying to argue about the legality, the morality, or the sensibility in basing a MUD off of someone else's IP.
05 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
That's actually very interesting and hadn't occurred to me… It is interesting that people are so ready to denounce perceived MUD license violations, but don't think too much about IP questions for things like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc. themes.
06 Nov, 2007, Conner wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
Actually, from what I've seen over at TMC, the same folks who are always poised to attack regarding mud license violations are usually equally ready to jump on potential theme/IP violations too. :shrug:
06 Nov, 2007, Guest wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
I caution you against trying to argue about the legality, the morality, or the sensibility in basing a MUD off of someone else's IP.


It's a perfectly legitimate issue to cover if someone is clearly violating someone else's IP. Lucas has made it fairly clear that he hasn't got a problem with fanfic in all sorts of forms. He even encourages folks to do it right up to making short films based on the Star Wars universe, then holding contests to see who produced the best work. As far as I can remember from the article I read on it, he'll only come after you if you attempt to commercialize the results, or do something with the characters that tarnishes the reputation of the franchise. Which probably just means don't make SW porn.

Other companies are extremely restrictive about it, like Wizards of the Coast. Then you have companies like Tolkien, who apparently take no stance on it one way or the other.

In no circumstances does lack of action prevent a future infringement suit. Nor does operating something as fanfic for free absolve you of any wrongdoing in the matter. If the company says they don't want you operating a game using their IP, then the smart thing is to stop operating the game. There's no real sense in waiting to get sued, and it certainly doesn't make much sense to give people bad information about the consequences just because they're not making money at it.
06 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
In no circumstances does lack of action prevent a future infringement suit.

Actually, that's not true in the case of trademarks. If you know about and fail to take action regarding significant trademark violation, you run the risk of losing the trademark. See the Wikipedia article for a good starting point:

Quote
failure to (…) enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to become liable for an application for the removal from the register after a certain period of time on the grounds of "non-use".


It also does say that:
Quote
It is not necessary for a trademark owner to take enforcement action action against all infringement if it can be shown that the owner perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential.


So, in general, you do need to enforce your trademark, but it also seems that you don't have to go after every last violation.
06 Nov, 2007, Guest wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
Funny, I though this was a topic on copyright problems, why muddy the waters with trademark issues?
06 Nov, 2007, Zenn wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
Zenn, be careful about discussing "themed" MUDs in the MUDing community. Despite the fact it's an extremely tolerated thing within the community itself, you may find yourself quickly pounced on by many of the jackals in the community ready to find someway to inflate their ego by denouncing you as no better than people violating MUD licenses.


Let the idiots who have nothing better to do (A.K.A. The "Get-a-lifers") jump all over me, I don't care. :lol:

But this topic was originally meant to be for people rating the video. Heh, we might as well move it to the 'Legality Issues' forum.
06 Nov, 2007, Kayle wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
I don't see where trademarking would play a roll in this at all.. After browsing the Star Wars website, I see no trademark mentioned anywhere, only the copyright at the bottom:

Quote
© Lucasfilm 2007. All rights reserved.


EDIT: After further inspection, the Lucas Online graphic, at the very bottom is trademarked. But.. I still don't see where trademark law makes a difference. What I do see, is what appears at first glance to be David bringing issues with Samson over to MudBytes from Samson's blog.
06 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Funny, I though this was a topic on copyright problems, why muddy the waters with trademark issues?

Because it's relevant to a discussion about using somebody else's theme; not only that, but as you recall, we were talking about the issue of using trademarks like the Fox and Lucasfilm corporate identities in your own work.


EDIT: that, and just above, somebody had said "A trademark must be actively protected, or it can be lost to general usage", to which you replied that failure to enforce doesn't necessarily prevent future litigation.


And Kayle… seriously… how juvenile. Would you like me to start taking swipes at you here based on things you said there? :thinking: :shrug: whatever…
06 Nov, 2007, Kayle wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
By all means, David, take swipes at me. And it wasn't juvenile, I was pointing out what I saw and I quote:

Quote
at first glance


Are you saying I'm not allowed to point out things as they appear to me?
06 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
… you are encouraging me to take personal swipes at you …? :stare:
06 Nov, 2007, Guest wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
Maybe he's just looking to see how far you're planning to take it. Or perhaps he's just hoping to see you do something you apparently enjoy. I don't know, just a thought.
06 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
Take "it" – what? How did a discussion about copyright/trademark get turned into this goading game? Sigh…
06 Nov, 2007, Hades_Kane wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
Just about any discussion about copyright, trademark, IP, license violations, etc. turns into a load of BS. It really shouldn't surprise you :p
07 Nov, 2007, Cratylus wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
As a discussion of MUDs grows longer, the probability of an Intellectual Property tangent dominating the thread approaches one.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
20.0/45