Project Reality Forums

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:you would have to ask the creator, space.

or read the thread...I'm sorry I'm ranting. I will stop now.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:But we shouldn't really infer what reasoning Space is using imo as its a private matter until he decides it isn't. And at the end of the day, its his interlectual property and can use it how he sees fit.

And if he submits the map to the community he would lose control over the implementation (assets,factions,game modes and objectives) if I understand correctly. I'll keep an eye out for future events featuring the map on RT!

snooggums wrote:And if he submits the map to the community he would lose control over the implementation (assets,factions,game modes and objectives) if I understand correctly.

That shouldn't be possible as the map indeed is creators intellectual property. For altering it you would need creators permission. Of course it is possible for the community, or rather the Devs, to have their opinion about it and reject the design as it is, but that would be a matter between them.

This map is insanely beautiful.

fubar++ wrote:That shouldn't be possible as the map indeed is creators intellectual property. For altering it you would need creators permission. Of course it is possible for the community, or rather the Devs, to have their opinion about it and reject the design as it is, but that would be a matter between them.

You don't understand intellectual property, nor how maps are included in PR.

When the map is included in PR there are possible changes (flags,cap radius, assets) that have to be made to be included. Once included maps change, and several mapmakers have commented that they did not like what happened to their map (faction change etc) which shows that the mapper does lose the decision making control of their map. Maybe the Devs will remove a map at the request of the map maker, I don't know. They obviously don't take maps that aren't offered like in this case.

'Intellectual property' works do not automatically have value that causes them to be unusable by someone else. In the case of a free mod you would have to file a copyright on any work of art to be able to claim monetary losses higher than your actual loss. Actual loss on a free game is zero, unless there was a derived income that was based on the usage of that item and that loss was incurred by the free distribution. Most companies (like the RIAA) don't win these cases, but they can afford to take someone to court and make it easier to cheaper to settle out of court.

In the case of a game mod, all the map editor that made the map have a clause that all items made with the editor are actually the property of EA or Dice, not the individual who made the map. While this may not be legal when applied to custom statics (I'd like to see a paint manufacturer do the same) it would be enough of a legal barrier for the mapper to try to enforce a copyright on a game map, which is the only way it could be considered 'intellectual property'. If I downloaded Monchegorsk and ran it on a server against space's wishes I would be a ****, but I wouldn't need to worry about any kind of legal trouble.

That said, the approach does seem to be that the maps are only included when submitted, and I'm fairly certain they would remove a map at the request of a map maker. Don't need fancy intellectual property reasons when both sides simply respect the wishes of the other.

but I wouldn't need to worry about any kind of legal trouble.

but I doubt the PR team would renew your server license, I'm sure they would be appalled that a mapper's work was being disrespected in that way, even if that mapper isn't part of their own team

Interesting how this thread was all full of love and praise for Space, until you realised he wouldn't be publicly releasing it, and now it's just seething hate and bitterness

It's a fantastic map, and I'm sure it will fill up RT events brilliantly, I can't wait.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:but I doubt the PR team would renew your server license, I'm sure they would be appalled that a mapper's work was being disrespected in that way, even if that mapper isn't part of their own team

Actually the PR Server license will only stop you from running a non-standard PR version (changes in the maps for example) and custom maps on a non-passworded server.

What he does on a passworded server is none of our business.

I can see this is going a bit OT here but let's try be brief and clear - maybe if there is further need we should continue this in some other thread? I must admit that laws concerning intellectual property aren’t my specialty, but there are some general principles, which should be somewhat simple. You are of course free to correct me if I have misunderstood something.

snooggums wrote:When the map is included in PR there are possible changes (flags,cap radius, assets) that have to be made to be included. Once included maps change, and several mapmakers have commented that they did not like what happened to their map (faction change etc) which shows that the mapper does lose the decision making control of their map. Maybe the Devs will remove a map at the request of the map maker, I don't know. They obviously don't take maps that aren't offered like in this case.

That would still require permission from the maker. If it is done by offering the map free to use to the community without any specific terms, the permission would come out as concludent act. That is probably the most common way to do it when handing out maps to public use.

snooggums wrote:'Intellectual property' works do not automatically have value that causes them to be unusable by someone else. In the case of a free mod you would have to file a copyright on any work of art to be able to claim monetary losses higher than your actual loss. Actual loss on a free game is zero, unless there was a derived income that was based on the usage of that item and that loss was incurred by the free distribution. Most companies (like the RIAA) don't win these cases, but they can afford to take someone to court and make it easier to cheaper to settle out of court.

We don't need to talk about monetary values here. If someone is given out for free, the creator still posses moral rights of paternity and integrity. These rights cannot be transferred to anyone. A bit more e.g. here (performer here can be related to any kind of creator or artist):
Moral rights of paternity and integrity - Managing Intellectual Property - April 2006

snooggums wrote:In the case of a game mod, all the map editor that made the map have a clause that all items made with the editor are actually the property of EA or Dice, not the individual who made the map. While this may not be legal when applied to custom statics (I'd like to see a paint manufacturer do the same) it would be enough of a legal barrier for the mapper to try to enforce a copyright on a game map, which is the only way it could be considered 'intellectual property'. If I downloaded Monchegorsk and ran it on a server against space's wishes I would be a ****, but I wouldn't need to worry about any kind of legal trouble.

I don't see that kind of clause in the terms of use when installing the editor. There is clause not to use the works for commercial use and that was all that I could find. Could you point out which exact phrase and section you are referring to?

snooggums wrote:That said, the approach does seem to be that the maps are only included when submitted, and I'm fairly certain they would remove a map at the request of a map maker. Don't need fancy intellectual property reasons when both sides simply respect the wishes of the other.

Sure, that would be the normal way in any agreement and business relationship.

snooggums wrote:'Intellectual property' works do not automatically have value that causes them to be unusable by someone else. In the case of a free mod you would have to file a copyright on any work of art to be able to claim monetary losses higher than your actual loss. Actual loss on a free game is zero, unless there was a derived income that was based on the usage of that item and that loss was incurred by the free distribution. Most companies (like the RIAA) don't win these cases, but they can afford to take someone to court and make it easier to cheaper to settle out of court.

In the case of a game mod, all the map editor that made the map have a clause that all items made with the editor are actually the property of EA or Dice, not the individual who made the map. While this may not be legal when applied to custom statics (I'd like to see a paint manufacturer do the same) it would be enough of a legal barrier for the mapper to try to enforce a copyright on a game map, which is the only way it could be considered 'intellectual property'. If I downloaded Monchegorsk and ran it on a server against space's wishes I would be a ****, but I wouldn't need to worry about any kind of legal trouble.

I feel, before this thread is locked or anything important to correct you on several things. I deal with copyright on a daily basis.
In the USA, copyright laws state that you need to register a work as yours. However, in the UK, a work created by someone the copyright, or the right to copy and reproduce is automatically theirs. With regards to works having value, that again is the holders right to place any price they wish upon their work produced.

The fact that PR is a free mod doesn't come into it.

Fictional situation: MapperX makes a map. If MapperX places a price on their map and PR uses this map without permission or without offering compensation (money), PR have breached MapperX's copyright and MapperX is now free to pursue legal action for loss of earnings and breach of copyright.
However, if MapperX doesn't place a price on their map, and PR again used it without permission, MapperX is STILL free to pursue legal action for loss of earnings and breach of copyright.

Because PR makes no profit from it's product, does not mean that should they use someone's map that there is no compensation (money) to be derived from court action.

With regards to your comment about Clausing for custom statics and statics produced by DiCE, this isn't needed. By making their product publicly available, and the content therein - there is no need for any mention of the statics within the map as in the eyes of the law, a problem only occurs should MapperX modify these statics, or present them for purchase. Thus breaching copyright.
The fact is that although MapperX has produced a map containing statics from DiCE or PR, the map itself is an original work and the Copyright of his map is as an entity. Essentially he holds the Copyright to a map with that specific layout of buildings, roads and rivers. He created it, it's now his right to distribute and control how that map is used by the public domain.

If I downloaded Monchegorsk and ran it on a server against space's wishes I would be a ****, but I wouldn't need to worry about any kind of legal trouble

This, my friend is where you are wrong, if you used Spaces map without permission, it is within Spaces rights to seek compensation from you, either out of court, or in court. He also has the right to seek compensation for loss of earnings, essentially what he would have charged someone purchasing his work - and this is where it could go very wrong for you. If Space put a solid price on his map, that's fine, but if he decided that he would actually have charged for that map based on the hours of work it too to produce it, you are in deep sh!t.

Real world example, I'm a photographer and currently suing Heineken group for loss of earnings and breach of copyright. Should Heineken have approached me prior to their use of my images for their marketing campaign, I would have charged a set rate and it would have been simple. However, because they breached my copyright and didn't offer compensation nor seek my permission to use the images, it's now at my discretion as to how much I claim each image to be worth, how much they would have paid, the time that went into producing the images and for breach of copyright. Essentially meaning I'm going to get about 5x more money because they didn't first ask me than I would have gotten should they have commissioned my works.

fubar++ wrote:We don't need to talk about monetary values here. If someone is given out for free, the creator still posses moral rights of paternity and integrity. These rights cannot be transferred to anyone. A bit more e.g. here (performer here can be related to any kind of creator or artist):
Moral rights of paternity and integrity - Managing Intellectual Property - April 2006

I don't see that kind of clause in the terms of use when installing the editor. There is clause not to use the works for commercial use and that was all that I could find. Could you point out which exact phrase and section you are referring to?

Snipped from the BF2 EULA:

You may include materials created with the Tools & Materials on your personal noncommercial website for the noncommercial benefit of the fan community for EA's products and provided that if you do so, you must also post the following notice on your site on the same web page(s) where those materials are located: "This site is not endorsed by or affiliated with Electronic Arts, or its licensors. Trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Game content and materials copyright Electronic Arts Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved." You will not represent that your site is endorsed or approved by or affiliated with EA or our licensors or that any other content on your site is endorsed or approved by or affiliated with EA or our licensors.

Every map uses the base terrain and at a minimum the game's engine which is what actually renders the maps details. The map itself may be a derivative work of the basic tools in the game editor, but the EULA covers the usage of maps created with those tools. Basically anyone who makes a BF2 map cannot claim copyright on that map, but could possibly claim copyright on screenshots of the map although they would have to get past EA first.

Although Britain is screwing copyright more than the US, I speak in US terms of copyright since that is what applies to me. In the US a work is copyrighted when created, although unless you register it you can only claim the losses you suffer. In the US you can sue for higher damages if the work is copyrighted, but you must show infringement. Also in the US copyright was created to grant the artist a monopoly on distribution for a limited time to encourage future works and has morphed into perpetual copyright due to extensions and penalties have been applied to non-commercial distribution. Basically, copyright is only there so the creator can make money for a short period of time exclusively so that they will create future works and all of that will become part of the public domain for all to enjoy.

So as a US citizen I (through the government) enforce copyright to encourage the creation of art/literature/etc so that in the future everyone will be able to use it. There is no moral reason to support copyright in the US, the logical reason is already there but has been eroded into a manner that screws the public who is giving that copyright to the copyright holders.

But even with all of that, non-commercial copying and use are permitted for the public. I can give a book I purchased to a friend. If I put up a server with a map that I downloaded for the agreed purpose at the time I downloaded it (to play on space's server) and then put up a server with that map and do not distribute the map but allow players who also have the map to come play on my server I have not even broken copyright. Once I have something I gained from the copyright holder under his conditions the copyright owner does not have the right to tell me what to do with it under copyright as long as I am not distributing copies of the item. Hosting a server is not distributing copies for BF2 since you have to download the maps separately.

Since these are international forums and I don't know the laws for other countries I won't comment on your situation there, but I can tell you that any attempt to enforce copyright on a BF2 map would be a financial drain on the creator and would not result in any benefit to the creator unless the map itself is included in a manner that creates profit for the distributor.

J.Burton[EEF wrote:]With regards to your comment about Clausing for custom statics and statics produced by DiCE, this isn't needed. By making their product publicly available, and the content therein - there is no need for any mention of the statics within the map as in the eyes of the law, a problem only occurs should MapperX modify these statics, or present them for purchase. Thus breaching copyright.

That's my point, if space freely distributes his map (he does and is awesome because of it) and I simply provide a place for the people who have downloaded that map from him a place to play I have not breached copyright at all. As I said in my first post, if I ignored the wishes of space I would be a **** by not respecting his work, but I would not be violation of copyright.

Any of you ever played CounterStrike or another game where maps are automatically downloaded when you join a server? Did you ever ponder the possibilities that you were infringing on copyright? No, because maps downloaded for free that are rendered by the game engine are not independent works of art like a printable jpg you create in photoshop where the art can exist without the game engine.

*As I've noted twice now, using space's map in a way he does not intend is still disrespectful and should not be done, I'm simply arguing the copyright issues*

snooggums wrote:Snipped from the BF2 EULA:

You may include materials created with the Tools & Materials on your personal noncommercial website for the noncommercial benefit of the fan community for EA's products and provided that if you do so, you must also post the following notice on your site on the same web page(s) where those materials are located: "This site is not endorsed by or affiliated with Electronic Arts, or its licensors. Trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Game content and materials copyright Electronic Arts Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved." You will not represent that your site is endorsed or approved by or affiliated with EA or our licensors or that any other content on your site is endorsed or approved by or affiliated with EA or our licensors.

Every map uses the base terrain and at a minimum the game's engine which is what actually renders the maps details. The map itself may be a derivative work of the basic tools in the game editor, but the EULA covers the usage of maps created with those tools. Basically anyone who makes a BF2 map cannot claim copyright on that map, but could possibly claim copyright on screenshots of the map although they would have to get past EA first.

That is quite a conclusion you are making there. I can't put my interpretation in better words than what has already been said:

'J.Burton[EEF wrote:;1135290']The fact is that although MapperX has produced a map containing statics from DiCE or PR, the map itself is an original work and the Copyright of his map is as an entity. Essentially he holds the Copyright to a map with that specific layout of buildings, roads and rivers. He created it, it's now his right to distribute and control how that map is used by the public domain.

By reading more sources about the subject I can see there is lot of differences between US and European jurisdictions. As I'm not familiar with the US laws I can only quote Wikipedia and an essay from Harvard School of Law as main source on this:

In addition, there are other possible mechanisms with which an author may enforce her [his] moral rights, beyond VARA and the Lanham Act. These include the following:

An author may show that, in altering or distorting her work, someone has created a "derivative work," thereby violating the Copyright Act.

If authorship of a work is attributed to an author against her will, or misattributed, the author may have a state action for defamation against the person responsible for the attribution.

If a person uses the identity of an author, or the works of the author, for her own benefit without the author's permission, then she may have violated the author's right of publicity or may be guilty of misappropriation of the author's work.

Moral Rights Basics

Moral rights... were included in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1928.

...While the United States became a signatory to the convention in 1988, it still does not completely recognize moral rights as part of copyright law, but rather as part of other bodies of law, such as defamation or unfair competition.

...Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation.

...Moral rights have had a less robust tradition in the United States. The exclusive rights tradition in the United States is inconsistent with the notion of moral rights as it was constituted in the Civil Code tradition stemming from post-Revolutionary France. When the United States signed the Berne Convention, it stipulated that the Convention's "moral rights" provisions were addressed sufficiently by other statutes, such as laws covering slander and libel.

Some individual states have moral rights laws, particularly pertaining to visual art and artists (See, e.g. California Art Preservation Act, Artists Authorship Rights Act (New York)). However it is unclear if these laws, or portions thereof, are preempted by federal law including VARA.

The Monty Python comedy troupe famously managed to rely on moral rights in 1975 in legal proceedings against American TV network ABC for airing re-edited versions of Monty Python's Flying Circus.

Moral rights (copyright law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saying "screwing" the copyrights may as well be turned other way around. But that’s how it is in these modern times of internet, cultural differences’ collides on all sort of fields.

wtf? Soooo where is this thread going?

To hell to visit the lawyers.

fubar++ wrote:That is quite a conclusion you are making there. I can't put my interpretation in better words than what has already been said:

The EULA counters his claim and specifies how the tools offered (the editor) can be used (to make non-commercial works) and that the items created are to be used for the fan community. By using those tools the map maker has agreed to these conditions since the editor is licensed and the mapmaker could simply not use that tool. Additionally, the tool includes a large amount of copyrighted art (textures and models) that are used in the map that are only allowed to be in the map per that 'for the fan community' clause, so even if the EULA did not apply the map would have to contain all new textures and models for every item on the map to avoid EA's copyright.

By reading more sources about the subject I can see there is lot of differences between US and European jurisdictions. As I'm not familiar with the US laws I can only quote Wikipedia and an essay from Harvard School of Law as main source on this:

Saying "screwing" the copyrights may as well be turned other way around. But that’s how it is in these modern times of internet, cultural differences’ collides on all sort of fields.

From your link:

In the United States, the term "moral rights" typically refers to the right of an author to prevent revision, alteration, or distortion of her work, regardless of who owns the work. Moral rights as outlined in VARA also allow an author of a visual work to avoid being associated with works that are not entirely her own, and to prevent the defacement of her works.

If I make a server that allows people who have a copy of the map to play I am not revising, altering or distorting his map. There is no defacement or alteration that would involve 'moral rights', and I never stated the server setup would attribute the map to a different author.

But all this is silly, I wish space would release the map to Pr for an official version that could be modified to fit the mod style, and have a separate version for RT's use that is setup the way space wants it. I can understand his wish to not have it released officially if he was to lose control over the content and game play.

'J.Burton[EEF wrote:;1135290']This, my friend is where you are wrong, if you used Spaces map without permission, it is within Spaces rights to seek compensation from you, either out of court, or in court. He also has the right to seek compensation for loss of earnings, essentially what he would have charged someone purchasing his work - and this is where it could go very wrong for you. If Space put a solid price on his map, that's fine, but if he decided that he would actually have charged for that map based on the hours of work it too to produce it, you are in deep sh!t.

Real world example, I'm a photographer and currently suing Heineken group for loss of earnings and breach of copyright. Should Heineken have approached me prior to their use of my images for their marketing campaign, I would have charged a set rate and it would have been simple. However, because they breached my copyright and didn't offer compensation nor seek my permission to use the images, it's now at my discretion as to how much I claim each image to be worth, how much they would have paid, the time that went into producing the images and for breach of copyright. Essentially meaning I'm going to get about 5x more money because they didn't first ask me than I would have gotten should they have commissioned my works.

As I noted above the tools he used had a license he agreed to that said that anything created with those tools is free to be distributed to the games fans. It does not grant the ability to sell the map for profit (he would be sued by EA as game companies do not like people doing that) so his rights to copyright don't exist before I would even come into the picture.

Your example is a company using your works for profit, which does not apply in this situation.

Not everyone's creations, even if they could have artistic merit, will be covered or the artists rights be enforceable under copyright. I just copied your written text above, which technically is a violation of copyright at the most basic level. If I were to change your text into a format that changed the meaning in a way that would be publicly embarrassing or put someone else's name on the title I would break your moral rights. But since there's no commercial relationship to my modifications you would not be able to successfully sue me, and therefore while the principals of copyright might technically apply, they would have no impact on my actual posting.

As a private hosted forum, the mods could take action, but not because of copyright.

*crushing wall with head*

oh give me that map, looks awesome, reminds me old times in operation flashpoint .)

pretty much the PR team won't release it unless Space lets them release it in a format he is happy with.

Personally I wish the PR team would give the mappers the choice to have the map layed out how they want. Would give a bit more diverse gameplay.

=/ I mean... yes he has a lot of vehicles... but hey... I don't care.

LithiumFox wrote:pretty much the PR team won't release it unless Space lets them release it in a format he is happy with.

Personally I wish the PR team would give the mappers the choice to have the map layed out how they want. Would give a bit more diverse gameplay.

=/ I mean... yes he has a lot of vehicles... but hey... I don't care.

Giving the map maker the choice to set layers on a general release would not work for the general mod since the asset/flag/etc standards allow players to switch between maps and have an idea of what to expect. Asset standardization is similar to the asset respawn time standards, the map fits PR and not the other way around. As noted above, the PR license don't restrict anyone from running a passworded server with map modifications or custom maps such as this.

I'd just like to see even more layers for the large maps for additional themes like tanks but no air assets, etc.

"I just copied your written text above, which technically is a violation of copyright at the most basic level."

That is not a copyright violation if you do not claim it to be yours. But at the same time the what you did copy would had to be something original, at least according to European copyright laws.

"I just humped your utterly insane text above, which technically is a violation of copyright at the most basic level."

Now this could be violating your moral rights even and especially if I would mention you as the origin. But do forgive me, this was just an example.

And I do disagree with your interpretation of EULA, but let's just leave it there.

Yes, this has been reaching silliness quite far in this context.