Sub sites and their objects question
noname
the sites that have gone to subscription. What can the site owners do? I'm
not sending their site access which is what they say they are charging for,
right? If the objects themselves aren't being charged for, then am I doing
anything wrong?
Some sites say you can't distribute their objects, like some of us did when
Jenny closed her site down. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking
about sending objects that can only be gotten from the subscription
sites/sections.
noname
Ohmikeghod
It's still object theft, but now it has a direct affect on the site's
financing. TSR now has a policy for its forums that anyone found
transmitting an object for a pay site will be banned from posting. If
you subscribe to a site, you obviously support them. Why do you want to
dilute that support by giving them to people who don't wish to support
it? 8DS has a policy of banning object stealers from downloading. I
suspect that if Simfreaks doesn't currently have a similar one, they
will shortly. The sites are open, and if people want their objects,
they have to pay.
Quite possibly there should be a new section of Die Thieves for people
who distribute items from pay sites via e-mail. I know I'm going to get
flames for my opinions, but it doesn't matter to me. I have a thick skin.
--- Mike ---
Member of the evil Kult Of Object Kreators - both factions
"The ultimate goal is to take over all hard drives in the world!"
"The ultimate goal is to make load time greater than 24 hours!"
Newsgroup FAQ: http://www.livin-it-up.net/ngqa/
noname
"Ohmikeghod" <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3BE643...@mirthlink.net...
> noname wrote:
>
> > Let's say I send people who haven't paid the subscription fees objects
from
> > the sites that have gone to subscription. What can the site owners do?
I'm
> > not sending their site access which is what they say they are charging
for,
> > right? If the objects themselves aren't being charged for, then am I
doing
> > anything wrong?
> >
> > Some sites say you can't distribute their objects, like some of us did
when
> > Jenny closed her site down. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm
talking
> > about sending objects that can only be gotten from the subscription
> > sites/sections.
>
> It's still object theft, but now it has a direct affect on the site's
> financing. TSR now has a policy for its forums that anyone found
> transmitting an object for a pay site will be banned from posting.
Really? So in their opinion the person doing so is stealing the object(s)?
If the objects aren't for sale, how is that possible?
> If
> you subscribe to a site, you obviously support them. Why do you want to
> dilute that support by giving them to people who don't wish to support
> it?
That's completely irrevelant to this one. I appreciate that you are posting
your opinion but that doesn't answer the question.
> 8DS has a policy of banning object stealers from downloading. I
> suspect that if Simfreaks doesn't currently have a similar one, they
> will shortly. The sites are open, and if people want their objects,
> they have to pay.
Pay for what? Site access or objects?
> Quite possibly there should be a new section of Die Thieves for people
> who distribute items from pay sites via e-mail.
If the objects are for sale then you'd call them a thief. If the objects
aren't for sale you'd call them a .....? Would you also include people who
send other people objects from Maxis's main site? You have to subscribe
there in a way by giving your serial number before you can download. They
call it registering but isn't it the same principle? Personally, I think
this idea goes way to far. It would not only be hell trying to track down
all the supposed violators, how would you obtain proof? Are you willing to
pour over countless header infos just to catch someone? (noting that the
person sending you the mail would have to attach a file with the original
header info if it's a forward in the first place if i'm not mistaken)
noname
Bluegenie2
noname
"Bluegenie2" <blue...@icx.net> wrote in message
news:getF7.661385$Lw3.42...@news2.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> This is a fine line and I agree with your opinion, but I can see where it
is a fine line. How's that for > a run on sentence?
I'm REALLY bad for run on sentences. My fourth grade teacher told us to
arrange sentences according to thought, that one sentence should be one
complete thought. We had to write 200 word essays every morning. So, one
particular morning I finished mine with 3 sentences...each sentence the size
of a large paragraph. Thought she was going to bop me over that one...lol
noname
Adam Selene
<non...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> If the objects are for sale then you'd call them a thief. If the objects
> aren't for sale you'd call them a .....?
Thief. Our prisons are full of people who tried to rationalize
their crimes.
Greg
noname
"Adam Selene" <moon...@asi.recyclespammers.org> wrote in message
news:051120010632088273%moon...@asi.recyclespammers.org...
Ok. What are they stealing if the objects aren't for sale? It's not
rationalistion and I agree with you on that point. However, if site access
is for sale and not the objects, why would distributing the objects be
stealing them? Site access after all is the 'privilage of going to view and
download them from said site' is it not?
Here's another thought on this. Site access hasn't been restricted to anyone
not subscribing, just the objects, right? So again, what are they really
selling?
noname
Helena Handbasket
us who can't afford them. :-)
katie
: Let's say I send people who haven't paid the subscription fees objects
:
:
Helena Handbasket
my permission then yeah, it's flat out stealing.
katie
: Ok. What are they stealing if the objects aren't for sale? It's not
:
:
Helena Handbasket
katie who does the same thing.
: > This is a fine line and I agree with your opinion, but I can see
:
:
:
:
noname
"Helena Handbasket" <gingerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D5zF7.663643$Lw3.42...@news2.aus1.giganews.com...
> If I own a something and it's not for sale and someone took it without
> my permission then yeah, it's flat out stealing.
Fair enough. Would try to explain what I meant but not sure how now...lol
noname
Helena Handbasket
katie
"noname" <non...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:B8zF7.54743$jq6.17...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
:
: "Helena Handbasket" <gingerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:
:
Ohmikeghod
> "Ohmikeghod" <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3BE643...@mirthlink.net...
>
>>noname wrote:
>>
>>> Let's say I send people who haven't paid the subscription fees
>>> objects from the sites that have gone to subscription. What can
>>> the site owners do? I'm not sending their site access which is
>>> what they say they are charging for, right? If the objects
>>> themselves aren't being charged for, then am I doing anything
>>> wrong?
>>> Some sites say you can't distribute their objects,
>>> like some of us did when Jenny closed her site down. That's
>>> not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about sending objects
>>> that can only be gotten from the subscription sites/sections.
>>It's still object theft, but now it has a direct affect on the site's
>>financing. TSR now has a policy for its forums that anyone found
>>transmitting an object for a pay site will be banned from posting.
> Really? So in their opinion the person doing so is stealing the object(s)?
> If the objects aren't for sale, how is that possible?
The objects *ARE* for sale. You are paying a fee to access and download
the objects. The more you download, the less expensive the objects are,
so think of it as a volume discount.
>> If you subscribe to a site, you obviously support them. Why do you
>> want to dilute that support by giving them to people who don't
>> wish to support it?
> That's completely irrevelant to this one. I appreciate that you are posting
> your opinion but that doesn't answer the question.
It is not irrelevant. If you distribute the objects, youre "sharing"
your subscription among all the people that you distribute to. By doing
this, you are hurting the site monitarily. That's theft.
>>8DS has a policy of banning object stealers from downloading. I
>>suspect that if Simfreaks doesn't currently have a similar one, they
>>will shortly. The sites are open, and if people want their objects,
>>they have to pay.
> Pay for what? Site access or objects?
Well, if you pay just to look at the pretty pictures and don't download
at all, then I guess it would be site access. Ask yourself why you are
subscribing. Is it to browse, or to download? If your answer is
download, then the answer to your question is objects.
>>Quite possibly there should be a new section of Die Thieves for people
>>who distribute items from pay sites via e-mail.
> If the objects are for sale then you'd call them a thief. If the objects
> aren't for sale you'd call them a .....?
They are still thieves. I Have recently gone through an episode of
theft, and my objects aren't on a pay site. I felt completely ripped
off and violated, the same as I'd feel if my house was broken into.
> Would you also include people who
> send other people objects from Maxis's main site?
Yes. If you'll notice, the URL is what's passed on here and on the
binaries group. The exception to this was the recent period of server
instability, when people couldn't log on properly. Once the EA server
came back on, though, it was back to business as usual.
> You have to subscribe
> there in a way by giving your serial number before you can download. They
> call it registering but isn't it the same principle? Personally, I think
> this idea goes way to far. It would not only be hell trying to track down
> all the supposed violators, how would you obtain proof? Are you willing to
> pour over countless header infos just to catch someone? (noting that the
> person sending you the mail would have to attach a file with the original
> header info if it's a forward in the first place if i'm not mistaken)
I agree with you that any attempt to catch thieves of this nature is
probably more effort than is worth it. This is the same problem that
software manufacturers and music producers face. Going after
individuals is too difficult a task. and it's easier to go after sites
because they are more permanent. I don't think that I'd exclude the
possibility of individuals being targetted by Die Thieves if they were
blatant about it, or did a mass mailing of some sort.
Mike Tennent
>Let's say I send people who haven't paid the subscription fees objects from
>the sites that have gone to subscription. What can the site owners do?
Legally? Not a thing. They don't "own" the objects (in my opinion) but
are charging for access to download free objects.
As Mike points out, TSR and other sites may ban you from using their
site based on their TOS, but that's about it.
Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"
Ironman, Model Railroader, Gamer
www.ironpeng.com/ipe/
Ohmikeghod
> "noname" <non...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Let's say I send people who haven't paid the subscription fees objects from
>>the sites that have gone to subscription. What can the site owners do?
>
> Legally? Not a thing. They don't "own" the objects (in my opinion) but
> are charging for access to download free objects.
You're right. The sites don't own the objects. The creators do. The
fact that you use the objects doesn't affect that ownership in the
least. We are talking about copyright, here, since the sites act as
publishers. You have use of the objects. You have no more right to
copy and distribute the object than you do to xerox a book and give it
to a friend. "Free" and "Ownership" are two different animals.
noname
> Mike Tennent wrote:
>
> > "noname" <non...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Let's say I send people who haven't paid the subscription fees objects
from
> >>the sites that have gone to subscription. What can the site owners do?
> >
> > Legally? Not a thing. They don't "own" the objects (in my opinion) but
> > are charging for access to download free objects.
>
>
> You're right. The sites don't own the objects. The creators do. The
> fact that you use the objects doesn't affect that ownership in the
> least. We are talking about copyright, here, since the sites act as
> publishers. You have use of the objects. You have no more right to
> copy and distribute the object than you do to xerox a book and give it
> to a friend. "Free" and "Ownership" are two different animals.
Do they really *own* the objects and can they charge for something they
don't actually own? Saying you are charging for site access yet not making
the site unaccessable to people who don't subscribe leads me to believe you
are charging for objects. Saying that I am a theif for distributing objects
to people who haven't subscribed based on the fact that they *didn't
subscribe* is questionable at best. However, if you are willing to admit
you're selling the objects and I distribute them then I can see where you
could call me a theif based on the objects are for sale. Why is it that the
sites that have gone to subscription are not saying they are selling
objects? If the objects are clearly copywritten to them and they clearly own
them, why are they selling 'site access'?
I have had to deal with having someone break into my home and rob me blind
as well as someone taking my work and claiming it as their own. Both left me
feeling degrees of violation but the person who claimed to have written my
poem also gave me a sense of flattery. He wouldn't have done that had it
been a piece of crap. So I understand what you are saying there. Copywrite
wise, I owned the poem. I once made a skin for ICQ where I created an arched
window to frame a rainbow. The rainbow wasn't mine. Everything else was
created by me from scratch, and took forever to get right as the program I
was using wasn't up to par with psp or ps. This skin is one of the ones I
value the most but I can't claim copywrite as I used something that belonged
to someone else. There are others that I suppose I could claim as I painted
the images from scratch using nothing that belonged to anyone else,
including the icons and animations. Still, isn't this like object creation?
You're taking something that belongs to someone else and making it appear to
be something different? The picture of the rainbow was a sky shot. When I
finished the skin it was a window in the room of a house. In principle, how
is this different?
noname
Ohmikeghod
> "Ohmikeghod" <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3BE6F546...@mirthlink.net...
>
>>Mike Tennent wrote:
>>
>>>"noname" <non...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let's say I send people who haven't paid the subscription fees
>>>> objects from the sites that have gone to subscription. What
>>>> can the site owners do?
>>>>
>>>Legally? Not a thing. They don't "own" the objects (in my opinion) but
>>>are charging for access to download free objects.
>>
>>You're right. The sites don't own the objects. The creators do. The
>>fact that you use the objects doesn't affect that ownership in the
>>least. We are talking about copyright, here, since the sites act as
>>publishers. You have use of the objects. You have no more right to
>>copy and distribute the object than you do to xerox a book and give it
>>to a friend. "Free" and "Ownership" are two different animals.
>
> Do they really *own* the objects and can they charge for something they
> don't actually own?
You seem to be saying two things. The first is a question. Do
copyright holders own their creations? The answer is yes.
The second is a asking whether people can charge for access to things
they don't own. The answer to that is also yes. An example of this is
Lexis/Nexis, the legal database. Lexis does not "own" the decisions and
legal rulings, yet they charge for access. Almost every lawyer in the
U.S. subscribes to their service.
You seem to be confusing "free" with "in the public domain". You also
seem to be confused what constitutes "ownership". If I, as a creator,
grant publishing rights to one of my objects to a website, it doesn't
change the ownership of the work. It just means that I have granted
them the right to put it on their site. I have not granted you that right.
On the other hand, If I place one of my objects into the public domain,
which is also my right, then anyone can make copies and distribute them
freely. The current copyright laws state that copyrighted works are
placed into the public domain after 40 years. Copyrights can be
extended by the original holder to 70 years, after which the material is
placed into the public domain automatically. Don't confuse the fact
that you can download objects for free with whether they are in the
public domain.
> Saying you are charging for site access yet not making
> the site unaccessable to people who don't subscribe leads me to believe you
> are charging for objects. Saying that I am a theif for distributing objects
> to people who haven't subscribed based on the fact that they *didn't
> subscribe* is questionable at best.
It's not questionable to me. If you publish something (and mailing
someone a copy is publishing) that is copyrighted, without the copyright
holder's permission, is theft. If I give you a copy of "The Sims", so
that you get it "for free", does that then give you the right to make
copies of it and send them to your friends?
> However, if you are willing to admit
> you're selling the objects and I distribute them then I can see where you
> could call me a theif based on the objects are for sale.
You would be a thief in either case.
> Why is it that the
> sites that have gone to subscription are not saying they are selling
> objects? If the objects are clearly copywritten to them and they clearly own
> them, why are they selling 'site access'?
Again, the sites do not own the objects. The creators do. The sites
are selling the objects. If you noticed, You can access Simfreaks and
view their entire site. You are asked to subscribe *ONLY* when you
attempt to download an object. 8DS provides a more restrictive access,
but If you don't want to download their stuff, why are you subscribing?
> I have had to deal with having someone break into my home and rob me blind
> as well as someone taking my work and claiming it as their own. Both left me
> feeling degrees of violation but the person who claimed to have written my
> poem also gave me a sense of flattery. He wouldn't have done that had it
> been a piece of crap. So I understand what you are saying there. Copywrite
> wise, I owned the poem. I once made a skin for ICQ where I created an arched
> window to frame a rainbow. The rainbow wasn't mine. Everything else was
> created by me from scratch, and took forever to get right as the program I
> was using wasn't up to par with psp or ps. This skin is one of the ones I
> value the most but I can't claim copywrite as I used something that belonged
> to someone else.
You sure as hell *can* claim copyright, as long as the new work has
"substansive differences" from the original. Or, alternatively, you can
claim copyright to your portion of the work, and ask permission from the
owner of the original to use the artwork in your creation. This is
called "shared copyright." The permission needs to be granted prior to
publication.
> There are others that I suppose I could claim as I painted
> the images from scratch using nothing that belonged to anyone else,
> including the icons and animations. Still, isn't this like object creation?
Yes it is.
> You're taking something that belongs to someone else and making it appear to
> be something different? The picture of the rainbow was a sky shot. When I
> finished the skin it was a window in the room of a house. In principle, how
> is this different?
Did you give credit to the creator of the original? If you didn't, then
you probably violated the original creator's copyright.
OK, let's get to the exceptions to copyright. Parodies of copyrighted
material are considered new works in their own right, even though
substantial portions of the original are used. The use of the
copyrighted material in reviews is also valid. SO, if someone was
reviewing Livin-it-up (the website, not the game), and put a picture of
one of my objects in the review, they would not have to ask permission.
If, on the other hand, they put the .IFF file in without asking
permission, they would be violating copyright.
Have I had any experience in copyright and copyright protection? I had
a crash course from corporate lawyers, who were very interested in
protecting material from projects I was working on, but I am not a
lawyer myself. Before I went into computers, I was a commercial artist,
and sold publishing rights to my work (as well as second rights). The
work still belonged to me.
Adam Selene
<non...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
It's not Sim Freaks you would be stealing from, but rather the
artist who created the work.
Under U.S. copyright law, the creator of a thing has the right to
control its distribution, including the right to withdraw it from the
public. Money doesn't enter into the consideration at all. It's
customary to exchange money for the right to distribute someone else's
work, such as paying a storyteller for the privilege of printing is
story but money is not a necessary factor.
The creator of the work is the sole judge of where and how his
work can be reproduced or distributed. He doesn't even need to explain
his decision. If he doesn't want it published, nobody can legally
publish it. (There have been quite a few court cases about this point,
all of which were decided in favor of the person who created the work.)
All the rest of us can do is wait for him to die, then wait another 50
years, at which time the work becomes public domain.
So if an artist gives Sim Freaks the right to distribute
something, but does not also give you this right, then if you
distribute it without permission you are violating the artist's rights.
Here's an example close to home: Richard R. Ward had to close the
Wage of Sim. He had some excellent tutorials on his site that I dearly
would like to get back on line. I wrote to him to ask if I could do
this, and he didn't respond. So, it doesn't matter why Richard doesn't
respond to the inquiry; I have to assume that he doesn't not want those
tutorials distributed and refrain from doing so.
Of course, this doesn't keep me from wheedling other folks to
write tutorials on the same subject, or even writing them myself. I
just can't publish Richard's work without his permission.
Another, even closer: We're hosting six web sites on the
moonsims.asi.org domain right now, with a few more being built. All
those folks wrote to me and agreed to the basic rules for intellectual
property: They are granting Moon Sims (actually, Artemis Society
International) the privilege (that is, the right) to publish their work
on the World Wide Web for as long as they have it on our server.
ASI has no other rights in this contract. I can't, for example,
tell another web site it's OK to distribute Libby's Garden Rock #2
(which is on Livin-It-Up; really great rock, too). That's entirely
Libby's decision; so if anybody asked, I'd tell 'em to write to Libby
about it.
Libby
>
> ASI has no other rights in this contract. I can't, for example,
> tell another web site it's OK to distribute Libby's Garden Rock #2
> (which is on Livin-It-Up; really great rock, too). That's entirely
> Libby's decision; so if anybody asked, I'd tell 'em to write to Libby
> about it.
>
They also can't reprint my entire editorial on TSR. Giving me credit doesn't
make it okay, nor does the fact I have no plans at this time to do anything
about it make it okay.
Glad you like the rock, btw :-)
--
-----
Libby
+#+#+
"Until you've lost your reputation, you never realize what a burden it was or
what freedom really is."
--Margaret Mitchell
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Bluegenie2
"Ohmikeghod" <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote in message news:3BE6DDE9...@mirthlink.net...
| noname wrote:
|
| > "Ohmikeghod" <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:3BE643...@mirthlink.net...
| >
| at all, then I guess it would be site access. Ask yourself why you are
| subscribing. Is it to browse, or to download? If your answer is
| download, then the answer to your question is objects.
|
With sim freaks you can look at the site for free.
Mike Tennent
>Mike Tennent wrote:
>
>> "noname" <non...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Let's say I send people who haven't paid the subscription fees objects from
>>>the sites that have gone to subscription. What can the site owners do?
>>
>> Legally? Not a thing. They don't "own" the objects (in my opinion) but
>> are charging for access to download free objects.
>
>
>You're right. The sites don't own the objects. The creators do.
Mike,
I appreciate you're absolute conviction on this <g>, but I think the
"ownership" issue is a lot grayer than you claim.
If it were as clear cut as you state, then SF, 8DS, etc would not
hesitate to "sell" objects rather than simply access to their site.
Methinks they believe Maxis might take exception to that.
The only folks who could definitively answer this would be Maxis'
lawyers.
noname
"Mike Tennent" <iron...@darientel.net> wrote in message
news:9490EC9C8DA3F09B.F969F69F...@lp.airnews.net...
If EA owns Maxis then they very well may own the copyrites. I agree with you
though. Heather at SFs is supposed to be "well connected" (for lack of a
better word(s) ) to Maxis and yet she isn't even saying she's selling
objects. Made me wonder...that's all.
noname
Bluegenie2
"Libby" <si...@home.commasnala> wrote in message news:DjRF7.456190$j65.11...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
Libby
"Bluegenie2" <blue...@icx.net> wrote in message
news:YcSF7.33608$7x1.3...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Libby, did they reprint it?
http://www.mgoforum.com/showthread.php?s=23f29681474aa8f02428a634fc50eac2&thread
id=109486&perpage=15&pagenumber=1
Yes, but it would be silly to do anything about it although I will use it as an
example if and when the time comes. In this particular thread tho' is not the
right time or place -- we're talking about bandwidth driving up a site's cost so
for me to say "um, you're violating my copyright, you should have merely posted
a link to the editorial" would just make it seem like I'm on crack.
*snigger*
Ohmikeghod
> Ohmikeghod <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Tennent wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"noname" <non...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Let's say I send people who haven't paid the subscription fees objects from
>>>>the sites that have gone to subscription. What can the site owners do?
>>>>
>>>Legally? Not a thing. They don't "own" the objects (in my opinion) but
>>>are charging for access to download free objects.
>>>
>>
>>You're right. The sites don't own the objects. The creators do.
>
> I appreciate you're absolute conviction on this <g>, but I think the
> "ownership" issue is a lot grayer than you claim.
>
> If it were as clear cut as you state, then SF, 8DS, etc would not
> hesitate to "sell" objects rather than simply access to their site.
> Methinks they believe Maxis might take exception to that.
>
> The only folks who could definitively answer this would be Maxis'
> lawyers.
Works of art are owned by their creators. Period. If I bought an
original oil from (for example) Kelly Freas or Sue Dawe (both are
commercial artists in the SF/Fantasy field), I would not get the right
to publish it on the internet without their permission. They could make
me sign a contract for royalties, as with any other publishing venue.
It is still their work. You only have the right to publish a work
without permission after it has gone into the public domain.
A copyright holder can put his work into the public domain at will.
However, once in the public domain, it can never revert back to the
holder. I don't know of any object creators that have placed their work
into the public domain. Many have given the right to clone, copy, and
publish, but none have said that their work was placed into the public
domain. Certainly, none of the artists as Simfreaks or 8DS have done so.
With original art like oil paintings, there is a further caveat. The
ownership of the right to publish transfers to the original's owner when
the work goes into the public domain (which is why you see the little
blurb in art books that says things like "printed with permission from
the Harrumph foundation").
My work, and that of other object creators, is no less a work of art for
being virtual. Because you can download it for free, does not mean that
it has been placed into the public domain.
What do Maxis' lawyers have to do with my objects? I'm creating things
for their game, which is covered under a different copyright than my
work. Those *ARE* two separate copyrights, and Maxis has given
permission (and some tools) to object creators to create the objects.
The people who could answer this would be *my* lawyers. However, as I
have stated in another forum, I am not about to sue anybody unless it
causes me monetary damage (and, since the objects are free, I don't
think I'll lose any money). This doesn't mean that I won't take steps
to protect my work from being stolen.
Mike Tennent
>Works of art are owned by their creators. Period.
But is a re-color of a refrigerator or sofa in Sims an original work
of art?
Can I claim a new copyright for "Interview with the Vampire" if I
simply change the color of the pages and use a different font?
If I re-paint a Ford, can I then call it a "Tennent" and sell it as my
own *copyrighted* brand and set up "Tennent" dealerships nationwide to
sell them?
The crux of this is whether a cloned Sims object is an original work.
I don't think that's as clear cut as you seem to believe.
The original object - it's animations, bmps, text, organizational
structure, etc is an original work of art. That's where the
intellectual property lies. Does re-coloring of those bmps constitute
another original work of art?
That's the gray area.
<snip>
>
>A copyright holder can put his work into the public domain at will.
>However, once in the public domain, it can never revert back to the
>holder. I don't know of any object creators that have placed their work
>into the public domain. Many have given the right to clone, copy, and
>publish, but none have said that their work was placed into the public
>domain. Certainly, none of the artists as Simfreaks or 8DS have done so.
If they've made them available through the official Sims site, they
have put them explicitly in the public domain per the TOS.
<snip>
>
>My work, and that of other object creators, is no less a work of art for
>being virtual. Because you can download it for free, does not mean that
>it has been placed into the public domain.
Agreed, but that really isn't the issue. The issue is whether you have
any claim to ownership of a cloned object that someone else made.
>
>What do Maxis' lawyers have to do with my objects?
Everything, if they claim ownership to their work and it's
derivatives.
> I'm creating things
>for their game, which is covered under a different copyright than my
>work. Those *ARE* two separate copyrights, and Maxis has given
>permission (and some tools) to object creators to create the objects.
But not new objects (yet). Everything created so far is a clone of one
of their objects.
>The people who could answer this would be *my* lawyers. However, as I
>have stated in another forum, I am not about to sue anybody unless it
>causes me monetary damage (and, since the objects are free, I don't
>think I'll lose any money). This doesn't mean that I won't take steps
>to protect my work from being stolen.
>
And you will be successful *IF* you can establish that you have
created an original piece of art.
FWIW, I think you'd have a much stronger argument for something like
your pickup truck than someone would have for a re-colored sofa.
Libby
"Mike Tennent" <iron...@darientel.net> wrote in message
news:C774315A60A39A95.C74E4EF8...@lp.airnews.net...
> Ohmikeghod <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Works of art are owned by their creators. Period.
>
> But is a re-color of a refrigerator or sofa in Sims an original work
> of art?
I don't think we're talking about re-colours tho' -- this is more about
completely re-shaping an object so much so that it's indistinguishable from the
original. Wouldn't that make a difference? I think so.
noname
"Libby" <si...@home.commasnala> wrote in message
>
>
> "Mike Tennent" <iron...@darientel.net> wrote in message
> news:C774315A60A39A95.C74E4EF8...@lp.airnews.net...
> > Ohmikeghod <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Works of art are owned by their creators. Period.
> >
> > But is a re-color of a refrigerator or sofa in Sims an original work
> > of art?
>
> I don't think we're talking about re-colours tho' -- this is more about
> completely re-shaping an object so much so that it's indistinguishable
from the
> original. Wouldn't that make a difference? I think so.
Recolor or not, to be able to claim ownership in terms of copyright, the
work would have to be submitted and then researched before copyright would
be awarded. Anyone can do this if they have the money. (for ex, Gates beat
Jobs to getting the copyright for Windows...some even say he stole it) As to
completely reshaping it, I guess that could fall under derivatives.
I've used the International Library of Poets (poetry.com) to publish 3
poems. They say on the site that when you submit an original work they
copyright it in your name. I'm wondering now how they do that or whether
they are just claiming to do so. Also reminded or Prince. He split from
Warner over ownership type issues. He was writing his own material yet
didn't have what he considered the 'rights' to it in order to do what he
wanted. Warner owned his material as per his contract. Maxis or EA could
have some contractual deal such as this...who knows.
noname
kelly
>
> "Libby" <si...@home.commasnala> wrote in message
> news:9cdG7.467226$j65.11...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
> >
> >
> > "Mike Tennent" <iron...@darientel.net> wrote in message
> > news:C774315A60A39A95.C74E4EF8...@lp.airnews.net...
> > > Ohmikeghod <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Works of art are owned by their creators. Period.
> > >
> > > But is a re-color of a refrigerator or sofa in Sims an original work
> > > of art?
> >
> > I don't think we're talking about re-colours tho' -- this is more about
> > completely re-shaping an object so much so that it's indistinguishable
> from the
> > original. Wouldn't that make a difference? I think so.
>
> Recolor or not, to be able to claim ownership in terms of copyright, the
> work would have to be submitted and then researched before copyright would
> be awarded.
"In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment
the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to
bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work."
"Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and
fixed in a tangible form so that it is perceptible either directly or
with the aid of a machine or device."
--- http://www.loc.gov/copyright/faq.html#q13
> Anyone can do this if they have the money. (for ex, Gates beat
> Jobs to getting the copyright for Windows...some even say he stole it) As to
> completely reshaping it, I guess that could fall under derivatives.
>
> I've used the International Library of Poets (poetry.com) to publish 3
> poems. They say on the site that when you submit an original work they
> copyright it in your name. I'm wondering now how they do that or whether
> they are just claiming to do so. Also reminded or Prince. He split from
> Warner over ownership type issues. He was writing his own material yet
> didn't have what he considered the 'rights' to it in order to do what he
> wanted. Warner owned his material as per his contract. Maxis or EA could
> have some contractual deal such as this...who knows.
>
> noname
kelly
Ohmikeghod
> Ohmikeghod <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Works of art are owned by their creators. Period.
>>
>
> But is a re-color of a refrigerator or sofa in Sims an original work
> of art?
No. It is a "derivative work" and requires permission of the original
copyright holder.
> Can I claim a new copyright for "Interview with the Vampire" if I
> simply change the color of the pages and use a different font?
No. There has to be "substantive change" changing a font does not
change the words.
> If I re-paint a Ford, can I then call it a "Tennent" and sell it as my
> own *copyrighted* brand and set up "Tennent" dealerships nationwide to
> sell them?
No. Although if you sold enough, Ford might name a car after you. Or
you could change your name to Edsel.
> The crux of this is whether a cloned Sims object is an original work.
> I don't think that's as clear cut as you seem to believe.
If the artwork (the sprites for the object) is new, then it falls under
its own copyright. The underlying object (the tiles) are irellevent to
the artwork. However, If someone has created a brand new base object by
coding up an IFF by hand, then that base object is copyrightable in and
of itself, and you have to get the permission of the creator before
using it for your own copyrighted artwork. Maxis has placed it's
objects (the IFF files) into the public domain. Their artwork has also
been placed intot the public domain, so recolors of Maxis artwork do not
require permission. You will notice that I have been talking about
two different things. The artwork (sprites) that are used to create the
object, and the base IFF. both work under separate copyrights, this is
similar to the design of a television set (copyrighted by the TV
manufacturer), and the programs that are viewed on the TV. The IFF file
is the vehicle by which the art is displayed. Because of this, If you
clone one of Maxis counters, you can use the IFF tile because it is in
the public domain. Your orginal artwork (the sprites) are displayed on
that framework, undes a different copyright, which is NOT in the public
domain unless it is declared to be so.
> The original object - it's animations, bmps, text, organizational
> structure, etc is an original work of art. That's where the
> intellectual property lies. Does re-coloring of those bmps constitute
> another original work of art?
re-coloring does not. It is not what is considered a "sustantive
change" That's why permission has to be granted to recolor objects.
The animations and actions are NOT part of the copyrighted artwork.
They are part of the base IFF. The BMP sprites are the only parts that
I've been talking about. A gifted animator, like Fingermouse, has
separate copyrights on the animations, and the artwork for the objects
that use the animations. Fingermouse also has a copyright on the IFF
file if it has been changed significantly (the substantive change that
I've been talking about). I don't understand why you can't grasp the
fact that there's more than one copyright involved.
>
> That's the gray area.
>
> <snip>
>
>>A copyright holder can put his work into the public domain at will.
>>However, once in the public domain, it can never revert back to the
>>holder. I don't know of any object creators that have placed their work
>>into the public domain. Many have given the right to clone, copy, and
>>publish, but none have said that their work was placed into the public
>>domain. Certainly, none of the artists as Simfreaks or 8DS have done so.
>>
>
> If they've made them available through the official Sims site, they
> have put them explicitly in the public domain per the TOS.
Do you mean by having links from the website, or by having them be
downloadable from EA itself. Having a link does not remove a copyright.
If I put a link on my website to (for example) Larry Niven's website.
I would not be removing his ownership of material. If tthat isn't
what you mean, then maybe I'm confused and you need to clarify your
statement.
> <snip>
>
>>My work, and that of other object creators, is no less a work of art for
>>being virtual. Because you can download it for free, does not mean that
>>it has been placed into the public domain.
>
> Agreed, but that really isn't the issue. The issue is whether you have
> any claim to ownership of a cloned object that someone else made.
They did not do the artwork. The copyright is on the artwork, not the
underlying IFF file. That is under a separate copyright wich has been
placed into the public domain.
>>What do Maxis' lawyers have to do with my objects?
>
> Everything, if they claim ownership to their work and it's
> derivatives.
Again, my artwork falls under a different copyright. The art is not
derivative. (except on the pickup, but I've made substantive changes).
>>I'm creating things
>>for their game, which is covered under a different copyright than my
>>work. Those *ARE* two separate copyrights, and Maxis has given
>>permission (and some tools) to object creators to create the objects.
>
> But not new objects (yet). Everything created so far is a clone of one
> of their objects.
Again 2 different copyrights. I guess I'll have to hammer this in. The
IFF is not the art. (repeat after me.... the IFF is not the art... until
you have that memorized)
>>The people who could answer this would be *my* lawyers. However, as I
>>have stated in another forum, I am not about to sue anybody unless it
>>causes me monetary damage (and, since the objects are free, I don't
>>think I'll lose any money). This doesn't mean that I won't take steps
>>to protect my work from being stolen.
>
> And you will be successful *IF* you can establish that you have
> created an original piece of art.
Which I could.
> FWIW, I think you'd have a much stronger argument for something like
> your pickup truck than someone would have for a re-colored sofa.
I agree. A recolored sofa is NOT a new work of art. It is a
recoloration, which is not considered a "sustantive change" by the
copyright courts. I suppose a case could be made if you recolored one
of those nice victorian couches in fappy faces that what you created was
a parody, which would be exempt from copyright, so it depends on how you
recolor, as well.
Ohmikeghod
> "Mike Tennent" <iron...@darientel.net> wrote in message
> news:C774315A60A39A95.C74E4EF8...@lp.airnews.net...
>
>>Ohmikeghod <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Works of art are owned by their creators. Period.
>>>
>>But is a re-color of a refrigerator or sofa in Sims an original work
>>of art?
>>
>
> I don't think we're talking about re-colours tho' -- this is more about
> completely re-shaping an object so much so that it's indistinguishable from the
> original. Wouldn't that make a difference? I think so.
Straight recolors are definitly derivatives, and reqire the origina
copyright holder's permission. The gray are comes when you are using
what I call shadows. Keeping the original alpha and z-buffs, but
creating a completly different work within those confines. It's a bit
more than a recolor, but not quite original (due to having the same
shape and buffers). I think that in this case, the copyright would be
split. The original holder should be asked permission to use the
buffers. I suspect that this is not often done, because the A&Zs are
not visible to the outside world as such, but it should be.
Ohmikeghod
> "Libby" <si...@home.commasnala> wrote in message
> news:9cdG7.467226$j65.11...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
>
>>
>>"Mike Tennent" <iron...@darientel.net> wrote in message
>>news:C774315A60A39A95.C74E4EF8...@lp.airnews.net...
>>
>>>Ohmikeghod <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Works of art are owned by their creators. Period.
>>>>
>>>But is a re-color of a refrigerator or sofa in Sims an original work
>>>of art?
>>>
>>I don't think we're talking about re-colours tho' -- this is more about
>>completely re-shaping an object so much so that it's indistinguishable
>>
> from the
>
>>original. Wouldn't that make a difference? I think so.
>>
>
>
> Recolor or not, to be able to claim ownership in terms of copyright, the
> work would have to be submitted and then researched before copyright would
> be awarded. Anyone can do this if they have the money. (for ex, Gates beat
> Jobs to getting the copyright for Windows...some even say he stole it) As to
> completely reshaping it, I guess that could fall under derivatives.
You're thinking about patents, not copyrights. Copyrights do not have
to be researched. In the case of windows, you have your history a
little bit wrong. Both MS and Apple stole the idea of an Icon-based
windowing operating system from Xerox. Xerox first developed the idea
of a windowing operating system at PARC, in the late sixtes and early
seventies. (PARC was also the home of the mouse, the laptop computer,
and many other innovations - the joystick was first developed at MIT).
When Xerox tried to sue both companies, the judge ruled that Xerox had
not tried to defend it's patent (not copyright) and had therefore lost
it. The difference between a copyright and a patent is that you can
patent an idea. You can only copyright a work.
Both the Mac OS and Windows are copyrigted works. They use ideas that
were patented by Xerox, where the patent was declared invalid. That
does not place either Windows or the Mac OS into the public domain.
> I've used the International Library of Poets (poetry.com) to publish 3
> poems. They say on the site that when you submit an original work they
> copyright it in your name. I'm wondering now how they do that or whether
> they are just claiming to do so. Also reminded or Prince. He split from
> Warner over ownership type issues. He was writing his own material yet
> didn't have what he considered the 'rights' to it in order to do what he
> wanted. Warner owned his material as per his contract. Maxis or EA could
> have some contractual deal such as this...who knows.
When you create a work, it is automatically copyrighted to you. You
don't have to do anything. A "registered" copyright involves a bit more
work and cash. If you aren't paying any money, I suspect that the site
is not registering your copyrights, but stating that the material is (c)
you and the date is all that's needed for a copyright. (Greg, correct me
if I'm wrong here, since I know that you're closer to the issues
involved with copyrights on written work - Greg is a member of SFWA -
Science Fiction Writers of America, and should know his copyright issues
very thouroughly)
I do not have a contract with EA. Therefore, I own my artwork, and
Maxis has no rights on it whatsoever. I do not own the base objects,
which fall under a different copyright.
Bluegenie2
No it is not released yet as I am getting help with it to get it to work right.
I took the fire and turned it into a beehive with bees swarming around it.
"Ohmikeghod" <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote in message news:3BE9F33...@mirthlink.net...
Helena Handbasket
katie
Bluegenie2
Remember my beehive lamp I made as part of my abc theme. This one looks like it but it has bees swarming and when the sims try to put it out a little beehive icon comes up in their thought bubble. I just have a couple of things to work out on it and am getting help with those.
"Helena Handbasket" <gingerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:12oG7.168130$b47.17...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Helena Handbasket
into the animation's... :-D
katie
Libby
> Straight recolors are definitly derivatives, and reqire the origina
> copyright holder's permission. The gray are comes when you are using
> what I call shadows. Keeping the original alpha and z-buffs, but
> creating a completly different work within those confines. It's a bit
> more than a recolor, but not quite original (due to having the same
> shape and buffers). I think that in this case, the copyright would be
> split. The original holder should be asked permission to use the
> buffers. I suspect that this is not often done, because the A&Zs are
> not visible to the outside world as such, but it should be.
Considering the amount of time certain z-buffers require I should bloody well
think so.
*harrumph*
heh heh
Libby
>The difference between a copyright and a patent is that you can
> patent an idea.
I doubt very much you could patent an idea any more than you could copyright
one. It has to be a hell of a lot more tangible than that.
Ohmikeghod
> Sooooo, my animated beehive would be considered copyrighted cause of the substansive change in the bmps.
Yes. The BMPs are a work of art that is actually seperate from the IFF.
The IFF is the medium through which it can be viewed. When the IFF is
modified so that it generates more bees instead of setting the house on
fire, The IFF may be copyrighted separately, if substantive changes have
beenmade to it. The hive is already copyrighted, because you've
completed the picture, and even published when you gave us a preview on
the binaries NG.
> No it is not released yet as I am getting help with it to get it to work right.
> I took the fire and turned it into a beehive with bees swarming around it.
--- Mike ---
Ohmikeghod
> "Ohmikeghod" <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3BE9F6BC...@mirthlink.net...
>
>
>>Straight recolors are definitly derivatives, and reqire the origina
>>copyright holder's permission. The gray are comes when you are using
>>what I call shadows. Keeping the original alpha and z-buffs, but
>>creating a completly different work within those confines. It's a bit
>>more than a recolor, but not quite original (due to having the same
>>shape and buffers). I think that in this case, the copyright would be
>>split. The original holder should be asked permission to use the
>>buffers. I suspect that this is not often done, because the A&Zs are
>>not visible to the outside world as such, but it should be.
>>
>
> Considering the amount of time certain z-buffers require I should bloody well
> think so.
>
> *harrumph*
>
> heh heh
Don't I know it! Zees, the buffers you love to hate. I swear that more
work goes into z-buffers than into the original painting.
Ohmikeghod
> "Ohmikeghod" <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3BE9FB2E...@mirthlink.net...
>
>>The difference between a copyright and a patent is that you can
>>patent an idea.
>>
>
> I doubt very much you could patent an idea any more than you could copyright
> one. It has to be a hell of a lot more tangible than that.
Yes, it does, except in the case of algorythms, software patents,
chemical formulas, and genes. Patents are much more inclusive than
copyrights. If I had a patent on (for example) a steering echanism for
cars, it would cover all such mechanisms, not just the one embodyment.
A patent is to a copyright as a plot is to a story. There can be a
great many stories that use the same plot, and each would have a
different copyright. If I had a patent on the plot, though, each of
those stories that used my patent would have to pay royalties (Not that
plots can be patented).
Bluegenie2
"Ohmikeghod" <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote in message news:3BEA1A85...@mirthlink.net...
Bil Simser
news:nZpF7.100870$%B6.27...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> Let's say I send people who haven't paid the subscription fees objects
from
> not sending their site access which is what they say they are charging
for,
> right? If the objects themselves aren't being charged for, then am I doing
> anything wrong?
>
> Some sites say you can't distribute their objects, like some of us did
when
> Jenny closed her site down. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking
> about sending objects that can only be gotten from the subscription
> sites/sections.
I'll jump in here and offer my 1.25 (Canadian) cents.
First off, you're breaking any agreement you have with that subscription
site. If you're agreed to their terms (by sending in money, clicking an "I
AGREE" button, whatever) then you have a contract with them and are bound by
whatever rules they lay out. While it's not the objects that a site is
charging for (they can't do this according to the Transmogrifier EULA and
Maxis), they are charging for access to their site and the right for you to
download their content. They're selling a sevice to you. That service is
"You have the right to come to our site, download our stuff, and use it on
your computer for your personal use". Maybe they don't spell it out that way
and perhaps they should, however the implication is there. If they took
their objects and slapped them on a CD and sold it to you (for the cost of
the CD and CD manufacturing) it doesn't mean you can just walk up and take
the CD off the shelf and walk out of the store without paying for it right?
Same thing here.
It's the same as me borrowing a CD (audio, software or otherwise) from you
that you paid for. You're the one that paid for it, not me and the CD
manufacturer/distributor didn't give you the right to redistribute this
(physically or digitally). So you put up an MP3 for me to download and Sony
will be barking at your door. Well, okay, they're too large to go chasing
every Tom, Dick and Harry that re-distributes MP3s, but look at the issues
around Napster and other file sharing systems.
Sending out objects from Maxis' site falls in the same catagory. Maxis has
arranged for these objects to be available to paid users of their software
and it's a service to those that paid for the software. Again, they don't
have the time or resources to track down anyone violiating this, but they
certainly don't agree. I've sent many emails to them regarding people
selling objects on eBay which they followed up and shut down, however that's
just a drop in the bucket.
You're also paying for the artists work here, not the objects. I know that
you can say they go hand in hand but sites like SimFreaks, 9DS, etc. create
content which is copyrightable. Anything is copyrightable by the artist and
they decide how the media is distributed and redistributed. You're not
paying for the objects there. SimFreaks isn't standing on a corner with a
floppy disk saying "wanna buy an object?". What they are doing is saying,
"Wanna buy the right to come into my house and take whatevers there". Again,
the selling of objects is a big of a muggy area and it would be best to have
some lawyer speak about this. You're paying for bandwidth. Just accessing
the site isn't much, but downloading files costs bandwidth and that's
generally what is the major cost in running such a site. Whoever runs a
site, any site, does not own the objects in any way shape or form IMO. What
they do own is the intellecutal property that they created. The
copyrightable work.
Something similar that might help explain it is what most compiler
manufacturers have. I have an agreement with them (every developer does)
that I can distribute my software to anyone who care. I used their tools to
create it but it's my intellectual property. However, if I need to
distribute part of their software (runtime libraries, etc.) then they grant
me the right to do so. Think of a Sim object as this. Intellectual property
that the site creators have made, distributing with the Maxis runtime (the
IFF format). Maybe that might explain some things (or maybe not).
What can the site owners do? Chase you down and sue your ass over contract
violations. This is a gray area though, depending on how you subscribe to
their site and what terms you agreed to (if any) so your mileage may vary.
You'll also get a bad rap in the community, be black listed at various
places and generally looked down upon in the Sims community. You're also
subverting the finaces from that site and possibly costing them sales, and
down the road that may cause the site to be shutdown permanently. All for
what? You trying to look like Robin Hood pushing files on people?
Anyways, copyright area, object theft and subscription sites oh my is a big
topic. IANAL, but I hope that helps.
liB
noname
"Bil Simser" <bsi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:9GvG7.155411$oa2.50...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> "noname" <non...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:nZpF7.100870$%B6.27...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> > Let's say I send people who haven't paid the subscription fees objects
> from
> > the sites that have gone to subscription. What can the site owners do?
I'm
> > not sending their site access which is what they say they are charging
> for,
> > right? If the objects themselves aren't being charged for, then am I
doing
> > anything wrong?
> >
> > Some sites say you can't distribute their objects, like some of us did
> when
> > Jenny closed her site down. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm
talking
> > about sending objects that can only be gotten from the subscription
> > sites/sections.
>
> I'll jump in here and offer my 1.25 (Canadian) cents.
>
>
> violations. This is a gray area though, depending on how you subscribe to
> their site and what terms you agreed to (if any) so your mileage may vary.
> You'll also get a bad rap in the community, be black listed at various
> places and generally looked down upon in the Sims community. You're also
> subverting the finaces from that site and possibly costing them sales, and
> down the road that may cause the site to be shutdown permanently. All for
> what? You trying to look like Robin Hood pushing files on people?
That's assuming I subscribed. Since I'm using myself as an example and
aren't going to sub, what then? I have some of their stuff from when it was
free. I didn't agree to anything contractually by downloading, not like with
an "I accept" or not choice. As for being blackballed in the community,
that's not enough of a deterrant really. As to playing a part in the site
closing down? I'm of the opinion that if you're going to run a huge site by
your choice then you need to be willing to cut corners and pay for it. I do
understand how that sounds harsh but *I* didn't ask them to have their site.
Anyway, that's a whole other discussion that's been beat to death more than
once here. :)
>
> Anyways, copyright area, object theft and subscription sites oh my is a
big
> topic. IANAL, but I hope that helps.
True. What does IANAL mean?
noname
Ohmikeghod
If you redistribute without permission you're still breaking copyright.
You do NOT have the right to publish their material unless it was
given to you. The fact that you DL'd the objects when it was a free
site does not mean that the objects are in the public domain. "Free"
and "Public Domain" ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! (sorry about yelling, but
it maybe that will keep it in your head). Why can't you separate the two?
Adam Selene
<si...@home.commasnala> wrote:
> "Adam Selene" <moon...@asi.recyclespammers.org> wrote in message
> news:051120012055595126%moon...@asi.recyclespammers.org...
>
> >
> > ASI has no other rights in this contract. I can't, for example,
> > tell another web site it's OK to distribute Libby's Garden Rock #2
> > (which is on Livin-It-Up; really great rock, too). That's entirely
> > Libby's decision; so if anybody asked, I'd tell 'em to write to Libby
> > about it.
> >
>
> They also can't reprint my entire editorial on TSR. Giving me credit doesn't
> make it okay, nor does the fact I have no plans at this time to do anything
> about it make it okay.
>
> Glad you like the rock, btw :-)
Hey, as rocks go, this rock really rocks!
I don't quite know where I developed this obsession with rock,
doctor, but ... <fade to the credit crawl>
G. R. Bennett, President, The Moon Society
http://www.moonsociety.org/
Adam Selene
<non...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> If EA owns Maxis then they very well may own the copyrites ...
Yup, Electronic Arts owns the copyrights.
Nit:
copyright -- the right to make a copy
copywriter -- one who writes copy, as a newspaper reporter
noname
Distributing and publishing are two different things. If you read my
original question and my response to Bil, you'll see that I asked what could
they do should I distribute. I appreciate your passion but really....I don't
need you to yell to keep anything in my head. I haven't confused free with
public domain. I simply asked a question that I find interesting and
pertinent. As I've said, being banned from a forum or looked down on in the
community really doesn't mean much. Outside of that, what can be done?
noname
Adam Selene
<non...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> Recolor or not, to be able to claim ownership in terms of copyright, the
> work would have to be submitted and then researched before copyright would
> be awarded.
No, not in the United States at least. You might be thinking of
registered trademarks or patents.
Under U.S. copyright law, the moment you create it, you own it;
and the moment you put your name on it, you claim copyright to your
work. Even the little (c) symbol is just an exclamation point on your
claim, making it clear to the reader that you emphatically claim your
right of copy and intend to defend it.
It's not a good idea to speculate about the law. Instead, read
it, Title 17 of the US Code:
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
The U.S. copyright law is surprisingly clear and readable, largely
devoid of lawyerisms. It's also surprisingly reasonable and free of
the "gray areas" that are frequently alluded to in these discussions.
So give it a whirl; you'll enjoy it.
(For stuff on trademarks and patents, refer to the US Patent and
Trademark Office, http://www.uspto.gov/.)
Bil Simser
>
> That's assuming I subscribed. Since I'm using myself as an example and
> aren't going to sub, what then? I have some of their stuff from when it
was
> free. I didn't agree to anything contractually by downloading, not like
with
> an "I accept" or not choice. As for being blackballed in the community,
> that's not enough of a deterrant really. As to playing a part in the site
> closing down? I'm of the opinion that if you're going to run a huge site
by
> your choice then you need to be willing to cut corners and pay for it. I
do
> understand how that sounds harsh but *I* didn't ask them to have their
site.
> Anyway, that's a whole other discussion that's been beat to death more
than
> once here. :)
I'm not saying that you subscribed or not, however the original post was
"Let's say I send people who haven't paid the subscription fees objects from
the sites that have gone to subscription". If you aquired the object (and
I'm using that term generically) when the site was not on a subscription
basis then I would say you can distribute it. Why? There's a program called
TuxRacer, an open source game for Windows and Linux. Some time ago, the
free, open source version was purchased by a company who is releasing it as
a commercial product. You can still download the free version all you want.
The company is adding features and otherwise making the commercial version
viable. However, this isn't exactly the case here since the object hasn't
been modified since the site went subscription (i.e. they didn't make the
one you download via subscription any different than the one you already
have). However, do you have the right to redistribute the original object?
Problaby not since most sites don't allow that kind of behaviour (depends on
the site). So if you aquired it before the subscription service started, you
can distribute it if you were given permission to in the first place.
I wouldn't scoff being blackballed from the Sims community as something to
blow off so easily. The Sims people are a tight bunch and for the most part,
pretty territorial when it comes to things that invade their space. Look at
that CD that carried a bunch of peoples content without their permission.
There was massive outcry over it. Look at the sites and auctions that are
shut down on eBay just by a few posts in a forum. Personally if I was
blackballed by a large percentage of the Sims community (besides the few
people that just hate me in general) I'd pack up my bags and leave quietly.
I agree that if you're going to run a huge site then you need to pay for it,
however when people started Sim sites they were not given any indication
that bandwidth charges would exceed what their ISPs can tolerate and thus
are forced into paying large amounts of money to keep the site up and
running or shut down. If I put product X out there and have 1000's of people
buy it and call in for technical support, sure I'm going to start hiring
staff to handle the calls but if the product is free, well, you get what you
pay for. The subscription sites that are out now are few and far between,
compared to the number of Sim sites in general. However look at the content
that they provide both in quality and quantity (MOTS aside as I dont' feel
they contribute a whole heck of a lot but that's a whole 'nuther thread).
You'll find that the real top sites have to charge to keep up. Basic
economics. Supply and demand. And you'll probably see other large scale
sites have to move to subscription services soon. There's just no way that
any company is going to tolerate a free ride forever. Anyways, like I said,
these people that started these sites might have been blindsided a little by
not knowing the sheer volume of traffic they were to expect to receive, let
alone build up to. And it's a vicious circle. You have a good quality site
that everyone comes to, so you become popular and people expect more from
you.
> True. What does IANAL mean?
I am not a lawyer (or a llama) so take whatever I have to say with a grain
of salt.
liB
Mike Tennent
>
>Yes. The BMPs are a work of art that is actually seperate from the IFF.
> The IFF is the medium through which it can be viewed.
I think you stated your point more clearly here than in your reply to
my post. <g>
I think it has a lot of validity and would be arguable in court (as if
it would ever came to that.) But please, it's still only your opinion,
not a fact of law.
Copyright law is changing daily as a result of electronic media. What
was accepted as fact last year may not be valid today. It's
bewildering.
I think I've probably beat on this old horse enough. You can have the
last word. <g>
Ohmikeghod
You're right. Distribution is not publishing. However, in order to
distribute a copyrighted item, you first have to make a copy, and that
*IS* publishing. Thank you for making the distinction. When you send a
copy of an object in e-mail, you are publishing, but on a smaller scale
than placing an object on a website. scale of distribution does not
matter. Neither does mode of delivery of copyrighted material. It
doesn't matter whether it's 10 crates of CDs deliverd by UPS, or a
transmission via e-mail.
As to what can be done... Not much. Since lawyers cost money, it's not
worth it going to court. The monetary damage is too slight. That
doesn't prevent the thief from being called exactly that, though.
Derision and ostricizing are the only recourses left for artists to
protect their work on objects or skins when it's stolen. Somebody
*could* take a culprit to court, but with no monetary damage, the best
result would be recovery of costs (legal and court fees). If the theft
is big enough, the thief could end up spending some time in the pokey.
Violation of copyright is a crime, even though most cases are handled in
civil rather than criminal court. The amount of time wasted by a
lawsuit, though, will never able to be recovered, so we use what weapons
we can to fight these crimes.
So, here is my advice to would-be thieves. Be discreet. Don't say
"I'll send you a copy" where others can see (and publicise it). Just
send the thing, and keep mum about what you did. If someone thanks you
for sending them something that was stolen, a "Who, me?" response would
be good. Don't encourage others to steal for you. There will always be
theft of material at the small-scale level, but I think that it's in
best to discourage it as much as possible, even though it's impossible
to control.
Ohmikeghod
> Ohmikeghod <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes. The BMPs are a work of art that is actually seperate from the IFF.
>> The IFF is the medium through which it can be viewed.
>>
>
> I think you stated your point more clearly here than in your reply to
> my post. <g>
>
> I think it has a lot of validity and would be arguable in court (as if
> it would ever came to that.) But please, it's still only your opinion,
> not a fact of law.
Look at it this way. I get permission from an artist to use their work
in the sims to make a painting to hang on the wall. Has that changed
their copyright in the slightest? No. their painting is still (c)
them. When I create a painting electronicly, it is still (c) me. Let's
take it a step further. I create an ornate frame with lots of curlicues
to place around that painting. That is also a work of art, and (c) me,
which also doesn't negate the copyright of the original artist. I can
then place these works of art within an IFF, which is (c) Maxis. There
is no conflict. In order to keep things official, you can place a
notice for all amterial that is used by stating that 1) you have
permission, and 2) that the material is (c) their respective owners.
> Copyright law is changing daily as a result of electronic media. What
> was accepted as fact last year may not be valid today. It's
> bewildering.
Not quite on a daily basis. The latest chages have been clarifications
on what constitutes electronic publishing, and include electronic works
as being copyrightable (beyond the software copyrights). There have
also been recent Supreme Court decisions on the rights of authors
regarding electronic distribution of work published in other media. The
dicision was made on the side of the authors, rather than the
publishers. It is in less a state of flux than it was five years ago.
> I think I've probably beat on this old horse enough. You can have the
> last word. <g>
--- Mike ---
noname
> "noname" <non...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:E_vG7.120372$%B6.32...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> >
> > that's not enough of a deterrant really.
>
>
> blow off so easily. The Sims people are a tight bunch and for the most
part,
> pretty territorial when it comes to things that invade their space. Look
at
> that CD that carried a bunch of peoples content without their permission.
> There was massive outcry over it. Look at the sites and auctions that are
> shut down on eBay just by a few posts in a forum. Personally if I was
> blackballed by a large percentage of the Sims community (besides the few
> people that just hate me in general) I'd pack up my bags and leave
quietly.
If someone is going to distribute someone elses objects more than just
sending to a few friends, I seriously doubt where being blackballed would
matter that much to them. As for being a tight bunch, I can't really answer
to that. The only forum I read and post to are this ng and the binaries.
I've tried some of the web boards but just didn't like them. Course, with
all the bickering that goes on it does have a family feel...lol I don't see
us as any different from any other group of people. We like something in
common and if something gets us going then we say so or do so. Sim
communities are as diverse as any other but remind me of a lot of ngs I
read. I personally would have to loose complete interest in the sims before
packing up and leaving. I've thought about dropping this ng before when I
was in the habit of reading every single post...way to time consuming. Guess
it's different for different people.
noname
Ohmikeghod
I agree. We're much more like a family here, than a community. We may
disagree. We may be opinionated. Sometimes we may even flame each
other. But that doesn't lessen our interest in the game, and the
reasons we are here - and those reasons are probably as varied as the
group is.
I also agree that low-level distribution is going to happen, and
there's not much that can be done about it. We just have to keep it
small. Since websites are a different matter altogether, I completely
support Die Thieves. Websites are much easier to control since ISPs are
notorious for respecting copyrights.
Mike Tennent
>
>As are your own statements. I think it's been pretty clear that this
>has all been an exchange of opinions based on our individual
>understandings of the situation.
>
>BW
And what's best is that we did it without any name calling or hurt
feelings. It can be done. <g>
I appreciate Mike taking the effort to so clearly lay out the
reasoning behind his argument.
Mike Tennent
>
>Something similar that might help explain it is what most compiler
>manufacturers have. I have an agreement with them (every developer does)
>that I can distribute my software to anyone who care. I used their tools to
>create it but it's my intellectual property. However, if I need to
>distribute part of their software (runtime libraries, etc.) then they grant
>me the right to do so. Think of a Sim object as this. Intellectual property
>that the site creators have made, distributing with the Maxis runtime (the
>IFF format). Maybe that might explain some things (or maybe not).
Ok. This coupled with the other Mike's arguments makes a lot of sense.
I still have reservations about whether a simple re-color of a
refrigerator would merit a copyright claim, but for stuff like Mike's
truck, it's clearly appropriate.
Maybe this *will* be my last word... <g>
Bil Simser
news:B5B020B39C3AFB9E.CD742E25...@lp.airnews.net...
>
> Ok. This coupled with the other Mike's arguments makes a lot of sense.
Really? You mean I actually made sense. Will wonders never cease?
> I still have reservations about whether a simple re-color of a
> refrigerator would merit a copyright claim, but for stuff like Mike's
> truck, it's clearly appropriate.
I feel that a recolour of an existing object is nothing more than that. I'm
not doing anything except applying some filters to someone elses artwork, so
in that sense I feel it's no different than making a copy of a painting or
changing the colour of a logo and for that, I can't claim any copyright.
One thing about copyright infringement, you're allowed up to a certain
amount to retain the original feel of the creation. For example, if I take
someone elses code to write an application and use a small percentage of it
(say a few routines here and there), I can still claim copyright on the
entire body of work even though I didn't write it all. Of course the issue
of how much is too much is left to debate. They did apply a number to it (I
think 60 or 70%) but that's hard to determine in artwork. As well, if the
original author says you can use this but just retain my copyright info or
something, then you have to follow those guidelines but you can still claim
copyright on the entire body of work.
So in short, recoloring is not copyrightable since you didn't really create
anything.
liB
Ohmikeghod
Recolors would not merit a separate copyright. If the artwork is
clearly the same as the original, then permission must be granted by the
original holder. A good example is the ubiquitous green flamingo. The
artwork is clearly the same as the Maxis flamingo, so I couldn't claim a
copyright for it, even though it's in the public domain. If the artwork
is different, then no. Again, though the real gray area is in "shadow"
objects, which I think merit a shared copyright <-- because this IS a
gray area, I wouldn't want to be the one to test it in court on either side.
Adam Selene
<ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote:
> ... The difference between a copyright and a patent is that you can
> patent an idea. You can only copyright a work.
For the sake of accuracy, one of the truisms of patent law is that
"you cannot patent an idea." You have to make a signficant
contribution the state of the art to be awarded a patent. Just having
an idea doesn't cut it with the PTO; the idea has to be backed up by
some serious design and analysis.
And FWIW, there was quite a bit more to the lawsuit between Apple
and Microsoft than just the basic idea of windows and pull-down menus
like they developed at Xerox PARC.