Who actually owns what?
Davybear
Who actually owns these objects?
Say, I go to Maxis headquarters and find three Maxis owned vans in the
parking lot.
Van A is a scratched and faded green.
Van B and C are new plain white vans.
I paint van A blue. (improving its value.)
I paint a beautiful original landscape on the side of van B.(a rich art
collector sees the painting and is willing to pay three times the vans worth
for it.)
I paint Disney characters all over van C.
Who owns the vans?
Who owns the art work?
Who owns the .iff file structure?
If the .iff file structure is in public domain then it would be like
painting on a canvas not a van.
If the Maxis owns the .iff file structure then it is like painting on a van.
So far the only ones that can create completely new .iff files are those who
have EDITH.
I do not know if Maxis has given us full rights to the .iff file structure
or not.
If not, then maybe Maxis owns all the hard work that other people have done.
Are we just licensed to use the .iff files or are we able to claim ownership
of them?
Davybear
Inge Jones
Davy...@adelphia.net says...
> All the discussion over pay sites and theft of objects got me thinking.
> Who actually owns these objects?
>
> Say, I go to Maxis headquarters and find three Maxis owned vans in the
> parking lot.
> Van A is a scratched and faded green.
> Van B and C are new plain white vans.
> I paint van A blue. (improving its value.)
> I paint a beautiful original landscape on the side of van B.(a rich art
> collector sees the painting and is willing to pay three times the vans worth
> for it.)
> I paint Disney characters all over van C.
> Who owns the vans?
> Who owns the art work?
The vans are all still owned by Maxis, and if they didn't want your
paint on them, you must pay the cost of having it removed. You may also
be prosecuted by Disney for infringing their copyright on one van. If
Maxis don't mind driving around with your art work on them, then they
are allowed to do so. But they cannot show the Disney painted van in
public, until that paint has been cleaned off or Disney give permission
for the work to be shown (you put your own work on their van therefore
they need not ask your permission to show the original). Maxis is not
allowed to copy or take photographs of your art work and reproduce it
without your permission
> Who owns the .iff file structure?
The people who wrote Edith or whatever produces the structure. The
content (values/data) is owned by the people who used the tool to create
the file.
> I do not know if Maxis has given us full rights to the .iff file structure
> or not.
> If not, then maybe Maxis owns all the hard work that other people have done.
> Are we just licensed to use the .iff files or are we able to claim ownership
> of them?
Maxis have set precedent by publishing links to fan sites that have
custom content - ie have altered iff files. This means they will not
have an easy time prosecuting anyone for altering iff files, even if the
licence agreement does prohibit it. What I am not sure of is the extent
of the hacking on the objects therein. If the sites linked to have
appearance change only, it may be possible for Maxis to prosecute where
the alteration goes further. I know that Script Station was
specifically banned, and therefore items hacked with that may be
actionable.
notagain
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFF-8SVX
and
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_format
According to this you cannot patent a file format but....
hth
"Inge Jones" <in...@drealm.org.uk> wrote in message
news:h6acnQmVDYa...@News.GigaNews.Com...
Jake Nichols
wrote:
>> If not, then maybe Maxis owns all the hard work that other people have done.
>> Are we just licensed to use the .iff files or are we able to claim ownership
>> of them?
Look at it like this. MS owns Windows.. but there are a bazillion
programs that run on the windows system. MS doesn't own all of them.
MS doesn't approve of all of them. SOme programs out there are open
source.. some closed source.. some you have to pay for and some are
free.
Maxis owns The Sims, but Maxis cannot own *all* the objects that can
be used in the game. However, Maxis can contrrol programs that can
directly change the structure (coding) of the game.
>Maxis have set precedent by publishing links to fan sites that have
>custom content - ie have altered iff files. This means they will not
>have an easy time prosecuting anyone for altering iff files, even if the
>licence agreement does prohibit it. What I am not sure of is the extent
>of the hacking on the objects therein. If the sites linked to have
>appearance change only, it may be possible for Maxis to prosecute where
>the alteration goes further. I know that Script Station was
>specifically banned, and therefore items hacked with that may be
>actionable.
I am not sure why Script Stations was *banned* but I am sure it did
mor than just offer a way to hack or recolor objects.
Jake
John Grabowski
> I paint van A blue. (improving its value.)
In whose eyes?
John
--
The price of hating other human beings is loving oneself less.
--Eldridge Cleaver
ohmikeghod
Something is copyrightable when it is produced as a tangible piece of art.
When I make my objects, I always produce the artwork first. Thus it is a
separate copyrighted work. I own that work, and any derivatives of that
work. At this point it has not yet been incorporated into the game. When I
place it into an IFF format, I am making a derivative of my own work. Who
owns the rights to derivatives? Look at the copyright office website, and
find out. http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/
IFF files have the same relationship that canvas does to fine art. It is
the media on which the artwork is presented. Do you think that a canvas
company should own rights to artist's oil paintings? Or a paper company to
numbered prints? Obviously, you are livin in never-never land.
--
ง--- Mike ---ง
<Shameless Promotion> http://www.livin-it-up.net/
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!"
Davybear
"ohmikeghod" <ohmik...@mirthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%r%P9.4489$9N5.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Not if you never paid for the canvas or paper.
You have to buy it first.
It would not be the first time software companys licened the code and not
sold it.
I think that is how Microsoft made all there money.
> --
> ง--- Mike ---ง
> <Shameless Promotion> http://www.livin-it-up.net/
> Member of the evil Kult Of Object Kreators - both factions
> "The ultimate goal is to take over all hard drives in the world!"
> "The ultimate goal is to make load time greater than 24 hours!"
>
>
>
>
>
>
Unisys starts enforcing LZW patent
At the end of December 1994, CompuServe and Unisys announced that U.S.
patent 4,558,302 which Unisys holds for the LZW compression algorithm would
be enforced for GIFs: all commercial programs capable of producing GIF files
would be required to pay a license fee to Unisys. (IBM also claims to have
the same method patented, but does not enforce its patent.)
By this time, GIF was in such widespread use that most companies producing
these programs had little choice but to pay up. These problems led to the
development of the PNG format, which has become the third common image
format on the Web.
In late August 1999, Unisys terminated its royalty-free LZW technology
licenses for free software and non-commercial proprietary software and even
for individual users of unlicensed programs, prompting the League for
Programming Freedom to launch the Burn All GIFs campaign to inform the
public of the alternatives.
I got this info from http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF
Thank you, notagain for posting the link to winkipedia.
Davybear
Briar
Get a web site
make some Sim objects and put them up for download
some one claims them as their work
How will you feel?
Until that happens you don't understand.
From one who can't recolor a Flamingo, but has had short story ideas and text
stolen.
"Davybear" <Davy...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:cZ1Q9.979$Fj2.6...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
Davybear
"Briar" <hawken_ri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0e2Q9.985$Fj2.6...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> Well in short easy to understand words.
>
> Get a web site
> make some Sim objects and put them up for download
> some one claims them as their work
>
> How will you feel?
>
> Until that happens you don't understand.
> From one who can't recolor a Flamingo, but has had short story ideas and
text
> stolen.
>
I do not like pirates.
It is not about how anyone feels about this issue, it is about the law.
CompuServe/Unisys owns the Gif format and can charge royalty fees for its
use.
Can Maxis do the same with the iff format?
I don't know - That is why I was asking.
Davybear
ohmikeghod
I purchased the game. That's the same anology - but the art is
copyrightable as a separate work, even without the game. Please explain
further why you think my artwork is not copyrightable by me.
> Unisys starts enforcing LZW patent
> At the end of December 1994, CompuServe and Unisys announced that U.S.
> patent 4,558,302 which Unisys holds for the LZW compression algorithm
> would be enforced for GIFs: all commercial programs capable of
> producing GIF files would be required to pay a license fee to Unisys.
> (IBM also claims to have the same method patented, but does not
> enforce its patent.)
>
> By this time, GIF was in such widespread use that most companies
> producing these programs had little choice but to pay up. These
> problems led to the development of the PNG format, which has become
> the third common image format on the Web.
>
> In late August 1999, Unisys terminated its royalty-free LZW technology
> licenses for free software and non-commercial proprietary software
> and even for individual users of unlicensed programs, prompting the
> League for Programming Freedom to launch the Burn All GIFs campaign
> to inform the public of the alternatives.
>
> I got this info from http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF
>
> Thank you, notagain for posting the link to winkipedia.
Thank you for explaining why I paid a premium to produce GIF files for the
website. It's nice to know that you are up on the topic of patent law as it
applies to graphics on the internet. You should be aware that the internal
files in IFFs are uncompressed BMP's, so Maxis does not have to pay anything
to Unisys.
The Unisys case does not apply. Unisys' patent was on the compression
algorythm, not the format, and if someone is able to devise a different
algorythm that produces the same results, they won't have to pay. The IFF
format (as it applies to the art) does absolutely NO compression or
manipulation of the BMP files, and no proprietary algorythm is used on the
art itself. Additionally, no patent for Simantics has been applied for by
EA or Maxis, as far as I know. If you have different information on this
issue, could you please post it? Otherwise, I will have to assume that you
know absolutely nothing about the subject or how it applies to items within
the game.
What are you going to bring up next? A "look and feel" case, like Apple vs.
Microsoft? That case also doesn't apply - but it *was* a copyright issue,
which is closer to the subject than the Unisys case is. Tossing in random
facts about non-applicable stuff is nothing but a red herring, and used
quite often when people are unsure about how to proceed with the topic, in
order to obfuscate their lack of knowledge. How about explaining why you
think the Unisys case applies to objects for the game?
In any case, you seem to be confusing "copyright" with "patent". They are
two different issues, both of which I am prepared to discuss with you at
length.
ohmikeghod
Unisys does not own the gif format. The patent is on the compression
algorythm designed to produce the format. Please explain which algorythms
you think Maxis owns patents on that apply to the IFF format.
Davybear
I have no way of knowing what algorithms are used in EDITH.
Do you?
Maxis must have some control over the files as they banned Script Station.
Davybear
Snip
> >>
> >> Something is copyrightable when it is produced as a tangible piece
> >> of art. When I make my objects, I always produce the artwork first.
> >> Thus it is a separate copyrighted work. I own that work, and any
> >> derivatives of that work. At this point it has not yet been
> >> incorporated into the game. When I place it into an IFF format, I
> >> am making a derivative of my own work. Who owns the rights to
> >> derivatives? Look at the copyright office website, and find out.
> >> http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/
> >>
> >> IFF files have the same relationship that canvas does to fine art.
> >> It is the media on which the artwork is presented. Do you think
> >> that a canvas company should own rights to artist's oil paintings?
> >> Or a paper company to numbered prints? Obviously, you are livin in
> >> never-never land.
> >
> > Not if you never paid for the canvas or paper.
> > You have to buy it first.
> >
> > It would not be the first time software companys licened the code and
> > not sold it.
> > I think that is how Microsoft made all there money.
> >
>
> I purchased the game. That's the same anology - but the art is
> copyrightable as a separate work, even without the game. Please explain
> further why you think my artwork is not copyrightable by me.
>
1. You did not purchase the game you only purchased a copy of the game for
you own personal use.
If you had purchased the game then Maxis would have to pay you for
each CD they sold.
2. Your artwork would be copyrightable, but Maxis may still have control of
its distribution.
How much control does Maxis have??????????? (That is what I have been
asking.)
I wish you would refrain from using Ad hominem arguments.
Attacking me is not helping your argument.
Jake Nichols
wrote:
>Can Maxis do the same with the iff format?
>I don't know - That is why I was asking.
>
>
>Davybear
Maxis doesn't own the .iff format.. but it does own the objects that
are in the sims games.. so if you hack/copy/recolor/modify or change
those objects, Maxis still owns them.
You can however, create your own stuff and put it in a .iff file and
you will be the sole owner of it, lock, stock and barrel.
Jake
Jake Nichols
wrote:
>
>1. You did not purchase the game you only purchased a copy of the game for
>you own personal use.
> If you had purchased the game then Maxis would have to pay you for
>each CD they sold.
>2. Your artwork would be copyrightable, but Maxis may still have control of
>its distribution.
> How much control does Maxis have??????????? (That is what I have been
>asking.)
Good luck getting a traight answer from them.. I keep asking why if
there is nothing posted on a web site about NOT re-distibution, then
why is it considered stealing when those items show up on another
site. So far, they haven't answered me either.
But since Maxis posts links to program and sites, and creates programs
that enable you to change/alter/hack/modiy the objects/skins/items/
etc in the game, I am going to guess that they condone it.
However, I would advise not to trry changing anything in the coding of
the game, and you should be safe.
Jake
Mandi
"Jake Nichols" <Jake_N...@toughguy.net> wrote in message
news:eo021vg3ah6olrjkq...@4ax.com...
I think that is why alot of sites have somewhere is the readme files
something like "Maxis has not approved this item and takes no responsiblity
for whatever it does to your game" not in those exact words but you catch
my drift. A lot of the sites I download from have a saying similar to that.
But who knows?? As long as I don't redistribute downloads I am safe for
now.
Amanda
ohmikeghod
>> <Shameless Promotion> http://www.livin-it-up.net/
>> 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!"
>>
>>
>>
>>
> EDITH - The only way to make original objects for the sims.
>
> I have no way of knowing what algorithms are used in EDITH.
> Do you?
>
> Maxis must have some control over the files as they banned Script
> Station.
Quite obviously, you have no idea what Edith does. Edith does not "create
objects, nor does it create IFF files. Edith is the Simantics editor that
is used by Maxis to control the interactions within the game, and EDITs
(thus the first four letters of the name) IFF files. It is a tool, and
nothing else. People have been editing (hacking) behaviors by hand, using
tools like IFF pencil, or even hex editors. Are you saying that the
creators of hex editors have a stake in my creations?
Script Station is readily available, if you know where to look, and Maxis
has taken no more action against the sites that host it. Script Station is
as much a symantics editor as Edith is. Reverse engineering is an old and
established practice, as long as the original is not copied. If that wasn't
true, all PCs would be from IBM. If Maxis went to court over Script
Station, they'd lose.
Perhaps you should try learning something about the topic you are trying to
talk about.
--
§--- Mike ---§
ohmikeghod
If you read the Copyright laws, the person who has control of copyrighted
material is the copyright holder. What makes you think that Maxis would try
to break the law? Maxis has no control over the distribution of *my*
material. I do. Copyright may be assigned, but that requires a formal
contract, signed by both parties.
> I wish you would refrain from using Ad hominem arguments.
> Attacking me is not helping your argument.
You still didn't answer the questions:
1. What makes you think that the Unisys Case applies?
2. What information do you have on Maxis patents re: proprietary
algorythms?
I stand by my comment - dragging in non-applicable (but technical) topics
shows lack of knowledge.
ohmikeghod
Here are the policies of the Livin-it-up site.
Livin-It-Up
Copyright Information
With the exception of banners and buttons, as a site we cannot allow
distribution in any form of any creation or graphic on the site via any
means other than this site specifically without consent of the creator of
that item. Our individual creators retain the rights to all their creations
and to do so would simply be a violation of their specific rights. You may
however contact the individual creators regarding their wishes on this
subject. Where the creator of a graphic or file on the site is not self
evident, contact simm...@livin-it-up.net.
Exception for spotlight type sites - Spotlight/featured type sites may use
our banners, buttons, and images from our update for the intent purpose of
displaying what we currently have to offer in our update. It is however
suggested that for the best graphics to suit these needs they subscribe to
our newsletter and use the images linked within. These types of sites are
free to archive these graphics on their own server for this purpose.
The only items you are welcome to offer remotely hosted from our site are
our banners and buttons. All other items even with permission are required
to be hosted on your own server.
IF granted permission in any form by any creator for distribution of
ANYTHING on this site, ALL wishes of that creator are to be adhered to
strictly or the items removed.
We are not affiliated with nor do we claim rights to any Maxis creations nor
do our wishes supercede those of any original creator of any item we may
have used as a base for our creations. Maxis and other creators retain all
rights to their own creations.
Current as of 10-23-2002
Please contact webmaster for current policy if dispute arises.
simm...@livin-it-up.net.
Wilf Jones
> EA (1985). They keep the details secret though.
Not quite. IFF was originally designed as an open file format for
*any* developer to use (google "EA IFF 1985" to find the original
specification). Having said that, the actual *contents* of an IFF file
are a different matter, though...
Wilf
(ex-Amiga owner, so it's quite weird to be tinkering about with IFF
files once again after all these years!)
Jake Nichols
Thank you Mike
Davybear
Tmog and other programs only modify (edit) the original object.
The original object (Maxis copyrighted) is still there.
You do not seem to understand that both you and Maxis can hold copyrights on
the same object at the same time.
Just the same as the author of a book and the illustrator of a book can hold
copyrights at the same time, only in different ways.
You seem to be taking this personally.
It is not personally directed at you in any way.
In fact I enjoy your work and have download many of you objects.
I really like your windows.
Not only that but since you give your objects away for free, I doubt Maxis
would ever take issue with your site.
If they ever decide to reclaim their rights to sims objects.
If they ever become greedy enough to do so.
> You still didn't answer the questions:
>
> 1. What makes you think that the Unisys Case applies?
> 2. What information do you have on Maxis patents re: proprietary
> algorithms?
As for the Gifs and iff.
Both are file formats.
Both can contain copyrightable or patented material.
Both contain graphics and other information at the same time.
I would say that made it very relevant.
As for what algorithms are used by EDITH, who knows?
Maxis may or may not have patents to any algorithms at this time.
But that would not stop them from possibly doing so in the future.
They do have copyrights on all their objects.
Let me ask you a question.
Who would win a legal battle over the following case?
1. My recoloring one of a Maxis object and claiming copyright to it.
2. Someone else recoloring the same object the same color and claiming
copyright to it.
3. Maxis claiming copyright to the objects.
Remember objects are not just graphics.
They contain a lot of code for things like behavior, price, room value, ect.
You can use hex editors or Script Station or a bootleg copy of EDITH to
change some of the code.
But Maxis never gave you permission to do so.
So far Maxis has only given very limited permission to alter their objects.
Davybear
ohmikeghod
> Maxis created the original objects.
> Tmog and other programs only modify (edit) the original object.
> The original object (Maxis copyrighted) is still there.
> You do not seem to understand that both you and Maxis can hold
> copyrights on the same object at the same time.
> Just the same as the author of a book and the illustrator of a book
> can hold copyrights at the same time, only in different ways.
>
> You seem to be taking this personally.
> It is not personally directed at you in any way.
>
> In fact I enjoy your work and have download many of you objects.
> I really like your windows.
> Not only that but since you give your objects away for free, I doubt
> Maxis would ever take issue with your site.
> If they ever decide to reclaim their rights to sims objects.
> If they ever become greedy enough to do so.
If they reclaim rights, they only will be able to reclaim what *THEY* have
copyrighted. My artwork would have to be removed from anything they
"reclaimed", which would give them jack. They know this, and that's the
main reason they aren't pressing anything. If you tried taking my items and
publishing them on a website, I could ask you to remove my artwork from them
as well - what would that give you? So, even if your argument is true
(which I still have reservations on - see below), I still have control over
the portion that contains *my* copyrighted material.
>> You still didn't answer the questions:
>>
>> 1. What makes you think that the Unisys Case applies?
>> 2. What information do you have on Maxis patents re: proprietary
>> algorithms?
>
>
> As for the Gifs and iff.
> Both are file formats.
> Both can contain copyrightable or patented material.
Gifs do not contain patentable material. The algorythm used to create gifs
is patented. Not anything else. Any algorythm used in creating IFF files
has not been patented, or had a patent applied for (I checked - did you?).
> Both contain graphics and other information at the same time.
> I would say that made it very relevant.
>
> As for what algorithms are used by EDITH, who knows?
It really doesn't matter, if reverse engineering comes up with the same
results (as in Script Station). In any case, neither Maxis or EA have
applied for patents on them, so your point is moot.
> Maxis may or may not have patents to any algorithms at this time.
> But that would not stop them from possibly doing so in the future.
Have you ever heard of something called "prior use"? Any patent applied for
at this time would be invalidated in court, and Maxis knows it.
> They do have copyrights on all their objects.
Yes, they do. My objects are not their objects, and fall under a separate
copyright.
> Let me ask you a question.
> Who would win a legal battle over the following case?
> 1. My recoloring one of a Maxis object and claiming copyright to
> it.
You would lose. A recolor is a derivative.
> 2. Someone else recoloring the same object the same color and
> claiming copyright to it.
They would lose - plagiarism.
> 3. Maxis claiming copyright to the objects.
As opposed to what? Maxis has copyright on their objects. If you have not
noticed, I don't do recolors. All of my objects are new, and have different
alpha and z-buffers, even when I use Maxis objects as bases.
A trickier one would be "I corrected the z-buffers on the Maxis blinds to
cure their bleeding problem - does Maxis still retain the copyright?" The
answer is yes, since the object still remains the same, and is therefore a
derivative. Once you change the artwork, as well as correcting the buffers,
the thing becomes a new object, not a derivative. It would fall under
separate copyright - because then the thing becomes *distinctively*
different from the original.
> Remember objects are not just graphics.
> They contain a lot of code for things like behavior, price, room
> value, ect.
The simantics code for behavior is copyrightable, the price, room value and
other stuff is not, since they are just flags, and the code is not contained
in the object, but in the sims.exe program itself (which falls under a
separate copyright from any on the IFF files themselves). I could make an
argument that the simantics code is necessary for presentation of the
artwork, and becomes "background material". Whether a court would take that
would be up to the arguments placed by the respective lawyers, since this is
a gray area, not a cut & dried one.
I think that an argument could also be made under "fair use", since only
fragments of the original are used. I feel that this is weaker than the
background material argument, because the elements *are* necessary for
presentation, which could invalidate any fair use argument. The two
arguments are mutually opposed - if you use one, you are invalidating the
other argument. Have a lawyer make the choice - his opinions may differ.
> You can use hex editors or Script Station or a bootleg copy of EDITH
> to change some of the code.
> But Maxis never gave you permission to do so.
> So far Maxis has only given very limited permission to alter their
> objects.
> Davybear
I don't need permission to change or add anything in a public format. The
contents of the format are copyrightable, not the format itself. When the
contents have been modified to the point where they are distinct (not just
changed) from whatever was originally there, they come under a new
copyright, and are *not* derivatives, since the only thing in common is the
format. The use of new artwork makes the item distinct. Please note that
copyright law is a bit fuzzy - There is no given percentage of change for
distinctiveness. The item just has to be distincively different.
Think about it this way. Books are printed on paper. The paper
manufacturer has no rights to the printed material (equivalent to the IFF
format), nor does the manufacturer of the printer used to publish the work
(equivalent to T-mog). Two authors (Maxis & third-party creators) do not
have rights to each others work just because they are both printed on paper
or use the same printing press.
ohmikeghod
>> <Shameless Promotion> http://www.livin-it-up.net/
>> 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!"
>>
>>
>
> manual. Most software companies that have identical copyright notices.
>
> Example:
> No part of this manual or the described software may be copied,
> reproduced, translated, or reduced to electronic medium or
> machine-readable form without the prior written consent of (Company
> name).
>
> If you go to the fan site links page at
> http://thesims.ea.com/us/index.html It says in very small print that
> EA or anyone connected to EA does not endorse and is not responsible
> for content on third party sites.
>
> At the same time they acknowledge that fans have created great stuff.
> Skins, wallpaper, floors, objects, and game utilities.
>
> I did however find this on the t-mog site.
>
> http://www.lushcreations.com/TransmogrifierNotice.htm
>
> 2. Prohibitions. You understand and agree that you may not and will
> not, directly or indirectly, do any of the following: (a) rent, sell,
> lease or lend the Software; (b) distribute the Software; (c)
> commercially exploit the Software or use the Software for any
> commercial purpose in any other manner and through any medium
> whatsoever; (d) commercially exploit or use for any commercial
> purpose whatsoever anything you create using the Software; (e)
> disassemble, reverse engineer, decompile, modify, alter or translate
> the Software; (f) reproduce or copy the Software (except as permitted
> under Section 4 below); (g) publicly display the Software; (h)
> prepare or develop derivative works based upon the Software; or (i)
> remove or alter any legal notices or other markings or legends, such
> as trademark and copyright notices, affixed on or within the
> Software.
>
>
>
> I don't know if Maxis/Ea are just covering their backsides or what?
>
> I am guessing that they could enforce this agreement if they chose to.
>
>
>
> Davybear
The only clause in the T-mog agreement that pertains to objects is "(d)
commercially exploit or use for any commercial purpose whatsoever anything
you create using the Software". The rest of the agreement pertains to
Transmogrifier-1.4.exe itself. I suspect that (d) is unenforceable and
possibly in constraint of trade, which would invalidate it anyhow. It says
nothing about their having control of objects made using T-mog other than
that. It certainly does not extend copyright over objects made using T-mog.
Let's take the parts of the agreement one by one:
(a) rent, sell, lease or lend the Software;
I am not renting, selling, leasing, or lending Transmogifier to anyone.
(b) distribute the Software;
I don't have a copy of Transmogrifier on the website.
(c) commercially exploit the Software or use the Software for any commercial
purpose in any other manner and through any medium whatsoever;
I am not exploiting T-mog, commercially or in any other manner. I am using
it, but that is not the same as exploiting. What they are talking about is
it's use in commercials, printed media, etc.
(d) commercially exploit or use for any commercial purpose whatsoever
anything you create using the Software;
I post my stuff on a free site. This certainly doesn't apply. In any case,
as I said, this is unenforceable.
(e) disassemble, reverse engineer, decompile, modify, alter or translate the
Software;
Nope - not doing that either. If I was going to create something that did
the same job, I'd do it better starting from scratch, anyhow. Reverse
engineering is unenforceable, in any case.
(f) reproduce or copy the Software (except as permitted under Section 4
below);
Not doing this either.
(g) publicly display the Software;
When I display the software, it's in the privacy of my own home.
(h) prepare or develop derivative works based upon the Software;
No, but this is probably the one that confused you. They are talking about
derivatives of Transmogrifier, not objects created using the program.
or (i) remove or alter any legal notices or other markings or legends, such
as trademark and copyright notices, affixed on or within the Software.
I haven't done that either.
As I stated before - something about tossing in technicalities that don't
apply...
--
§--- Mike ---§