BG: Site for custom Portraits and sounds
pj
At The Adventurer's Guild http://www.BGChronicles.com/xode/ we have
over 300 portraits for the game. They are all in jpg at the moment,
(o'boy it will be quite a job for me to convert them to bmp's, which I
hope to do sometime), so you will have to convert them to the bmp
standard.
If you do not know how to do this, then you can perhaps take a closer
look at for a http://www.jasc.com/ graphics program that will not
cost way too much. (I personally use Photoshop though.) In The Chest we
also have a link to how to customize sounds and portraits.
We also have a few custom sounds as well. Like Monty Python 2 sets,
Clint Eastwood, Robin Hood and gang, Xena and gang, Simpsons, and
more....
So take a look if you are interested, and if you have a site with sounds
and/or portraits please let me know and I'll try to link you to the
site, so people can find your site. If you are interested in sending me
portraits/sounds please do so, I would really appericate it a lot!
Btw
This is my own personal site:
http://www.citilink.com/~rmc/
If you make a reply to this post, please also send it as an e-mail, so I
am sure that I do get to read it.
Thanks!
PJ
JudyW1917
>At The Adventurer's Guild http://www.BGChronicles.com/xode/ we have
>over 300 portraits for the game.
I notice that most of the portraits are scanned in from TSR Art by Easley,
Elmore etc.
What are the copyright issues involved with using these artists's works?
Also -- FYI -- Queen Takhisis is a wizard _NOT_ a rogue.
Judy
Krud
>
>I notice that most of the portraits are scanned in from TSR Art by Easley,
>Elmore etc.
>
>What are the copyright issues involved with using these artists's works?
Shhh! Don't tell anyone.
-Krud
Rich
>
>In article <3689D833...@citilink.com>, pj <p...@citilink.com> writes:
>
>I notice that most of the portraits are scanned in from TSR Art by Easley,
>Elmore etc.
>
>What are the copyright issues involved with using these artists's works?
It's not legal. Next question.
-Rich
JudyW1917
>
>It's not legal. Next question.
>
>
Then I think they should be taken down.
Judy
Novanus
>Then I think they should be taken down.
Begone ye holier-than-thou Lawful do-Gooder! ;-)
---
Novanus
The Perfect Game
--
-----
Kevin L. Kitchens, Editor, The Perfect Game
The Perfect Game - Your single source for Baseball Gaming news, interviews,
reviews, previews and leagues. A subsidiary site of The Gamer's Voice.
http://www.gamersvoice.com/PerfectGame
------
Novanus wrote in message <368e6298...@news.mw.mediaone.net>...
cyphron
wrote:
>Based on her posts, Judy is closer to Chaotic Neutral. :)
>
Lawful Evil...
Zoss the Padre
>>over 300 portraits for the game.
>
>Elmore etc.
>
>What are the copyright issues involved with using these artists's works?
>
>
> Judy
Get a fuckin life, lady.
Peter Seebach
JudyW1917 <judy...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <368d8931...@netnews.msn.com>, ri...@cstone.net (Rich) writes:
>>It's not legal. Next question.
>Then I think they should be taken down.
Well, "it's not legal" isn't quite correct. You can make a case for fair
use, at which point, it's legal until TSR tells you they don't think it is,
and they're pretty sluggish. (Admittedly, they're also psychotic about
enforcing their ownership of other people's property which interacts with
theirs.)
-s
--
Copyright 1998, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Send me money - get cool programs and hardware! No commuting, please.
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
Brian Trosko
: and they're pretty sluggish. (Admittedly, they're also psychotic about
: enforcing their ownership of other people's property which interacts with
: theirs.)
In faireness, they've mellowed extremely since they were bought by
Wizards.
Peter Seebach
When I heard that Wizards bought them, I found an email address and wrote
an impassioned plea for them to open up a little. I've developed maybe
50-100 spells and magic items, two or three classes, "improved" XP tables
(e.g., mages take more XP per level than fighters all the way up), and tons
of other stuff, and according to TSR, the mere fact that I invented a lot
of this in 1988 doesn't mean I have any right to tell anyone about it.
And, to add insult to injury, about eight years after I developed a 1st ed
class of shadow-mages (with a *COMPLETE* spell list, because that's how they
did subclasses in 1st ed), they have the gall to print one as if they thought
of it. ;)
I'd love to be able to give away all the cool magic items and spells I've
done over the years.
Brian Trosko
: When I heard that Wizards bought them, I found an email address and wrote
: an impassioned plea for them to open up a little. I've developed maybe
: 50-100 spells and magic items, two or three classes, "improved" XP tables
: (e.g., mages take more XP per level than fighters all the way up), and tons
: of other stuff, and according to TSR, the mere fact that I invented a lot
: of this in 1988 doesn't mean I have any right to tell anyone about it.
Huh? Even their official online policy wasn't quite that draconian. By
that logic, noone could ever even play the game at all, because inventing
your own material is part and parcel of it. Go post 'em over on
rec.games.frp.dnd.
At the very worst, you could change game terms around and stick it up
whereever you wanted.
: And, to add insult to injury, about eight years after I developed a 1st ed
: class of shadow-mages (with a *COMPLETE* spell list, because that's how they
: did subclasses in 1st ed), they have the gall to print one as if they thought
: of it. ;)
Seriously? Are you saying they actually ripped off your idea, or just
coincidentally came up with something similar?
Peter Seebach
Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Huh? Even their official online policy wasn't quite that draconian. By
>that logic, noone could ever even play the game at all, because inventing
>your own material is part and parcel of it. Go post 'em over on
>rec.games.frp.dnd.
Didn't you ever hear about the netbooks? They were threatening lawsuits
over anyone who published *accessories* for AD&D, on the grounds that any
such was *dependant* on TSR's intellectual property, and thus, they had
control over it.
Basically, their assertion was that if you invented a new spell, that spell
was *THEIRS*, as a derivative work of the AD&D game system, and while you
were welcome to use them personally, you couldn't distribute them. For quite
a while, the open source spellbooks were behind "by entering this site you
agree not to sue anyone for anything" stuff and kept in foreign countries.
>At the very worst, you could change game terms around and stick it up
>whereever you wanted.
But it's *hard* to do that for something that really is designed in terms
of AD&D.
>Seriously? Are you saying they actually ripped off your idea, or just
>coincidentally came up with something similar?
Damn hard to tell. Given the kind of scumbag assholes they were being about
property rights, I'm inclined to *assume* that they somehow got my idea and
ripped it off. I don't have the book it was in, but they had cloned all sorts
of stuff (link to the plane of shadow, etc etc). Of course, mine were cooler.
A high level shadowlord could plausibly take on an army. Down side, no raise
or resurrect, and cannot use any item that has *ANY* fire abilities. So, no
staff of the magi.... A few other things. But they got light and darkness
related spells faster than other mages. Very tough.
They may have gotten a lot better; I was mostly bumping heads with them about
this around '92-93, when they asserted that a description of a character class
that could be used with AD&D (like, one giving ability requirements and using
XP tables, pretty much) was by definition a derivative work of their IP, and
thus, was their IP, not yours, and you had no rights to it except those they
gave you.
I am not making this up. If I need to, I can probably dredge up the
horrendously offensive scumbag legalese they sent. Ugh.
Krud
<23Ej2.1205$gB.29...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
>
>
> Get a fuckin life, lady.
She's probably a lawyer. Or maybe she's just a nosey, busy-body snitch. I
hate snitches.
-Krud
JudyW1917
In article <k3zj2.1267$TO5....@ptah.visi.com>, se...@plethora.net (Peter
Seebach) writes:
>
>Well, "it's not legal" isn't quite correct. You can make a case for fair
>use, at which point, it's legal until TSR tells you they don't think it is,
>and they're pretty sluggish. (Admittedly, they're also psychotic about
>enforcing their ownership of other people's property which interacts with
>theirs.)
>
>
Well basically you are excusing "casual piracy" which gives the Internet
a bad name. Also it is a violation of Federal copyright laws and as such
is actionable.
It is fundamentally wrong to post something for public uses which is not
in the public domain but which is copyrighted by someone else to say
nothing of being the work product of someone else.
Permission should have been asked of TSR - and/or the artists BEFORE this
was done.
Judy
Peter Seebach
JudyW1917 <judy...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <k3zj2.1267$TO5....@ptah.visi.com>, se...@plethora.net (Peter
>Seebach) writes:
>>Well, "it's not legal" isn't quite correct. You can make a case for fair
>>use, at which point, it's legal until TSR tells you they don't think it is,
>>and they're pretty sluggish. (Admittedly, they're also psychotic about
>>enforcing their ownership of other people's property which interacts with
>>theirs.)
>Well basically you are excusing "casual piracy" which gives the Internet
>a bad name.
Not necessarily.
>Also it is a violation of Federal copyright laws and as such
>is actionable.
IANAL, and I doubt you are, so neither of us should be making claims about
what is legal or actionable without disclaimers. Anyway, read the
misc.legal copyright FAQ before continuing.
>It is fundamentally wrong to post something for public uses which is not
>in the public domain but which is copyrighted by someone else to say
>nothing of being the work product of someone else.
This is obviously categorically untrue; most free software is copyrighted,
but can be given away freely for public use. The question is not merely
whether or not someone holds copyright, but what uses they have authorized, or
what constitutes fair use. In most cases, if you believe something to be
fair use, you are unlikely to get anything more than an order to stop - at
which point, you do. If anyone complains. Otherwise, Bob's your uncle.
>Permission should have been asked of TSR - and/or the artists BEFORE this
>was done.
TSR; the chances are about 90 to 1 that the artists do not hold copyright
in this case.
And yes, it would be a good and neighborly thing to ask permission. However,
that doesn't mean that the people who haven't done so are necessarily breaking
laws.
Once again, IANAL.
Alec
>Hey
>
>At The Adventurer's Guild http://www.BGChronicles.com/xode/ we have
>over 300 portraits for the game. They are all in jpg at the moment,
>(o'boy it will be quite a job for me to convert them to bmp's, which I
>hope to do sometime), so you will have to convert them to the bmp
>standard.
Well I don't know how it is for other users, but using Win98 with IE4
when I right-click and tell it to save to pic displayed on your site I
have the option to save it as a jpg like the file is, or have IE
convert it to bmp when I save it. It's worked great for me, oh, and
thanks for all the artwork on your site.
Brian Trosko
: In article <76n8js$olu$3...@nnrp03.primenet.com>,
: Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
: >Huh? Even their official online policy wasn't quite that draconian. By
: >that logic, noone could ever even play the game at all, because inventing
: >your own material is part and parcel of it. Go post 'em over on
: >rec.games.frp.dnd.
: Didn't you ever hear about the netbooks? They were threatening lawsuits
: over anyone who published *accessories* for AD&D, on the grounds that any
: such was *dependant* on TSR's intellectual property, and thus, they had
: control over it.
Yeah, I did. I was an active poster on rgfd when that mess was going on.
The netrep at that time was a total asshole, by the way.
: Basically, their assertion was that if you invented a new spell, that spell
: was *THEIRS*, as a derivative work of the AD&D game system, and while you
: were welcome to use them personally, you couldn't distribute them. For quite
: a while, the open source spellbooks were behind "by entering this site you
: agree not to sue anyone for anything" stuff and kept in foreign countries.
: >At the very worst, you could change game terms around and stick it up
: >whereever you wanted.
: But it's *hard* to do that for something that really is designed in terms
: of AD&D.
Naw. "Area of Effect" becomes "Effective Area." "Casting Time" becomes
"Onset Time." "Strength" becomes "Muscle." "Hit points" become "Life
Points."
But you don't even really have to do that. While TSR still maintains that
their rules are copyrighted, which isn't likely to be true, because you
can't copyright the rules of a game, they've publically stated that you
can't get in trouble for using their game terms if those game terms are
used in other game systems, too. *Everything* uses "hit point," so
there's no trouble.
The TSR website seems to be down right now, so I can't quote their current
policy, but rest assured, it has been relaxed considerably from the
original hardline they took when they first discovered the internet.
: They may have gotten a lot better; I was mostly bumping heads with them about
: this around '92-93, when they asserted that a description of a character class
: that could be used with AD&D (like, one giving ability requirements and using
: XP tables, pretty much) was by definition a derivative work of their IP, and
: thus, was their IP, not yours, and you had no rights to it except those they
: gave you.
: I am not making this up. If I need to, I can probably dredge up the
: horrendously offensive scumbag legalese they sent. Ugh.
No need; I recall that time all too well. But that's not what they're
saying anymore.
Dreck. Now it seems that their website isn't just down, but rather has
been subsumed into the WotC page. It used to be strictly independent, and
had OCR scans of out-of-print modules and back issues of Dragon on it, as
well as an official online policy. That all seems to be gone, now.
Wizards was always a more liberal company, anyway.
JudyW1917
In article <3dMj2.1445$TO5....@ptah.visi.com>, se...@plethora.net (Peter
Seebach) writes:
>
>TSR; the chances are about 90 to 1 that the artists do not hold copyright
>in this case.
>
>And yes, it would be a good and neighborly thing to ask permission. However,
>that doesn't mean that the people who haven't done so are necessarily
>breaking
>laws.
I am sure that TSR does not own the copyright -- but if they have not
authorized
the use of portions of their images -- then there is a copyright violation. It
is
plain THEFT.
Judy
Peter Seebach
JudyW1917 <judy...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <3dMj2.1445$TO5....@ptah.visi.com>, se...@plethora.net (Peter
>Seebach) writes:
>>TSR; the chances are about 90 to 1 that the artists do not hold copyright
>>in this case.
>I am sure that TSR does not own the copyright
Huh? That would be unusal.
>-- but if they have not
>authorized
>the use of portions of their images -- then there is a copyright violation. It
>is
>plain THEFT.
Once again, please stop giving legal advice without a suitable disclaimer,
and go read the misc.legal copyright FAQ.
FraggDragon
Those artworks though done by Easley, Elmore etc are owned by TSR.
Seeing as how BG is a TSR Licensed product and the images are not
being sold I don't think it is really illegal. I'm not a lawyer
but........
On Sat, 02 Jan 1999 02:49:51 GMT, ri...@cstone.net (Rich) wrote:
>On 01 Jan 1999 22:32:31 GMT, judy...@aol.com (JudyW1917) wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <3689D833...@citilink.com>, pj <p...@citilink.com> writes:
>>
>>I notice that most of the portraits are scanned in from TSR Art by Easley,
>>Elmore etc.
>>
>>What are the copyright issues involved with using these artists's works?
>
>It's not legal. Next question.
>
>-Rich
FraggDragon
According to the preface to the DM guide (the first one from way way
back) the rules were only a suggestion. As a DM you were supposed to
modify them to suit your own purposes. Giving away your own revamped
tables for xp, spells, tohit, etc couldn't be illegal as it is
suggested that you modify them anyway.
Now if you tried to sell them well, that's a different matter
entirely. But, I do remember hearing that people used to run their
own homemade campaigns at GEnCon's and TSR would buy the exceptionally
creative ones
On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 05:11:09 GMT, se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach)
wrote:
>In article <76msa1$kfp$6...@nnrp03.primenet.com>,
>Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> writes:
>>: and they're pretty sluggish. (Admittedly, they're also psychotic about
>>: enforcing their ownership of other people's property which interacts with
>>: theirs.)
>
>>In faireness, they've mellowed extremely since they were bought by
>>Wizards.
>
>When I heard that Wizards bought them, I found an email address and wrote
>an impassioned plea for them to open up a little. I've developed maybe
>50-100 spells and magic items, two or three classes, "improved" XP tables
>(e.g., mages take more XP per level than fighters all the way up), and tons
>of other stuff, and according to TSR, the mere fact that I invented a lot
>of this in 1988 doesn't mean I have any right to tell anyone about it.
>
>And, to add insult to injury, about eight years after I developed a 1st ed
>class of shadow-mages (with a *COMPLETE* spell list, because that's how they
>did subclasses in 1st ed), they have the gall to print one as if they thought
>of it. ;)
>
Novanus
"It's true that in the old days TSR rabidly defended their electronic
turf, but under this kinder, gentler regime, we're pretty
happy with what the law calls "fair use." Fair use basically means
that so long as you aren't selling our art, or using the art
to sell your products, or modifying it (except with regards to parody)
and passing it off as your property, then you can do whatever you
want. Frankly, I'm happy to hear somebody is putting all the
awesome TSR character art to work representing Baldur's Gate
characters. If you have any more questions, check out the
legal corner on the Wizards of the Coast website. "
That is a quote from Jim Bishop, the Licensed Games Manager at
Wizards of the Coast. (Source: BG Chronicles)
Amazingly the system works without outside policing...
---
Novanus
JudyW1917
In article <ve7k2.1822$TO5....@ptah.visi.com>, se...@plethora.net (Peter
Seebach) writes:
>
>>I am sure that TSR does not own the copyright
>
>Huh? That would be unusal.
>
>
TSR is owned by WOTC -- they have the copyright now.
Judy
JudyW1917
In article <36927b4f...@news.mindspring.com>, flas...@nospam.juno.com
(FraggDragon) writes:
>hose artworks though done by Easley, Elmore etc are owned by TSR.
>Seeing as how BG is a TSR Licensed product and the images are not
>being sold I don't think it is really illegal. I'm not a lawyer
Not all the images are from TSR; some are from Boris Vallejo, Brom's non-TSR
stuff, Daryl K. Sweet.
Judy
JudyW1917
In article <369381dd...@news.mw.mediaone.net>, nov...@hotmail.com
(Novanus) writes:
>
>That is a quote from Jim Bishop, the Licensed Games Manager at
>Wizards of the Coast. (Source: BG Chronicles)
>
>
But that doesn't answer the question re Boris Vallejo, Daryl K. Sweet and
Brom's non TSR stuff. The TSR stuff is only about 50% of the stolen scanned
images.
Judy
Peter Seebach
JudyW1917 <judy...@aol.com> wrote:
>But that doesn't answer the question re Boris Vallejo, Daryl K. Sweet and
>Brom's non TSR stuff. The TSR stuff is only about 50% of the stolen scanned
>images.
Obviously, it's at most 0% of the "stolen" scanned images, since TSR has
confirmed that it's not stolen. A casual read of their "legal corner" makes
it clear that this is intentional.
Peter Seebach
Same thing, then. My point was contrasting "TSR/WOTC" owning the copyright
with "individual artist" owning the copyright.
JudyW1917
In article <eENk2.2541$TO5....@ptah.visi.com>, se...@plethora.net (Peter
Seebach) writes:
>
>Obviously, it's at most 0% of the "stolen" scanned images, since TSR has
>confirmed that it's not stolen. A casual read of their "legal corner" makes
>it clear that this is intentional.
>
>
The work of Boris Vallejo, and Daryl K. Sweet was NOT DONE FOR TSR!
Whatever permission WOTC gives it does NOT COVER WORK FOR WHICH
THEY DO NOT HAVE A COPYRIGHT!!!
Having those images is still a violation of Federal copyright laws. They are
not only displayed without permission, but without attribution and they are
still STOLEN.
Judy
Peter Seebach
JudyW1917 <judy...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <eENk2.2541$TO5....@ptah.visi.com>, se...@plethora.net (Peter
>Seebach) writes:
>>Obviously, it's at most 0% of the "stolen" scanned images, since TSR has
>>confirmed that it's not stolen. A casual read of their "legal corner" makes
>>it clear that this is intentional.
>The work of Boris Vallejo, and Daryl K. Sweet was NOT DONE FOR TSR!
>Whatever permission WOTC gives it does NOT COVER WORK FOR WHICH
>THEY DO NOT HAVE A COPYRIGHT!!!
Uh-huh.
You can't read, can you?
I pointed out that TSR's work was obviously at most 0% of the "stolen"
images, because, since TSR has given permission for their art to be used,
none of their art is "stolen", and, conversely, none of the "stolen" art
is theirs. Thus, their work is at most 0% of any "stolen" work.
>Having those images is still a violation of Federal copyright laws. They are
>not only displayed without permission, but without attribution and they are
>still STOLEN.
Once again, go read the misc.legal copyright FAQ for clarification on how
this works and what "stolen" means.
JudyW1917
In article <fb6l2.2913$TO5....@ptah.visi.com>, se...@plethora.net (Peter
Seebach) writes:
>
>Once again, go read the misc.legal copyright FAQ for clarification on how
>this works and what "stolen" means.
>
>
I suggest you read some case law. All of these artists have copyrights which
state "MAY NOT BE USED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT EXPRESS
PERMISSION." That does not give someone the right to scan in a portion
of copyrighted material and make it available for public download -- that is
piracy!!!
Judy
Peter Seebach
Suggest all you want. It's quite clear you haven't read TSR's legal policy on
*their* artwork (which is what we were originally talking about), or the
misc.legal FAQ.
JudyW1917
In article <MBul2.3348$TO5....@ptah.visi.com>, se...@plethora.net (Peter
Seebach) writes:
>
>Suggest all you want. It's quite clear you haven't read TSR's legal policy
>on
>*their* artwork (which is what we were originally talking about), or the
>misc.legal FAQ.
>
>
Please note -- there is more than TSR's artwork up at the sight -- or don't
you won't to talk about that too. OK they got persmission from TSR -- but
that is only 50% stuff. How about the work from Vallejo, Sweet, etc. -- they
have no permission for that you know.
Judy
Peter Seebach
JudyW1917 <judy...@aol.com> wrote:
>Please note -- there is more than TSR's artwork up at the sight -- or don't
>you won't to talk about that too. OK they got persmission from TSR -- but
>that is only 50% stuff. How about the work from Vallejo, Sweet, etc. -- they
>have no permission for that you know.
Actually, I don't know. I haven't been told by any authoritative source.
Anyway, until you go read that FAQ, I'm going to ignore you, because it's
clear you wouldn't know copyright law if it bit you.
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net