Copyrights and Modding

[fubar++]

Continued from:
http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-...ml#post1135516

Originally Posted by snooggums

My copying your text above and posting it in my post without asking permission is the most basic version of violation of copyright: unauthorized copying. There are situations such as quoting a portion for review or scholarly use (the basis of personal use) but those are not for distribution.

Yes you can distribute (I still don't know about US laws but I would find it very strange if not) copied text as long as you don't present it as yours. Basic example is piece of writing in thesis with quotation and citation (mentioning the source). I think that is what you in US call as "fair use". Now you can't write a thesis which just contains quotations and citations without anything you have made yourself (other than just copying). It might not be all illegal in the sense of copyrights (copying from different sources) but there wouldn't be any original value in it. Copyrights and specially moral rights are there to protect the person that has created unique, creative work, something new which haven't been presented before, and only that.

Originally Posted by snooggums

I don't see how you can disagree with the plain text of the EULA, it's clear as day.

No it isn't. It's just pieces of sentences which have to be interpreted in the context it is applied. As said, moral rights can only be waived in writing (in US if I recall correct, in some other countries even that isn't possible). There is nowhere in the EULA sentences where for instance the user would have to accept terms like "I hereby grant all copyrights to EA/DICE for all creative work I have made with this tool and waive all my moral rights of paternity and integrity". It only says the game content belongs to EA/DICE and there is no mentioning of the creative work itself, the unique map design we were talking about.

Remember, the original purpose of copyrights are for protecting the rights of artist which has created a piece of art. It would be the same, if you would have bought a camera or typewriter with terms saying all copyrights of pictures taken with the camera or text written with the typewriter would belong to manufacturer, which would have absolutely nothing to do with the creative work itself and such term would be absurd.

Originally Posted by snooggums

And when it comes down to it copyright is a civil matter in the US, where what matters is monetary impact, and the only thing that can result is either an injunction to stop distribution or a monetary finding by the court. I support the concept of a limited copyright for commercial distribution, don't get me wrong. I just don't think every twitter alert and family photo really needs copyright protection, just non-legally enforced respect fort the author.

Monetary issues are different things. You are talking about economical rights and your interpretation how they are applied in US may be correct. I have no competence to say much about that, and actually not much interest in the context of map designing. For me there is nothing wrong to accept, if something is given out for free (the editor and the mod), I can't make any profit out of it either. Of course in practice economical rights dictate large portion of use (and abuse) of copyrights. Moral rights are different part of copyrights, they are there to protect the honor of the artist, and in Europe they are widely protected by indispositive legislation (disputes cannot be settled by agreement).

But overall, what you think as what should be isn't enough. It's your own opinion and political agenda. If you like to convince me that you in fact are correct you need more than opinions, e.g. sources which would support your interpretations. I would be happy to explore them, but not having one sided argument where nothing substantially new will rise.

[Fighter]

Can't you two agree to disagree?

[fubar++]

What is the problem?