Who's liable for copyrighted stuff posted here?

I only ask because of the Star Trek screenshots that have just appeared in the gallery. Free game or not, its still in breach of copyright.

If the Copyright owners 'release the hounds', is BRL in the firing line?

*cough* puki *cough* :P

In line for a 'cease and desist', most likely.

I only mention it because some people seem to be so flippant about copyright law. Whether you're making money or not, you can't use registered trademarks or copyrighted material.

I'm currently in my 23rd year of games programming and (after accidentally treading on the WPBSA's toes once) would never dream of copyright theft. The consequences don't bear thinking about.

You messed with the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association? You fool! You damned FOOL!

Edit: I actually just realised that you might have written a snooker game and that might not actually be quite as ludicrous as I assumed! :/

The Star Trek dudes are a little lenient with Fan Based games. I know this because of the endless mods created for Star Trek Armada 1 + 2, StarFleet command 3, Klingon Academy ect.

Some are even being sold and the Star Trek owners don't say anything simple because these mods make people buy the official game.

Klingon Academy is a good game but there are various mods, some free some not, that you can get that enhance the game immensly.

Seriously though, if the Star Trek makers went after every mod maker, or tried to shut down every fan made Star Trek game they would be harming their own business.

It's not illegal to make a 3D model of Jean Luc Piccard and put it in a simulation that people can download. At least I think it's not. If it were then a vast number of websites, mods and freeware would be blocked.

Mods to official games are a bit different to a whole, independant Star Trek game, TBH.

*Click*

Well you should've known better. Steve Davis is patently boring. (Geddit? Patently. It's a patent pun, you see. He's patently boring. Yes? A-ha-ha-hem.)

But anyway. Let's hear it for Stephen Davies, Steve Hendrix and Rod O'Silvian...

Stewie? Is that you? :P

this thread is a poor attempt at 'alarmism'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarmist

What you talking about, Willis?

Oh look. Slenkar's learnt a new word.

Its still theft of Copyright however you choose to dress it up.

If Pukis "Im gonna rip all the good art" threads havent brought down the wrath of Anyone, I would assume that most ppl who appear/post here are just not taken seriuosly by anyone.
Once proper downloadable things start apperaing, then maybe they will be taken seriously.
Someone post a screenshot of a Micky Mouse Game. And if there isnt a Cease and disist in the Mail within a week, well know no one takes us seriously.

What Amon said.

If you dress it up as fan art you will find many instances in the starwars, dragonballz, pokemon etc. universes of the trademark holders publicly announcing their happiness from all the non commercial artistic endeavors that take place due to their fan's often excessive imagination.

> It's not illegal to make a 3D model of Jean Luc Piccard and put it in a simulation that people can download.

Using the likeness of anyone without their permission is generally illegal. Normal exceptions for Parody and political figures apply.

I disagree totally. To each human face you may display on a PC's screen there are probably thousands of people in the world who could maintain: that's me ! That's exactly how I am
looking ! This similarity means no violation of personal rights until the PC Game does not claim: its Mr/Mrs. XYZ, who should be featured in this scene.

Who said anything about a face? He said a likeness.


Outside of a scifi convention, you won't find anyone looking exactly like Jean-Luc Picard, right down to his uniform, logos, etc.


Don't tell me, let me guess. You're using the faces of Fox News presenters as well as the voices.

HUmmmm
The Star trsk dudes have sold lience rights to those publishers, and any MOD of the game could be argued to be under those leiences, so I wouldnt hold your breath about a seperate product.

Ok so..... What about when you make a "Fan Inspired" art Homage by ripping the graphics from all the other games about that thing?
(And tell you what lets pinch the sounds as well)

One could argue that it didnt matter if it had the same game play as a comertial product, as long as if it was free. (I dissagree with this)

Fair enough. What about if you made that image. (Not if its of you, but you made it)

There are two problems here
1) Is it OK to make a game, using reconised characters of someone eles creation
2) Is it OK to use Models of these reconised characters that someone else has made.

Z4G0, Im not implying that you stole anyoneelse modles, its just what I would do if I was making an unliecend game based on a franchise

Using someone else's models is clearly copyright theft.

> I disagree totally. To each human face you may display on a PC's screen there are probably thousands of people in the world who could maintain

True, but then specifically mentioning it is Star Trek, having them wear the Star Fleet Uniforms, and putting them in Star Trek settings pretty much seals the case though.

As for the more important question, will Paramount get upset? I have no idea.

It doesn't matter who does the unlicensed copying, it's still an unlicensed copy. Unless you fancy moving to Japan (where the equivalent would be dojinshi, I think, for which there is a cultural tolerance as I understand it) then using someone else's IP makes little sense.

Isn't a likeness best derived from a face ?

With Poser I can easily create a dozen faces in 30 minutes each looking extremly similar to Monsieur Picard... its especially easy because I don't have to take care for the hair ;)


I didn't speak of violating copyrights of the company which owns copyrights for "Star Trek", I just made some reflection to one thought related to personal rights spread in this forum

Now let me have a guess...your sparse time doesn't allow you to continue this debate ?

paramount have got much better things to do than worry about Puki and his 3d models of the enterprise bridge,
or some Italians and their cross-eyed picard model

even if they do sue the makers of the star trek 3d game, the chances that BRL are going to be found guilty of anything are less than zero

..do not underestimate Puki..dont be sooo naive..

Don't be silly. The worst that's likely to happen is a request for them to take it down. Forum owners aren't generally held responsible for the stuff people post on them any more than an ISP is responsible for the stuff people post there. That's why the DMCA was created. They'll only become responsible if they don't follow the DMCA rules which tell them that they have to remove the stuff IF the copyright owner tells them to remove it with a DMCA takedown notice, and even THEN, if whoever posted the material then DISPUTES the order, they can put it back up. The onus then falls on whoever posted the offending material in the first place, which would be Puki. At that point, Puki could be sued.

But even that isn't too likely. Suing people costs lots of money. Threatening them with being sued costs you next to nothing. And if they do actually go to all thr trouble to sue you, and they've shown they're serious, then you still have a real good chance of convincing them to settle out of court in exchange for you removing the offending content.

When was the last time you heard of a Star Trek fan losing a lawsuit to Paramount over a fan based creation?

If everyone was as paranoid as you, all fan based works for all forms of media would cease to exist! All star trek fan pages... all wrestling fan pages... football fan pages... etc, etc.





Oh? And you're a lawyer are you? No?

You can't make such a blanket statement. Not only don't we all live in the same country, but lots of countries have laws that allow for something called "fair use". Fan works can easily fall under this. Parody in many places does.





Well see, you did the worst possible thing. There is a TON of money in sports. Sports is the worst possible thing you could choose to violate the copyright of. They're super protective of their stuff. You can't even say you're having a "Superbowl party" without being threatened with a lawsuit. And the word Olympics is protected by special copyright laws that exist only for that word under US law!

Star Trek on the other hand... there's a billion websites with Kirk/Spock slash fiction out there. Making a game about it might result in a takedown request, but you're being way too paranoid because you had one bad experience. If people followed copyright law to the letter it would have to be changed, because it's way too draconian as written.





No, it's not. There is no such thing as theft of copyright. Theft is theft. Copyright violation is copyright violation. They are two seperate things under the law.

Copyright law protects intellectual property, an artificial concept created by copyright law, temporarily. Laws on theft protect real property, forever.

People are flippant about copyright violations because copyright is a fairly new concept and one which is poorly thought out at that.

Those images don't breach copyright. It's basically fan art.

The game itself might do but that's not a concern for this site.

That's nonsense -- fan art is, by definition, a derivative work, and derivative works are the prerogative of the IP holder solely. If they don't criticise, parody or satirise (or you aren't an educator using them in an educational context, perhaps to teach about copyright -- ho ho) then you're relying on the IP holder's good grace.

I agree that BRL has next to nothing to worry about (being asked to take the images down -- the very worst that could happen -- would be unlikely even) but let's at least paint things as they are.

Well it's perhaps fairer to say that it was better thought out at its inception than its recent implementations might lead one to believe. Hence.

ignore me... im bored.

..nnnnnaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh....

I just wasted 5 minutes of my life !

Sorry, I've read this thread only now:

If I change alla names (from 'Star trek'-->"StarTrock", "Enterprise"->"Enterprose" or "Picard" ->"Piccard"), beyond that will be a lot of more kiddy, Could it protect me (and brl) from legal issue?

I've asked about legal issue, in the official Startrek forum month ago:
http://boards.startrek.com/community/messages.html?s=f7d44a68ec77d791e747e5fadf76f712;act=ST;f=14;t=33284919

Seems that a 'freeware' license & Disclaimer are enought.

Anyway I will ask directly at Paramount/Viacom about 'fangames', hoping in God :D

> When was the last time you heard of a Star Trek fan losing a lawsuit to Paramount over a fan based creation?

Never, and there are lots of fan creations out there, including free home made Star Trek episodes. *pure speculation coming up* I think at this point Paramount may have pretty much conceeded it's right to stop this kind of thing due to prior acceptance of so much. (I'd be happy to be shown the error of my ways though).

Well, if I was paramount, Id be more likly to sue you if you changed the names like that.

@Rest.
Am I wrong in thinking that its not actualy paramount that are the problem, its whoever now has the rights to the ditital/game liecence? If so, it doesnt really matter what paramount think, because if Disney (For example) got the ditital rights tommorow then S&D would happen.
Or am I wrong in this?

One of the Fan sites was made to close downlast year. (But that Might have been for bit torrent abuse, I just found it after it had been closed down)

I think more than one developer has the game rights (Bethesda being one of them) - a bit like with Lord of the Rings.

Still, my TOS Star Trek game proceeds with no fear from anyone.

Its not the type of games I'm playing but I heard, that some soccer/football games, which have not licences from FIFA, act exactly in that way, using changed names for players and clubs. They even allow editing the game content, so the user may reset that to the original names. This seems to make no copyright/licensing problems

How could brl possibly be in trouble? theres not even any logos or anything used, just a pic of a picard model - after all, posting games sreenshots isnt illegal otherwise every gamer and news site would be shut down too.

If a game company are dumb enough to use protected material in their own game then its their problem, no-one elses.

Anyway, how do you know they havent got licence. The startrek 'institution' tends to encourage fan publications to some degree (thats why theres so many semi-official stories)

I don't think fan stuff is usually jumped on (except by nintendo) unless they try to charge for the work.

More importantly tho', said publishers are probably not going to be too happy about someone infringing on their license, producing a potential competitive title (particularly since Star Trek games aren't particularly good in the first place). Mods of course are different, since they rely on a licensed product.

Only for individuals. Business entities like Paramount Pictures, and I assume the estate of Gene Roddenberry, have lawyers at their beck and call, whom are being payed obscene amounts of otherwise perfectly good money regardless of whether those lawyers are in legal proceedings against fans, or hitting on their secretaries.

Like that time Penny Arcade parodied Strawberry Shortcake? Yeah that worked out really well. If you don't have the money to fight it in court, it does make any difference what so ever, what rights you have. Big company's will trample you at the first chance they get.

There's no record of something before it happens. Just because it hasn't happened in the past, doesn't mean it couldn't happen in the future.

Yes. You're correct. The people who have the rights to the video game licenses can sue you for lost profits and infringing on their (presumably exclusive) license to reproduce video games set in the Star Trek universe. That's what Copyright is. A (theoretically) time limited monopoly on creative works. Now Gene Roddenberry died in 1991 so we should be seeing legal fan fiction in about 2061 - by which time Star Trek will hopefully seem a bit dated.

It depends. If you're infringing on someones Trademark (like Pacman or Mario) the company who owns it, must defend it aggressively (they have to take you to court), or lose it forever. This is not the case for copyrighted materials - there is no risk of a person ever losing copyright, unless they specifically chose to.

As for Dragon Ball Z, that's basically just another version of "Journey to the west", which is in the public domain, so no worries there. Star Trek however still has 54 years to go.

Not more importantly, as that was the point I then went on to make, but not as consisly as you. I was just saying that that was the reason Mods for liecenced Games dont get hasstle

I think that *John Packard on the picture on the home page looks a little boss-eyed! :D

I'd sue if someone drew me with one eye going to the shop and the other coming back with the change! :D

Dabz

EDIT:oh bugger... *Jean-Luc it is then, I wonder where that came from then? Well, it'll stop him suing me for mentioning he's cock-eyed! ;)

To make matters worse you've changed his name too. He's doomed. Poor Jean-Luc :/

Dabz is really "Q" in disguise!

"Eaten any good looks lately Caption?"



"Oh, sorry, I didnt realise I was standing so close"

:D

Dabz

Dabs you are hereby found guilty of posting someone else's screenshot, of someone else's idea, in someone elses thread, on someone else's website, using someone elses link!

shame on u! unleash the hounds! burn the copyright violator!!!

Youre Doomed, Doooomed!, erm, who is getting sued again?

LOL :P

Oh no, I've got a letter already:-

*GULP*


Subject: FIRST NOTICE OF INFRINGEMENT AND DECLARATION: Paramount Pictures
Date: 29 May 2007

First Notice of Infringement and Declaration


TO: Dabz
BlitzBasic.com
http://www.blitzbasic.com/Community/posts.php?topic=69817

REGARDING:

IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL UNRELEASED AND UNAUTHORIZED MATERIAL IN
CONNECTION WITH A PICTURE OF A BOSS-EYED ENTERPRISE CAPTION, MORE
NOTABLY, JOHN... ERM JEAN-LUC PICARD


Paramount Pictures.

I, the undersigned, do solemnly and sincerely declare and CERTIFY UNDER
PENALTY OF PERJURY that:

1. I am the owner or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner
of certain intellectual property rights, said owner being named WARNER
BROS. RECORDS, INC. ("IP Owner").

2. I have a good faith belief that the materials identified in the
addendum attached hereto are not authorized by the above IP Owner, its
agent, or the law and therefore infringe the IP Owner's rights according
to the laws of the (check all that apply):

United States =2
Australia =2
Canada =2
EUR =2
France
Germany =2
Italy =2
Japan
Mexico
Netherlands
Russia
Sweden
United Kingdom =2
All of the above X

Please act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material or =
items claimed to be infringing.

3. I may be contacted at:

Printed Name: Mr H AMMER
Title: Public relations
Company: Paramount Pictures
Address: ?
USA

You should understand that this letter constitutes notice to you that
the sale and/or other distribution of this product is unauthorized. This
letter
does not constitute a waiver of any right to recover damages incurred by
virtue of any such unauthorized activities, and such rights as well as
claims for other relief are expressly retained.

Finally, notwithstanding our use of the required notice form, we believe
that http://www.blitzbasic.com 's activities and services fall outside the
scope of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). Our use of this
form, as required by law, is meant to facilitate http:www.blitzbasic.com
's removal of the infringing product listed above and is not meant to
suggest or imply that http:www.blitzbasic.com 's activities and services
are within the scope of the DMCA.

I make this declaration conscientiously, believing it to be true and
correct, and in accordance with the laws of each of the countries listed
above. I am aware and agree that the contents of this statement may be
relied upon against me in any court or arbitration proceeding.

Truthfully,

Harry Ammer
Digital Signature: veriblurt


Date: 29 May 2007

Addendum to Notice of Infringement:

List of Allegedly Infringing=2
Items Or Materials

Name of Intellectual Property Owner: Paramount Pictures

IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL UNRELEASED AND UNAUTHORIZED MATERIAL IN
CONNECTION WITH JEAN LUC PICARD

IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL IMAGES THAT RESEMBLE JEAN LUC PICARD BEING ON THE PISS FOR
TWELVE HOURS SOLID, WITHOUT NOTHING TO EAT (NOT EVEN A BAG OF PEANUTS)

IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL CEASE AND DESIST LETTERS REGARDING UTTER BOLLOCKS


Seriously though, if it was the star trek theme presented on BlitzBasic.com, £10 to a penny would say they would be an email sent to someone higher.

copyright is just soooo confusing, they let x go, they stamp down on y, z is hurting everyone (Have you noticed that only copied DVD's and MP3's are funding terrorism!?!)...

its life, just like the little sods who nicked my orange juice at the weekend, holidays are here, and the scrats are camping!

Dabz

P.S. BTW, it is a good likeness though... And I couldnt model like that in a million years, so respect where respect is due! ;)

hihihi funny! :D
at the beginning, my bad english made me think that yor quoted e-mail was true hihihih :D!

.

Tell that to the paparazzi!
Think about it there are lots of people who look the same, granted, to use someones name, character etc is dangerous ground but you cannot copyright your own face for obvious reasons.

heartbreak for me!!!!
@Dabz: Damned! :D - I've lost 10 years of my life for your joke!

:D

But if you look at any case were ths "star" tries to get a picture pulled, (Which they are leagaly entitled to), the desition comes down to if they "let" the paparazzi normaly take photos.
The assupmtion being that any star who courts publisity has given tasit permission.

Then there is the argument (which I dont like), that its in the public interest, but thats not as important as how much as there normaly media shy.

> Tell that to the paparazzi!

Using it for NEWS is generally considered OK, the general exception to the general rule. In my opinion far too much passes for news, but nobody cares about my opinion.