If you all hate copyrighted content then go through all the mods checking, far more than you think have copyrighted material, especially music the replacers.

Personally I do not care, I am not the one using copyrighted material. Not that all this affects me much, I do not use many mods and the ones I do are made from scratch.

Funny how many take the moral high ground, especially when they do not back up their convictions by stopping such things.

In older threads discussing copyrights and also using a modder's work without asking for an OK, I have always stood firm on my feelings. One should always use work that is legally OK to use.
Makes me a bit sad when I see others using work they definitely did not have the clearance to use. I have seen different great modders over the years use work from Poser artists as well as hair models from Daz itself for example. Also of course art and such on tapestries.

As I also love using modder resources in my mods, I need to be watchful for when this happens. So I do not accidently use the copyrighted material myself. I prefer instead to find art that can be used. (My Dover Book/CD collection is extensive.)
So I will use my own textures on a modder's tapestry or painting mesh, as long as the modder also gave the OK for their meshes to be retextured.

I do believe in the concept of fan art however. If a modeler makes a mesh from scratch that looks like a sword from an anime, that is fan art. As is making an area that creates the feel of an RPG. Still real important when possible to check on a company's attitude toward the recreating the feel of their games in another game's mod however. Blizzard is cool about doing it with theirs for example. And I know from experience that Square has always encouraged fan art and fan websites for their games. So I am comfortable about using the Chocobos that Lingarn and Vlix made. Though with different sounds and an adorable running musical piece I found that is creative commons.

Using museum scans of old art can be tricky, best to make sure the museum gave the clearances. Though legally museums are on shaky ground trying to claim ownership of scans or direct photos of non-copyrighted art. Even so, when I did searches for Japanese art scans. I made sure everything I archived to use was from sites that did the scanning themselves and also got legal OKs to use the scans in mods.

And you will know where I get everything in my mods. The credits sections in my readmes can be very long.

Eh, this topic has been brought up and argued before, its honestly a waste of time in my humble opinion. Copyright laws are fickle, just take a good look at websights like Hulu, so many people watching things that are sold on DVD for free, what a travesty.........or not.

Its roughly the same concept being brought up here though, so I am of the personal opinion that free sharing of material is ok as long as credits are apropriately given, and most Institutions will be fine with it as long as those credits satisfy them as free advertisemant for their copyrighted properties.

I can't be the only one that has gone out and bought cd's movies and books based on things that I've seen used in mods after reading their readme's, so I'd say that those readme's at least to some extent have worked as publicity for those artists of whom's work the mod was derived.

What's the big deal anyway, no one is complaining. :rolleyes:

I am not going to lose sleep over a copyrighted tapestry here and there.

:huh:
Hulu's streams are legal.

Not only are Hulu's Streams legal, most cases they stream shows that you'd have to wait a year for the DVD to come out.

But as I said earlier, I think we should all relax and realize that some people will have different views on the same thing.
Personally, I hate copyright violations but at the same time I understand why it exists.

I was going to say some stuff, but thought it might be disrespectful for a passed artist and the modder. I just want to provide some links to the author's availability, and source of said art.

If you ask me it is fair use, it is low res, and altered enough, used in a non-profit game mod as a kind of fan art. The missing credits might be due to the nature of compilation. It is also OK for modding ethic, it is for tapestries. It is not like it was featured like modder's own art.

I also searched through the forums and saw a "request for permission" post. It wasn't answered. But that doesn't mean it wasn't answered in private.

It is not our job to trouble the waters, imo. And water under the bridge fits here too. I mean what if the modder passed away too. How will they know if permission was taken or not?


Well, we are in a doomed world now. And can't restore a saved game now, can we?

PS. I censored myself one more time. It's a shame. There was a couple of paragraphs below...

Thank you for explaining, Vtastek.
I understand your point.

I agree. We should not bother with this. What has been done has been done. It cannot be changed.

To err is to human, after all.
I know one person who can answer this, because he's rather well versed in everything. Dogsbody. Maybe someone can point him to this thread?

Copyright infringement in a case where it's not a clear commercial rip-off (see "Limbo of the Lost"), or a DMCA violation such as evading access protection to play content you don't have a license for, is always a vexed question, and the answer always has to be specific to the case at hand.

Yes, the use of the "Elf Queen of Shannara" backgrounds would, by ordinary interpretation, be an infringement. But the game may not be worth the candle: it is the copyright holder's decision whether to enforce, and the value of enforcing against a fan work such as a mod may not be worth the effort and ill will.

These forums don't generally get involved in policing infringing mods unless the infringement involves a copyrighted asset belonging to Zenimax (such as resources from other games) or a notorious rip-off or an attempt to sell mods. This one doesn't appear to rise to that level.

And I was just about to say: there isn't even an international concensus as to whether the tapestries in Caldera constituate a copyright infringement or not. One could argue they were significantly altered and thus represent an art in their own right, for instance. But a copyright violation only exists, when someone who can legally claim a so called "copyright" actually wants your money. That's the whole point: "copyrights" can be bought, sold and traded in just like any other right. You can buy copyrights and you generally do so for making money from them (despite a few examples to the contrary). In this case it is clearly not worth it.

But since I played around Caldera any way, I went and had a look. The tapestries may be legal - but there's certainly too much of them. I mean, every 2nd house is practically littered with them. Really stands out once it is pointed out to you

PS: AND the lady in the foreground looks a bit like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hasselhoff in game!

Thank you Dogsbody for explaining it. So, all in all, maybe this mod made a mistake? Those things do happen.

I'm not going to mention any names here, but I do think it is ironic when a modder rips off copyrighted material and then becomes upset when that ripped-off material is used by another modder.... It doesn't happen often, but I've seen it.

What?! You hated that texture? I LOVE that texture.

What about GIANTS? I'm surprised that after all these years it's still available at PES, when it's pretty much common knowledge part of it is pirated material from other games like Neverwinter Nights.

On the other hand I understand that almost nobody (including the NWN devs) would really care at this point, and that people don't want to make a big fuss out of it after all this time...

But Giants isn't allowed to be discussed on these forums for that very reason. At least it used to be that way.

Let's not get into that, please. In my opinion Giants is a scapegoat. Puma Man's biggest mistake was being open about the fact that he borrowed.

There are far more mods out there than just Giants that use textures or models from other games. The bearded male faces from Better Heads are taken from No One Lives Forever. Are we going to ban Better Heads now? Where does this stop? How far do we want to take this?

For those advocating strict adherence to law, some food for thought:

IP is not the only category of law. There are laws against defamation (aka libel), and being able to prove the truth of an accusation isn't necessarily sufficient defense. Malicious defamation has less options for defense, too.

These laws exist for a reason. Once someone's good name is called into question, you can't take it back. Even a public apology won't put things back the way they were. And while you may think you know all there is to know about IP law, you're probably wrong. Most lawyers don't.

So please think twice before mouthing off, OK?

:cookie:


Thats what I mean about copyright laws being fickle, where does sharing for free become a crime? What does Hulu do for those companies that these modders aren't doing(to be honest, I have no idea, both provide free publicity and advertisemant, yet, hulu does gain profit from its advertisers and these modders gain nothing but fandom from other morrowind junkies)?

If the copyright lines weren't so blurry, more people could follow them, but as it stands, its hard to say which side of the line you are on most of the time..... :wacko: :shrug:

I could be wrong but I think that Hulu is actually owned by these companies: NBC, Fox, ABC... (I'm not sure, though, the only thing I know for sure is that Hulu only works in the US )

Anyways. I tend to agree with you Matilija, I don't think it is that big of a deal and probably not worth a lawsuit. I do not really approve of the possible use without permission of a copyrighted picture in a mod either, as I don't like it when my own work is used without permission, but in this case permission may have been granted and as Melian said we shouldn't make assumptions. And in the end... it's just a tapestry This shouldn't be blown out of proportion.
The only thing that I don't like in all this is that the original artist apparently wasn't credited in the mod readme, as I strongly believe that people should be given credit for their work; it could be an oversight on the part of the authors of the pack, though. I try to be careful to mention everyone whose work I used when I write the credit sections of my mod readme's, but I may well have forgotten a name or two in a few readme's.

In any case, I'll second what Pseron Wyrd said and hope no witch hunt will be started. I can't see any good coming out of it.

I third it. But it is a good idea for current modders to do their best to use material that is all OK to use. Goodness knows, there is tons of it out there, and not very hard to find.
Models, music, art textures. tiling textures, sound effects, just about anything one could need.

Sometimes the usage is clear with the creative commons license clearly displayed, sometimes you just have to contact the artist to get an OK...

Wasn't aware of that, in that case I'll drop the subject.

I see some people took me a little too serious (well i was a bit harsh, ill admit that). It just annoyed me the people who had put up posts about not caring about copyright laws. I was not having a go at modders, I was having a go at the people that think copyright isnt important and can be broken if nobody notices.

In this case, considering its 1 image in a mod that been out ofr years without it being noticed, while morally its wrong and shouldnt have been done, its not as if the mod should be deleted off now. I wouldnt have any problem if they had actually given some credit where that image was from.


sorry if I pissed anyone off by my little rant.

In a little less than 50 years, this specific piece of artwork will be public domain, given the letter of copyright law. Since Mr. Parkinson has passed into shadows sadly.

But Shannara is not only the work of Terry Brooks, his copyright, but it is also property of the publishing company as well.

There is a distinct difference here, that might be overlooked.

Mods are free. There is no monetary gain or loss from modding and sharing said mods. It would have been appropo to site the originator of the work, purely because of Mr. Parkinson's passing and also the great read of the works of Shannara, but considering the image in the mod doesn't impact the trade in the least, there really is no foul here.

Also, Morrowind, is a "standalone" game. You play it, at home, by yourself or at turns, and it is not public. The use of the image in a mod is technically no different than one printing out the same book cover and framing it for their wall in appreciation of Keith Parkinson's works or a love for all things Shannara. A friend of mine makes action figures of the personalities of the Shannara universe. One of the first if not the only to do so. They aren't for sale. He doesn't claim any origination save for wishing that they existed so he wouldn't have to make his own. But there is no law against it if you follow the rules; which are no letting money or plagiarism cloud the intent.

Were Morrowind a game on a server, where people paid to access it, then the issue of the image would be in some legal jeopardy because it is publicly shown on something that generates an income. Morrowind is not like that. It is a private game where you can add things to it, privately. You can name a character after a well known icon. You can make and share facial mods based on digital representations of same iconic personalities. You can make and mod clothing based on both film and literary works, and again, use them. You can even take established characters with permission, and write about them respectfully. You can even upload and share these creations for others to use, privately.

You just cannot claim that you were their originator, and you cannot charge for them.

It is the height of good manners to always contact the originator of any inspirational facet, but the honest truth is that in some cases, people don't, won't, or in this case with the late Mr. Parkinson, cannot.

Yes, but we need to be careful not to rationalize the use in any way. Whatever the end usage may be, if no credit is given then it's just plagiarism at the very least (under academic rules).



I agree here. Giving a nod to a favorite author (as I did with the Goblin Market by Christina Rossetti in one of my mods), musician, or visual artist treads more into Intellectual Property Law, which is even more intangible than ? ? ? laws. It's still unauthorized distribution to the later, but in there altered form are safe under the former. Regardless, full credit needs to be disclosed.

My understanding is that Giants is allowed to be mentioned (i.e. you can recommend Giants in a thread asking for a list of creature-adding mods or you can post a question about how to get Giants running) but any discussion of borrowed assets is liable to get a thread locked. That said, moderators are allowed significant leeway to interpret forum rules themselves and some moderators are quicker to lock threads than others (Telesphoros' case being a notorious example).




It's up to the owner of the copyright to make that determination. If the owner of the copyright believes there is a foul then you'll be talking to lawyers.




The person framing Keith Parkinson's artwork on their wall is not distributing Keith Parkinson's artwork. Distribution is a key concept when discussing copyright.




In the past the fact that a defendant did not charge for a work has, more often than not, mainly affected the damages he was forced to pay when he was caught. In the past the "but I didn't charge anything" defense has not proved to be a reliable safeguard against prosecution. Again, it's up to the copyright owner. The owner of the Star Wars franchise is extremely forgiving about these matters; the owners of copyright relating to Tolkien's IP are notoriously prohibitive. We cannot generalize about this. There is no such thing as "the rules", applicable to everyone everywhere, at all times, under all conditions. If the estate of Keith Parkinson learns of your friend's activities and decides to take legal action there is not a lawyer in existence who will be able to accurately predict the outcome, should the matter go to court.

My point here is that every one of us in this thread are talking out of our backsides if we pretend we know what copyright law is. As melian said, "...while you may think you know all there is to know about IP law, you're probably wrong. Most lawyers don't." These matters are decided on a case-by-case basis. And each case is going to be different from others that have been tried in court. Copyright lawyers can offer an educated guess about the probable outcome of a case but not even a copyright lawyer can predict what will happen should such a case make it to court.

Again I quote melian: "So please think twice before mouthing off, OK?" This is excellent advice for all of us. We all need to stop pretending to be armchair lawyers.