Member Discussions

I've never understood the legal points of muds and mudding but I think it has been mentioned that builders
rights are protected by some sort of creator's copyright.

I know it's a bit odd to link to an article about downloading pornography but I'm sort of wondering about the
phrase

"Thus, copyright is authorized only for works which promote the progress of science and useful arts."

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/03/43613.htm

Would the outcome of this case make any difference to muds and builders?

Any notion of a builder copyrighting a zone is a total joke.
Any legalese claiming copyrighting of a zone is also a joke.
It's up to the discretion of the owner and he can pretend to
make a disclaimer but in the end, it just doesn't matter.

IMHO, it is very very unlikely the court will rule that porn films are not copyrightable. So my answer is that no, it will not affect the copyright builder's have over their works.

The article does contain an insightful quote by the Hard Drive lawyer concerning the EFF. :-)

You'd be wrong because porn is not art, it is obscenity and
obscenity is not copyrightable.

Any notion of a builder copyrighting a zone is a total joke.
Any legalese claiming copyrighting of a zone is also a joke.
It's up to the discretion of the owner and he can pretend to
make a disclaimer but in the end, it just doesn't matter.

I'm curious to know why you think copyrighting is a joke. A lot of creative and
literary juices go into building a zone, so for a builder to retain copyright is
important.

Also, you don't need any "legalese" to claim copyright; it comes into existence
automatically when the work is created. You can assign, sell, or otherwise
license your copyright to someone else, but, even if you do that, you still retain
"moral copyright" in your work which basically entitle you to prevent the work
from being distorted or sold without your consent, and to keep your name
attached to the work (or unattached if that's what you prefer). But, again, this all
comes without any legalese.

So, no, copyright is not all up to the discretion of the owner, and yes, it does
matter. If I were a builder, I'd want to make sure that I retained copyright in my
hours and hours of hard creative work.

I should mention that this all applies to Canada, which is where I practice law.
Moral rights are protected by statute, though many contracts (for publishing
etc.) contain moral right waivers. I believe moral rights exist in the US but I'm
not sure if they offer the same protection.

I guess if you want to pretend that a court will ever waste
its time on a "building issue", lol.

it comes into existence
automatically when the work is created.

No it doesn't, lol. People on here really have no clue about
copyright, especially Kavir who willfully misleads.

Jodah wrote:
You'd be wrong because porn is not art, it is obscenity and
obscenity is not copyrightable.

Unfortunately that horse left the barn years ago.
Mitchell Brothers Film Group v. Cinema Adult Theater, (1979)
Jartech, Inc. v. Clancy, (1982)

Jodah wrote:

Aelius wrote:
...it comes into existence automatically when the work is created.

No it doesn't, lol. People on here really have no clue about
copyright, especially Kavir who willfully misleads.

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

You have of course proven that at least one person here has no clue about copyright, but it isn't KaVir.

I guess if you want to pretend that a court will ever waste
its time on a "building issue", lol.

I didn't say anything about court. I was just explaining how copyright works, because you don't seem to know much about it.

No it doesn't, lol. People on here really
have no clue about
copyright, especially Kavir who willfully misleads.

Yes, copyright does come into effect when a work is created without any additional effort by the author. Any country that is a
member of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works must comply with this minimum standard
of protection, among many others. See here for a quick overview:

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

Both the US and Canada (where I practice law) are members of the Berne Convention and thus must
comply with the minimum standards. Both countries allow registration of copyrights, but that's an optional step that gives
additional protection. I can't point you to the relevant statute in the US, but in Canada, s.91 of the Copyright Act ensures
compliance with the Berne Convention.

There is much much MUCH more to it than that. It's not simply
a matter of "I created it therefore it's mine." There are
many extenuating circumstances. For instance, a game writer
who writes or invents an original story for a company does not
own that story.

I thought Kavir was least informed person on copyright, but I
guess I was wrong. You beat him, barely.

Unfortunately that horse left the barn
years ago.

Completely different circumstances. In fact, there is court
case in the news right now with someone arguing that you
cannot copyright obscenity and they will probably win.


(Comment added by Jodah on Sat Feb 4 22:59:52 2012)

"(where I practice law)"

Being a paralegal in Canada hardly matters to the US, the only
country that matters.

For instance, a game writer
who writes or invents an original story for a company does not
own that story.

We're talking about copyright as it relates to mud area building. In Canada, s.13(3) of the Copyright Act, which
does more or less what you state above, only applies to employment situations. I assume the US has a similar
statute. The vast, vast majority of mud builders are not employees. So, any waiver of copyright would have to be
part of a legal contract or waiver.

Listen, I know you're trying to bait me with your trolling comments, but it's not going to work. I deal with people
who think they know the law every day at work, so I'm used to having these types of conversations.

It has already worked.

And some builders get paid with money and some with benefits.
Regardless they can be thought of as contributing to creating
a game someone else owns.

There is much much MUCH more to it than that. It's not simply
a matter of "I created it therefore it's mine." There are
many extenuating circumstances. For instance, a game writer
who writes or invents an original story for a company does not
own that story.

I believe the concept you are struggling to put a name to is known as "work for hire". It's an exception to the general rule. There must be a written agreement between the parties that the author will transfer copyright to the person or company employing them or commissioning the work.

Completely different circumstances. In fact, there is court
case in the news right now with someone arguing that you
cannot copyright obscenity and they will probably win.

I'm commenting on the "case in the news" that Parnassus referenced. They may or may not win the case, but it won't be on the grounds that "obscenity is not protected by copyright".

Oh yes it will. That IS their main argument, that porn is not
a "useful art" and obscene and thus not copyrightable.

It has already
worked.

Not really. I'm actually enjoying this conversation as it's giving me an opportunity to brush up on an area of
law that I don't encounter every day. This also gives me practice in explaining the law to uneducated
people.

And some builders
get paid with money and some with benefits.
Regardless they can be thought of as contributing to creating
a game someone else owns.

An employer/employee relationship is more complex than that and has to pass judicial tests. It's not that
simple. Simply contributing to something owned by someone else does not constitute such a relationship.
For example, if I offer to help you paint your fence, does that mean that I'm your employee just because
you own the fence?

For example, if I offer to help you
paint your fence, does that mean that I'm your employee just
because you own the fence?

No, but that makes you my employee because I give you many
benefits, like free food, access to my lawn, my tools,
accident insurance, car rights, take my old cool electronic
piece because you worked for it, and many more.

For example, if I offer to help you
paint your fence, does that mean that I'm your employee just
because you own the fence?


No, but that makes you my employee because I give you many
benefits, like free food, access to my lawn, my tools,
accident insurance, car rights, take my old cool electronic
piece because you worked for it, and many more.

No, not really. The test for an employee/employer relationship involves much more than that. What you're describing is an independent contractor. That legal status doesn't
offer nearly the same spectrum of rights as the employee/employer relationship, nor does it mean that you lose your copyright. As an independent contractor you would
keep your copyright unless you explicitly waive it.

At the very least, as a builder, you should be entitled* to a
copy of your own work if requested. If the owner has issues
with it, then you might be building for the wrong place.

*Provided you don't give away your rights before building. :P

There was a case a while back, on MUDbytes I think, where one
MUD owner had a helpfile or something of that nature that
specified a builder's work belongs to the MUD. All good and
well, except that he failed to mention it before hiring
people.

That legal status doesn't
offer nearly the same spectrum of rights as the
employee/employer relationship, nor does it mean that you
lose your copyright. As an independent contractor you would
keep your copyright unless you explicitly waive it

Not true. You cannot be assumed to be an independent
contractor in America without the proper forms. Otherwise
the blur between independent contractor and employee is very
narrow.

What you are describing is being an employee of a Sole
Proprietorship or other form of official business. Only if
you officially form a business are you bound by business
laws, such as providing W2s, so that entire concept does not
apply in this scenario.

If you paint my fence, you aren't copyrighting the design.
I can repaint any other fence I wish to because you're
working for me. When you work on a mud, you don't own
anything, the owner does. You agree that it's their game.
A game designer can't suddenly decide to take away the story
of Oblivion cuz he has "made it". Maybe Canada is
different, but America is the only country that matters.

I previously did not post in this thread, because while I am quite familiar with copyright and patent law, I am not so comfortable as to display my ignorance in public. It appears however that few other posters in this thread have such restriction. Much like reading a general book on programming languages does not make one an expert on the C++ programming language, word of mouth you obtained regarding legal activities and conclusions does not make one an expert regarding copyright or patent law.

If you have a legal question that you need answered, hire a lawyer. If you cannot hire a lawyer, be prepared to pay the consequences of being wrong. But don't pretend that you know what you're talking about when other people ask. That does a disservice to everyone.

-dentin

Alter Aeon MUD
http://www.alteraeon.com

I'd like to know where you're getting your legal information from, Jodah. I've
given you references to statutes and international conventions. Where are you
finding your information?

I'd like to know where you're getting your legal information from, Jodah. I've
given you references to statutes and international conventions. Where are you finding your information?

It was all written on a piece of toast one morning. A very authoritative piece of toast. A very very authoritative and delicious piece of toast.

Jodah, you are misinforming people. Please troll with something that isn't actually harmful.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

Aelius wrote:
I'd like to know where you're getting your legal information from, Jodah. I've
given you references to statutes and international conventions. Where are you
finding your information?

Here's where he finds it.