Mod Developers & Copyright

Discussion in 'Starbound Modding' started by WarStalkeR, Dec 9, 2013.

  1. Crashdoom

    Crashdoom Pangalactic Porcupine

    An EULA is not a legally binding document if it's not presented and accepted by the end user, otherwise it's just words on a page :) Why do you think games pop it up before you're allowed to play them, otherwise they can't enforce it, and even then in some cases and countries they STILL CAN'T enforce it. You could claim that there's no other physical way to do anything with the game after you've opened it (/downloaded it) and you refuse the EULA, so you had to accept it by force, in that case it's not legally binding. An EULA needs to be presented before a purchase for it to be valid. You can't just slap it on a game after it's been released and expect people to agree, they have the right to refuse to accept it and still play the game as-is, although you could refuse them further updates.
     
  2. EULA & TOS always available before purchase for releases (not sure about betas) and user always can take their time, find them and read them. If user does so only after buying product, then who is at fault here? Yes, its one of well known law loopholes, which allows to screw practically any user for breaking it. When everything gets to court and when user who is accused in breaking EULA starts saying that he didn't had access to EULA before purchase, company's advocate just points out that EULA is at main website and quite visible, and it's user's responsibility to read it before purchasing game, and in-game EULA is just to ensure that user knows it. If user didn't gave a shit to find and read EULA before buying products, user is screwed for big $$$. This is reality, and for me law is second best weapon to my favorite TAR-21.
     
  3. lazarus78

    lazarus78 The Waste of Time

    EULAs are NOT legally binding in any way, shape, or form.

    Because you can not read them BEFORE buying the software, they can not, and will never stand up to any legal scrutiny. End users can NOT be expected to look up an EULA before hand. That is not how the system works. The agreement has to be presented at the time of installation, but because you can not read it till then, (Thus after purchase) it holds no legal grounds.

    You are very misguided in your understanding of this.
     
    Crashdoom likes this.
  4. You can read EULA before purchasing product, but this is your responsibility. This is good example. Even the awful EA has it right here.

    This is true for some countries, like Israel, in Israel EULA is not legally binding in any way, shape, or form. But it is false for US/UK. You can read more about it here. You can read examples of cases there. This sentence "New York's state appeals court ruled that the terms of the shrink-wrapped license document were enforceable because the customer's assent was evident by its failure to return the merchandise within the 30 days specified by the document" - gives good example, if you not agreed with EULA after purchase, you just can return game/software and get back your money. If you still think that EULA has no power of whatever, I want to see you easily fighting it off in the court, explaining this to judge. But you have no chances there by yourself.
     
  5. Crashdoom

    Crashdoom Pangalactic Porcupine

    Trying to take an opened game back to a store won't work, without express permission from the company they get their games from, usually the publishers or a distributor, they won't accept opened games as returns. They may offer you a trade-in price for it, but if you've opened it, scratched off any codes or whatever, then the software is considered used and not in salable condition. This is at least true of the UK, the US, not so sure. I know this because I've worked in retail and I've had people try this, only to have the manager explain that we can't return opened software and it's explicitly stated on their receipt. A UK court would rule that this forces the user to accept the EULA and gives them no other option, thus rendering the agreement null and void because in actual fact, the user cannot back out of it.
     
  6. Now we are speaking about Digital Products, not about Retail Products, age of Retails ended long ago and interesting only to Collectors of such stuff. And I want see UK court follow your words, I'm pretty sure they will say you could've read EULA on their website before buying game in retail store. If you forgot, I will remind you: law is weapon for government and corporations to fight their own citizens.
     
  7. lazarus78

    lazarus78 The Waste of Time

    The agreement to the EULA has to be presented at the time of installation. Reading beforehand means nothing. The draft you are agreeing to can only be presented at installation time, meaning you have to buy the product first, making it NOT LEGALLY BINDING.

    Dude, I live in the US, and i know about this because Ive had to deal with it for over 7 years. This particular case was in regard to a case involving returning the product after a standard 30 day return period, and the package had been opened, meaning the software could have been copied. A common instance of fraud.

    Not to mention that particular section of the Wiki article is filled with conjecture, as it is missing proper citations for its information.

    Online EULAs are not the same as they must be presented AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION, not before. People can not be, nor should be expected to pre-read an agreement of any kind for any reason.

    Get this through your blatantly thick skull. You don't know what you are talking about here.
     
  8. manaprime

    manaprime Seal Broken

    I'm sorry but "age of retails" as you put has not ended. It is just not popular. Mainly for smaller companies. EA still sells most if not all their game on CD/DVD. It may cost more but I like having a "hard" copy of the game at times. That last part about the law is weapon for government and corporations is a bit biased.

    I get what you are try to say. But I am human and if I create some thing. I want to lest get credit for making it. Of course if I say "use as you please". Then I have not right to get mad at any one when they change or copy the thing I created.


    But I thank you WarStalkeR and the others. This has been most informing. At lest it gave me more awareness about copyrighting mods or anything in general.
     
  9. Bucketlamp

    Bucketlamp Giant Laser Beams

    Actually, case by case EULA's can be legally binding as soon as you hit "accept", they are not legally binding until then. However, there are many ways to claim you did not actually see the EULA, or had modified it yourself (which if you are unaware, you are legally able to modify a contract until it suits you within legal bounds and provided the contract doesn't itself state it's invalid once modified, it will require the original drafter/holder to review and approve before it becomes legally binding). Buying an item and accepting the EULA are two different things however, you can't say "On purchase of this object you agree", however if you do not agree to the EULA you essentially cannot use the product you purchased.

    Key notes:
    1. The EULA must some how sufficiently prove the contract was read (Agree button)
    2. Purchase of the item generally not accepted as confirmation.
    3. A general way to defeat the EULA is by being able to prove you could not have read it or it's plausible you did not read it (EULA prior to purchasing on a website). There are ways companies can defeat this by simply requiring you to accept a EULA prior to sale confirmation. However a simple check box with a link has been stated to be inadequate.

    So yes, EULA are legally binding, but only if deployed correctly.

    In terms of what an EULA can actually do is another topic all together.

    On the topic of copyright, a mod creator still owns exclusive rights to any content they've created provided it's "novel". No matter what the content is created for, anything created (even based on something else) is considered copyrighted by their creator if you can prove it differs enough from anything already existant. However, using the base sprites from Starbound can at times put it more into "derivative" pending on how much of the base sprite has been changed. The past has shown there can be a very fine line between "novel", "transformative", and "derivative" when it comes to sprite work. Though I'm pretty sure if you're creating NEW parts for the sprites (hair, armor, etc) it would be considered your own work; if you just changed the color of something already existent or move a pixel here or there it obviously is not.

    However it's good to specify copyrights come in a lot of different packages. This depends on the country you're in when you create content, in most under international copyright treaties, EVERYTHING you make that can be proven to be novel is automatically copyrighted. HOWEVER, if the country is like USA and you must register your copyright in order to claim statutory damages, you generally must register your copyright in that country to "fully own" your copyright there.
     
  10. I see you never had any problems with law and you sure that you know everything and everything works as intended. Good luck with such resolve, you will need it, when you will get to the court. And then you will see how useless your words about EULA not being legally binding and when EULA should be presented.

    Not really, I've used it in Israel as weapon against some companies and even government instances. Trust me, damage it causes more then Merkava's smoothbore 122mm Main Cannon.

    Well, this topic was started to prevent people from saying "I'll sue you for using my art" and not from "Credit me, if you use my work" - giving credit to author of code/image/animations right thing to do, anyones who doesn't follow it and just steals work, should be punished IMO.

    You're welcome.
     
  11. Bucketlamp

    Bucketlamp Giant Laser Beams

    Technically saying, there's nothing really illegal for saying you'll sue someone for using art, but at the same time if they USE the art and modify it to an extent it's considered novel... Well, they can still sue if they want to, they have the right to, but if the art has been changed around enough it becomes fair use and they'll be the one paying the legal fees. Too few people misunderstand the extents of copyright, they don't understand when a copyright comes into place, and they don't understand that copyrights differ depending on country. Many even believe just because you're in a different country you're safe from copyright (very few developed countries where that is true).

    Anyway, I hate to say this but you weren't 100% factual in this thread (but when it comes to the rather ill defined lines of copyright law and intellectual property 100% is near impossible), and you weren't exactly the nicest person either. Despite this, all in all, it does work very well as a reality check to people who believe copyright just bends to their will.

    Edit: Giving credit for code is considered major kudos, unless something has changed recently code is considered mathematical, thus not free from copyright/patents/etc.
     
  12. BentLent

    BentLent Subatomic Cosmonaut

    No, just, no... This is one of the reasons Spore failed, and one of the reasons I DELETED ALL OF MY CREATIONS. EA had no right to claim others creations as their own and Chucklefish should see this as well. Don't give me any of that "They made it on their tool" nonsense, because the law allows it but it is not morally ethical, think about it as stealing someone's idea, just because Person B made it on Person X's tool doesn't and shouldn't make it Person X's only Person B's. The copyright should only, and I MEAN ONLY go to the original creator. As such, the copyright law is flawed in such a way that it is causing what it is intended to prevent.

    BUT as you said, there will be people who use it as a form of control, but think about it, IF Chucklefish put that clause in their license then they would be just as bad as the modders who use copyright as a form of control. If someone makes such a mod, don't download it. If you don't download it, he gonna fail. One thing I didn't understand about Minecraft Mods is how some considered it damage if you post it on another website, and I'm like: "What damages? IT'S A FREE MOD! You can't make money off it as per the Modder's License," If anything posting on another website will make it more popular. I hope we don't get paradoxical idiots like that in the Starbound modding community.
     
  13. Bucketlamp

    Bucketlamp Giant Laser Beams

    Unfortunately, with what EA did, they DO have claim to every creature you make. You agreed to the EULA, and you used their tools. That being said, your reasons to delete your creations is the exact same reason I removed mine as well. However this does not apply to any other game. Any creation that occurs OUTSIDE of the game (by another individual) cannot rightfully claimed by the original game developer(s) unless it is not "original" enough to stand on its own.

    EDIT: I should add, they only have the rights to the MODEL and the ARMATURE of the creature. Not the idea behind it.
     
  14. BentLent

    BentLent Subatomic Cosmonaut

    It could have been much worse, and Chucklefish should not go that route. Mods should belong to the original creators.
     
  15. Even when you deleted all your spore creations, EA still has them, so you didn't cause any trouble. In addition because the things you've done inside Spore, not like you've modded new content, you just used original content to create something in game, so you actually have no rights over your creations.

    Well, Chucklefish Games can add something like that: any Starbound Mod's data can be used in other Starbound Mods by different people as long as credit provided to original author. Thus, such action will stop people from stealing and will stop greedy modmakers from prohibiting using their content in other mods. I see this as good solution, both against greediness and stealing.
     
  16. Bucketlamp

    Bucketlamp Giant Laser Beams

    They do and don't depends on how much they derive from the original game. Chucklefish did not make a creation tool, and even so they're EXTREMELY nice to their modding community, ie letting them fund themselves via paypal donations. Honestly I think they (ChuckleFish) treats their mod community with far more respect than most developers. I would doubt copyright would EVER become a problem with Chucklefish and their modders, but I think this topic was made as a warning against being feeling overly entitled.
     
  17. Bucketlamp

    Bucketlamp Giant Laser Beams

    And no, they have no right to be able to say that. Technically any art assets created by any other mod team is owned by them (the mod group). All Chucklefish can do is lay out forum and community standards. However, it would surely suck if you got banned for "stealing" another modder's work and were banned from the forums.
     
  18. BentLent

    BentLent Subatomic Cosmonaut

    As I have just discovered, they own the model and armature, but even if they owned the rights to the idea, they probably wouldn't even notice if I wrote stories using them, they'd have to actually read the book, and judging about how epically lazy EA is at making games, they couldn't read it even if they wanted to.
     
  19. How they have no right, when they can just put that part in EULA and then no modder won't be able to prohibit usage of his mod in other mods as long as credit provided? They can add "if it was posted on Starbound Forums/Modding Repository", thus basically telling to every modder that doesn't want to share his mod's data with other modders to go away and post it somewhere else.
     
  20. Bucketlamp

    Bucketlamp Giant Laser Beams

    Like I said, they only own the model and armature as it exists in their own system. The idea for the creatures are your own IP.
     

Share This Page