a question about rules and copyright.

[ManleySteele]

By your reckoning, a kid drawing a picture of superman (a copy) and giving it to his grandparents (a third party) or heaven forbid, scanning it and putting it on the internet would be copyright infringement. I think there should be a distinct line between letter of the law (in which this is true) and spirit of the law (in which this is obviously not infringement). There's a lot of grey area there, maybe we can both agree on that.

 

 

I'll ignore the sarcasm in the first phrase and concentrate on scanning it posting to the internet. That is a copyright violation. The fact that the copyright holders are not out looking to squash their fans doesn't change the facts. Unfornately, for your argument, it is almost always the letter of teh law that is enforced. If the law is poorly written, it may create criminals where no intent to flaunt a law exists. Copyright holders who are the original creators of the content, by and large, have enought common sense to to target people who try to profit by their infringement, but that doesn't change the law.

 

I do personally think copyright is horribly broken, for the reasons I outlined and more. Patent trolls, big players being able to stifle competition with mere threats of lawsuits which they know the other party can't afford, and ridiculous extensions to expiration terms effectively killing the public domain - but that's a whole different discussion.

 

 

I agreee that patent trolls and big entities that produce nothing but lawsuits are a problem. Your assertion that copyright extentions are rediculous leave me scratching my head. I will leave it alone, however, as I do agree that it is beyond the scope of the original post.

 

By the way, I do not think fair use (which this is not, we're agreed on that and I never claimed it was) is the only exception - there is also parody which is a subset of derivative works, another two possible exceptions with their own tests. None of which apply here, but just for completeness sake.

 

The abiity to parody or produce a derivitive work of an existing copyrighted material is severely limited. Those limitations exist because they do not fall under fair use execptions. I'll give you the last word, as I'm going to get off my high horse, now.

[acidzebra]

These are the four points by which fair use are measured, on a case-by-case basis.

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

Unlike, say, a speeding law (which is absolute and measurable with ease - radar gun, photo, speeding ticket), this by its very nature has a large grey area (by which I mean some degree of subjectivity/uncertainty with fuzzy rather than discrete borders - for instance "the effect of the use" is not something which may be clearly demonstrable ). You see this reflected in the many court cases surrounding fair use and things like fan fiction etc. etc. There is no single unified ruling. Some cases win, some lose, some get settled out of court. There is no single unified ruling or precedent by which these things are measured and judged, even if the letter of the law is quite clear. That's what I was getting at with "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law". If the letter of the law was all that mattered, all these cases would end in exactly the same way.

 

...can I borrow that horse of yours? I kind of like the color :tongue:

Edited November 12, 2012 by acidzebra

[ManleySteele]

Yes, but watch the left, front hoof. It seems to pick up rocks and the farrior (me) can't seem to solve the problem.

[Stemin]

These are the four points by which fair use are measured, on a case-by-case basis.

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

Unlike, say, a speeding law (which is absolute and measurable with ease - radar gun, photo, speeding ticket), this by its very nature has a large grey area (by which I mean some degree of subjectivity/uncertainty with fuzzy rather than discrete borders - for instance "the effect of the use" is not something which may be clearly demonstrable ). You see this reflected in the many court cases surrounding fair use and things like fan fiction etc. etc. There is no single unified ruling. Some cases win, some lose, some get settled out of court. There is no single unified ruling or precedent by which these things are measured and judged, even if the letter of the law is quite clear. That's what I was getting at with "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law". If the letter of the law was all that mattered, all these cases would end in exactly the same way.

 

...can I borrow that horse of yours? I kind of like the color :tongue:

 

I don't see any point in arguing the merits of what you're saying. I just wish you wouldn't try to parade your ideas for others to ignorantly follow. The law is always going to err on the side of those who created said properties.

 

Since you quoted the first part, I might as well quote the last... From the US copyright web page:

 

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, you should consider avoiding the use of copyrighted material unless you are confident that the doctrine of fair use would apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine whether a particular use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

 

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

[acidzebra]

I just wish you wouldn't try to parade your ideas for others to ignorantly follow

 

...what?

 

I refer you back to my first post on the topic

 

I think making a custom mesh for use in a different game as a form of fan art/tribute is eminently defendable - but does anyone have the deep pockets needed to actually take it to court? Once the owners decide to throw their weight in the ring with a cease & desist, you're looking at either complying or a prolonged legal battle - with no guarantee of actually winning. What modder is waiting for or even capable of that?

 

The rest was a discussion of copyright law and exception cases which was interesting, I thought, and expressing my personal views (which I think is within my rights on this forum), I did not expect everyone to agree, nor did I at any point try to incite people to copy stuff with wanton abandon and post it on the nexus.

Edited November 13, 2012 by acidzebra

[vaskafdt]

wow this is a long discussion while i was busy trying to make skin not to show through armor where it shouldn't... damn weight sliders!!

 

maybe I should avoid it altogether.. no need to get into needles headaches.. just focus on crafting weapons for now.. and get a better armor idea that is not based on Copyrighted stuff...

 

I assume that the Nexus is not completely non profit, so technically if they host such mods They will be in violation of copyright laws (spirit and letter)...

 

maybe I'll browse through the mod request thread and see what I can do from there.

[Stemin]

The rest was a discussion of copyright law and exception cases which was interesting, I thought, and expressing my personal views (which I think is within my rights on this forum), I did not expect everyone to agree, nor did I at any point try to incite people to copy stuff with wanton abandon and post it on the nexus.

 

And I would argue that much like copyright laws, intent doesn't matter much. You were arguing the right to use these works because they fall under fair use. Someone with less common sense reading the thread might just take you up on it. I tend to err on the side of caution myself.

[Georgiegril]

As a musician I feel strongly about making sure artists and other creative people get every last cent they have earned--I know it is the little guy playing 2nd viola (or the equivalent) that is the most personally harmed by the loss of revenue. I feel people who profess to appreciate something like a game, art, music, whatever should express this by helping support the people who made it.

 

I know I'll regret to have posted, but there is in fact a very large grey area in law. The grey area is born between what is written in the legislation, what is enforced by the authorities, and what holds up in court.The LoTR people, I believe are planning to challenge the cease and desist. Are they currently committing copyright infringement, unless they happen to win in court, at which time it would be found that they never had infringed? Or is it the other way around? Or both simultaneously? Law is not something carved in tablets, it is a dynamic, fluid environment. Large corporations play in the grey area all the time. Did Samsung steal from Apple, or did they not? Was it their actions or the legal decision that defines their guilt or innocence?

 

That said very few people really want to devote the time and expense of experiencing the unfolding of the law... like Bben said, it's way too expensive a game for little people to play.

 

I think it is a shame that there is no mechanism for reasonable royalties to be paid so that people can both enjoy working on something they admire and enjoy and also provide support for the original creator. For example in the music world we can fairly easily pay royalties for music and receive license for public performance. I know this is also true with theatre. Maybe more modern media ought to take a look at some of the older traditions so that a compromise system could be created that was fair for everyone.

 

Just my two cents.

[slainia]

Georgie - i don't think you should regret posting at all. You seem to be posting from a personal perspective that gives you more insight into the situation than most people generally have, & your response - imo - seemed balanced & fairly knowledgeable. You also asked some pretty good questions...