Trademarks,patents and usage

[njmatrix 2]

I got to wondering about something I saw in these (and other forums as well) and I thought I would see if I could get a answer that makes sense. Here ya go.

I see alot of threads get closed because someone either made something that looked like someone elses work or used a piece of someones work. The example I will use is a HL mod someone was building. The moderator brought up the fact that possibly in the Valve EULA they wouldn't allow their work (or a likeless of said work) to be used in another game or mod (I would honestly believe that Valve, the mad men of allowing stuff to be made from their products could careless about a mod) But this brought up a issue I am having with everyone elses addons as well. If we used the same logic this moderator used (not having permission to use someone elses work) You could apply that rule to almost everyones mods, addons or skins made in the ArmA world. Things like MARPAT, CADPAT, ACOG, Remington, Glock, AR15 are all trademarked names and items. I learned that 99% of camo patterns used are copyrighted and trademarked.

So i ask this question What is legal?

If you read the trademark and patents on many of the Digital Camos it distinctly states you cannot copy their patterns. Also names are patented and trademarked meaning unless you have permission to use the name Desert Eagle you are violating a law. And 100% of guns names are patented as well. I bring this up because a flight sim I use released aircraft without VC's because of the cost of using someones "patented" cockpit. I don't know how you copyright a 70 year old cockpit but i'll go with it.

So where do you draw the line and who decides what is lawful and whats not? I agree someone shouldnt use someone elses addons without their permission but how far does that go?

[krzychuzokecia 719]

I think it's pretty easy here:

- You're making HL mod using Valve assets, and it's illegal (unless their EULA states otherwise)

- You're making HK416D addon and it's legal, because You're not using any parts made by HK - it'd be hard to have real parts in virtual firearm, wouldn't it? Your model is only virtual and visual representation of real-life item, and HK can't sue You - think of all the people who're posting photos of HK weapons.

The fact that weapon design is patented, I think, is not important here: You're not copying any mechanism. Problem starts when the look of weapon is copyrighted: just like Glock have patent for "black, square in shape pistol with serrations on the back of the slide" (yes, they do! And it sparkled debate among firearm makers). Or when trademark is copyrighted, and You'll be getting profit from selling the model (see BIS with "Coyota" pick-up).

But what happens when I'm making HL mod from scratch, without using any assets from original game?

[b00tsy 28]

Hmm I do think that even using an existing design of an real life item in an virtual environment is not allowed (officially). On an other platform where I am active (secondlife) there are lots of creators that had to pull back their creations because it was based (inspired) on an existing design (architecture), even though they named it different. Also using an existing logo can get you into trouble (nike logo on virtual shoes for example).

Here is a section of the SL ToS that is based on real life intellectual property laws which also applies to other virtual environments like game mods:

Branding Guidelines

Branded items may be listed or sold only by the brand or intellectual property owner or its authorized agents. A "branded item" is an item that:

contains or uses a brand name or logo;


replicates or closely imitates the appearance of a real-world physical product of a brand owner (for example, items that replicate the appearance of brands of cars, jewelry, or shoes that are available in the real world);

replicates or closely imitates the appearance of a celebrity, famous person, or fictional character from a copyrighted work (for example, avatars that replicate the appearance of movie stars or characters from a book, film, television program, or game); or

replicates or uses an artistic or creative work that is the subject of copyright (for example, virtual artwork that replicates artwork available in the real world or a sound clip that includes part of a song recording).

"Brand names" include product names; service names; company names; organization names; trade names; designer names; trademarks; service marks; celebrity names; famous persons' names; the unique names of well-known books, films, television programs, games, and other works that are the subject of copyright; and the unique names of well-known fictional characters from copyrighted works.

Be careful not to make comparisons to a brand name or say that your item is "like," "inspired by," or "based on" a brand name because this can be misleading and can lead to intellectual property infringement.

When including pictures in your listings, use a picture that accurately represents your item so that buyers are not confused about what you're selling. Never copy or use someone else's pictures or logos without their permission.

If you are a brand or intellectual property owner or the authorized agent of one, consider making others aware of this information by including it in your listing.

If we receive a complaint from a brand or intellectual property owner, or if we believe in good faith that your listing violates these Branding Guidelines or intellectual property law, we reserve the right to remove your listing and content (including content in Second Life associated with the listing) and in severe or repeat cases revoke your SL Marketplace and Second Life privileges.

You are responsible for ensuring that your listings and content comply with applicable intellectual property laws. Please be aware that your compliance with these Branding Guidelines does not guarantee your compliance with all intellectual property laws. For general information about intellectual property and our intellectual property complaint procedures, please go here. If you need advice on intellectual property law, we suggest you contact an attorney.

Examples

This Is Acceptable:

An item that uses a brand name (like Gucci®, Nike®, or Rolex®) can be listed only if the item is officially offered or authorized by the brand owner (for example, Gucci America, Inc., Nike, Inc., or Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.).

An item that uses a celebrity or famous name (like Angelina Jolie or Barack Obama) can be listed only if the item is officially offered or authorized by the celebrity or famous person (for example, Angelina Jolie or Barack Obama).

A virtual car that looks like a particular brand of cars (like Mercedes-Benz®) and uses the logo of the brand can be listed only if the virtual car is officially offered or authorized by the brand owner (for example, Daimler AG).

An avatar that has the appearance of a fictional character from a copyrighted work (like Darth Vader or Wonder Woman) and uses the character name can be listed only if the avatar is officially offered or authorized by the intellectual property owner of the character (for example, Lucasfilm Entertainment Co. Ltd. or DC Comics).

Virtual artwork that replicates copyrighted artwork that is available in the real world (like the artwork of Andy Warhol or M.C. Escher) can be listed only if the virtual artwork is officially offered or authorized by the intellectual property owner of the artwork (for example, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. or The M.C. Escher Company B.V.).

This Is NOT Acceptable:

A virtual sneaker named after a sneaker brand available in the real world (like Adidas® or Converse®) cannot be listed if the listing party is not the brand owner (for example, Adidas America, Inc. or Converse Inc.) or officially authorized by the brand owner.

A virtual t-shirt with the logo of a real-world brand (like a Mickey Mouse® logo or an NFL® logo) cannot be listed if the listing party is not the brand owner (for example, Disney Enterprises, Inc. or the National Football League) or officially authorized by the brand owner.

Virtual furniture with the distinctive appearance of a brand of furniture available in the real world (like the Eames® lounge chair and ottoman) cannot be listed if the listing party is not the brand owner (for example, Herman Miller, Inc.) or officially authorized by the brand owner.

An avatar that has the appearance of a celebrity (for example, Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe) cannot be listed if the listing party is not the owner of the celebrity's right of publicity (or the right to use the celebrity's appearance, for example, Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. or Marilyn Monroe LLC) or officially authorized by the celebrity rights owner.

Lists of unrelated brand names cannot be included in a listing or hidden by using white-on-white text, tiny fonts, special HTML code, or other means intended to circumvent the rules. (See also Keyword Spam below.)

Misspelling brand names or adding, removing, or swapping some characters to try to circumvent the rules, for example, using the number "1" instead of the letter "I" or a dollar sign "$" instead of the letter "S," is not allowed.

Anyway, if you don't use it for commercial use and making money of it then there is not such a big chance you get in trouble with it, but companies can give you a hard time if they want to.

Edited January 19, 2013 by B00tsy

[JdB 151]

Taking assetts from another game/mod etc isn't allowed unless permission has been acquired. If you recreate something that is in another game/mod etc without using anything that was in the original files then it is legal*

* For the actual design, logos and names there might be a few companies that actively persue people that use these without licensing. Most do not as long as the project is intended as a commercial product.

[b00tsy 28]

If you recreate something that is in another game/mod etc without using anything that was in the original files then it is legal*

According to the ToS section I quoted that is also illegal and violating the IP holders rights to the asset, again 'officially'. Though that ToS section is based on the assumption that is commercially being used. If you create a Ferrari car in a game mod and name it 'Farreri' and sell the mod or use it an other commercial way (marketing) then no doubt the legal team of Ferrari will be contacting you through a DMCA or a lawyer :)

[njmatrix 2]

Yeah well interesting how different people come up with different interpretations of copyright and patent laws and usage.

[JdB 151]

According to the ToS section I quoted that is also illegal and violating the IP holders rights to the asset, again 'officially'. Though that ToS section is based on the assumption that is commercially being used. If you create a Ferrari car in a game mod and name it 'Farreri' and sell the mod or use it an other commercial way (marketing) then no doubt the legal team of Ferrari will be contacting you through a DMCA or a lawyer :)

Hence the asterisk (*) in my post. It's legal to do so, but if it is a registered trademark or design, it could theoretically get you in trouble.

Btw, if you use the name "Farreri" they can't touch you as it is at best a parody of the Ferrari name. If that is combined with a car model that bears a strong resemblance (like 90% identical) to any of the actual cars however ...

[max power 21]

You are allowed to make an artistic representation of an object and name it accurately under nominative fair use. You may not claim the copyrighted logos are yours, or use the works of other people.

[blacksidras 6]

Is it allowed to make a video with addons which werent made by me?

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yes, why not ?

[BronzeEagle 2]

That's how I see it. From most legal standpoints, as long as you're not selling anything they're not gonna come after you for the most part. Permissions is just a flashpoint tradition, but I've seen alot of good potential addons go down the tube over community law vs. actual law. Needless to say alot of addon makers like from appleseed mod ive worked with and myself on the code blue team and 3148 when taking the lead have been pretty open about permissions as long as we're asked. It would be kind of a let down to see your hard work go into the hands and credit of another team without permission I'm sure. Even as I take the reigns when all the addon makers of our team are gone I still maintain that, permissions.

Edited January 26, 2013 by BronzeEagle

[JdB 151]

That's how I see it. From most legal standpoints, as long as you're not selling anything they're not gonna come after you for the most part. Permissions is just a flashpoint tradition, but I've seen alot of good potential addons go down the tube over community law vs. actual law. Needless to say alot of addon makers like from appleseed mod ive worked with and myself on the code blue team and 3148 when taking the lead have been pretty open about permissions as long as we're asked. It would be kind of a let down to see your hard work go into the hands and credit of another team without permission I'm sure. Even as I take the reigns when all the addon makers of our team are gone I still maintain that, permissions.

Just spotted a rather relevant mistake in my post that you quoted :p

Most do not as long as the project is intended as a commercial product.

Should obviously be:

Most do not as long as the project is not intended as a commercial product.

I read that post 3 times before posting and still missed that :o

[Lenyoga 326]

Maybe I should email Valve... because re-drawing all textures I used, and re-creating all sounds would be slightly too much to handle. Or maybe it's just easier to keep said add-on pack off BIS Forums. Gonna come up with the first results of my Shock Mod in the next months anyway.

[max power 21]

Maybe I should email Valve... because re-drawing all textures I used, and re-creating all sounds would be slightly too much to handle. Or maybe it's just easier to keep said add-on pack off BIS Forums. Gonna come up with the first results of my Shock Mod in the next months anyway.

Armaholic doesn't tolerate that shit either.

[Lenyoga 326]

Armaholic doesn't tolerate that shit either.

What I meant was letting the thing rest on my Dropbox folder, instead of trying to make it public on other sites. And also, I doubt Valve would answer me or give me permission to use their texture and sound files for some random add-on.

[R0adki11 3949]

What I meant was letting the thing rest on my Dropbox folder, instead of trying to make it public on other sites. And also, I doubt Valve would answer me or give me permission to use their texture and sound files for some random add-on.

I personally wouldn't bother to try and release it that way. If your going to make an addon, please make your own textures and sounds instead of borrowing from another game and breaking their EULA

[Lenyoga 326]

If your going to make an addon, please make your own textures and sounds instead of borrowing from another game and breaking their EULA

That's what I'm doing right now - I gave up on the Half Life 2 add-on and pulled it off everywhere, but forgetting that thing gives me more time to concentrate on a full mod with campaign. But now please don't tell me that making a campaign with a story which is designed to be like a sequel for another game (for System Shock 2 in this case) isn't allowed either...

[kenoxite 156]

SS2 is on a kind of a limbo, but still has a proprietary. An insurance company for that.

The story behind the rights on SS2 is a weird one:

As Spector had mentioned, an insurance company got the rights to System Shock after Looking Glass Studios shut down. I tracked down the insurer, Star Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Michigan-based Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., and confirmed that the rights are available for sale.

More info here: http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/713030/the-lost-history-of-system-shock/

[Lenyoga 326]

I'm a bit of a freak for Looking Glass. I know about their strange situation right now, so I'm not entirely sure if it's okay with BIS. I'm not taking any original textures, sounds, etc., it's just parts of the storyline (not even re-using it, just hinting towards it for background info at some points) and the names from the game itself (to be specific, the UNN, SHODAN, TriOptimum, some of the names of the guns, etc...) Isn't this basically a form of FanFiction and therefore allowed?

[kenoxite 156]

That sounds fine, I guess.

Anyway, I couldn't care less about all this copyright stuff, but in this community all this seems to be a very big deal, and hence my previous post.

[R0adki11 3949]

I'm a bit of a freak for Looking Glass. I know about their strange situation right now, so I'm not entirely sure if it's okay with BIS. I'm not taking any original textures, sounds, etc., it's just parts of the storyline (not even re-using it, just hinting towards it for background info at some points) and the names from the game itself (to be specific, the UNN, SHODAN, TriOptimum, some of the names of the guns, etc...) Isn't this basically a form of FanFiction and therefore allowed?

That sounds perfectly fine, nothing wrong with using a story for your own campaign.

That sounds fine, I guess.

Anyway, I couldn't care less about all this copyright stuff, but in this community all this seems to be a very big deal, and hence my previous post.

You should care, if your a member of this community. And yes it is a big deal, as it protects addon maker rights and the community.

[kenoxite 156]

Well, you make it a big deal of it, that's for sure. Not sure about the rest of the community, although it seems they're in tone with your views.

I'm not surprised about a modding community being wary about attribution and ownership, it happens almost anywhere. But here it feels more drastically enforced. And I'm not sure if that's a good thing, considering the already small community, the even smaller active contributors, and the age of this great game.

And, for what it's worth, and because your remark could be considered as an accusation of some sorts or a warning, everything I've released has been properly attributed when needed to, and permissions asked and granted when expanding, fixing or modifying the work of someone else. Not because "I should", but because that's common sense and a gesture of appreciation. And if I ever end up forgetting someone (or have already) that's not because I'm a bad person, that's because I simply forgot to keep track of their names. My impression is that that's the reason for this kind of situations in most cases.

But I think this goes beyond the scope of this thread, which seemed to focus on the boundaries and use of copyrighted material from outside this community and not on its use and attributions from other members. Anyway, I thought I'd expand my point of view on the matter, as I was directly pointed at.

[R0adki11 3949]

Well, you make it a big deal of it, that's for sure. Not sure about the rest of the community, although it seems they're in tone with your views.

I'm not surprised about a modding community being wary about attribution and ownership, it happens almost anywhere. But here it feels more drastically enforced. And I'm not sure if that's a good thing, considering the already small community, the even smaller active contributors, and the age of this great game.

And, for what it's worth, and because your remark could be considered as an accusation of some sorts or a warning, everything I've released has been properly attributed when needed to, and permissions asked and granted when expanding, fixing or modifying the work of someone else. Not because "I should", but because that's common sense and a gesture of appreciation. And if I ever end up forgetting someone (or have already) that's not because I'm a bad person, that's because I simply forgot to keep track of their names. My impression is that that's the reason for this kind of situations in most cases.

But I think this goes beyond the scope of this thread, which seemed to focus on the boundaries and use of copyrighted material from outside this community and not on its use and attributions from other members. Anyway, I thought I'd expand my point of view on the matter, as I was directly pointed at.

Well alot of addon makers will make a big deal of it, how would you like it if some one used your work without permission? I would say that its not drastically enforced. But merely the BIS Community looks out for the BIS Community, especially as the community has been built up since the OFP demo and the release of OFP. I for one have been playing BIS games since the release of the OFP Demo in 2001.

I apologise if my remark sounded like an accusation of some sort or warning, i was just wishing to get across my opinion that copyright stuff within this community is an important issue. Many members do feel quite strongly about it, as do i. Also i would like to point out with regards to copyright it i was referring to all BIS games including OFP.

Edited February 5, 2013 by R0adki11

[kenoxite 156]

No problem. That was my impression, but I wanted to expand on it as I felt it had an ambiguous intention.

Why would be important how would I feel? If you're curious I myself wouldn't feel anything in particular. Maybe a bit proud and curious about what they're going to do with it, as my stuff would fall into the Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported license (although I actually paraphrase it instead). Particularly if it's something that I created years ago and probably forgot about.

Funny thing is that absolutely all the people I've contacted when asking for permission to either use, update, fix or expand something have felt the same way. In some cases I even got told that the permission wasn't needed (although appreciated), as long as I credited them. So "the community" (the OFP community in this thread originally, the BIS community now as pointed by you) consists of a wide spectrum of views on the matter.

But I agree that there's a section, and a very vocal one, that regards ownership, attribution and "copyright" of their creations very highly, usually backed up by moderators, which makes it a de facto official stand on the matter. Nothing wrong with that. I was only commenting on the general feeling which I, as a recent contributor, have. Mainly, why I keep asking myself these questions before any new submission: did I forgot to keep track of someone crucial? Will I get another infraction? Will I be suspended?

The point is, there's no way to know, but all those possibilities exist. You can either get an infraction for the most apparently innocuous thing or just get a friendly warning and no infraction for editing something by someone else without asking for permission, while others get suspended for the same reason. If we take that inconsistency and mix it with the perceived official stand on attribution, etc, not forgetting the small and not too prone to feedback community of this game... Well, those things don't add up positively if you plan to attract new contributors to this rickety scene.

And yes, I also have played OFP since 2001. Yay me, yay you. If there's anything to be proud about that, that's it. That probably only means that we are both too old :)

If for some reason you feel like anything related to all this should be discussed further I invite you to PM me instead, so we don't divert the focus of this thread even further.

[Lenyoga 326]

I must say I'm actually glad that moderators and community are keeping an eye out. I, of course, knew not to use other add-on makers' work without permission - and wouldn't do that - but I wasn't aware that using sound files and textures from published, big-name games wasn't allowed for non-commercial purposes either. In hindsight, I should have known better, actually. I'm glad one of the moderators told me on the HL2 thread I made, it pretty much set the way for the production of my new project - also got me into full-scale sound editing (otherwise I would just have re-used most of Shock2's original sounds.)