Spoke with my attorney regarding copyright

[Tysis]

All,

I just got off the phone with my attorney.

As some of you know I am working on my little .NET world builder and I have used the World Builder's handbook. Here is the gist of the conversation:

1. You cannot use it commercially without permission. Not an issue since I will not be selling it.

2. You can still be sued, and may have to pay to defend yourself (in this case me), but the chance of that is slim (read on).

3. For a lawsuit to be successful, one has to prove that it affected the market. In other words, you violated their rights and made money or they lost money.

4. I did attempt to contact the copyright holder; the emails bounced back.

5. As such, given that this is non-commercial (that is, is not to be sold and cannot be used to produce material for sale) this strongly leans to fair usage. The important point to note is that no one can make any money from the usage, which means that no company can touch it.

6. What that means is that I will provide my usage disclaimer (for example, personal use) and provide credit to the holders (Marc and Rodger).

7. The short answer is that yes, it can be shared. This should apply to other material as well.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Maybe check to make sure that you as the creator are not liable if someone else is making money off your product, even if it is indirectly. One example: you put it on the internet for download and that site gets revenue from advertising and theoretically more revenue due to increased visitors to their site.

Regarding #3 "they lost money"

So is what your doing going to decrease the market value of the World Builder's handbook....

I believe you couldn't legally copy the whole book and provide it to people for free. How about if its not the whole book but just the most important parts? That would probably be a no-no too. I have seen several places where the contents of the Library, more than 2 books of information, is posted online. There are also places that have character generators and even what your doing, the world generator. If you don't care about the legality and just your chance of getting sued, maybe that will give you a tipoff of the likelihood.

 

[Tysis]

I spoke in great detail with my attorney regarding this issues. Here is a little more of the conversation.

I am not copying the work; I automated it. In order to decrease the market value of something that object would have to be sold. The book is out of print and is not available on PDF. To get a copy you would have to buy a copy from someone that has one. In other words, a piece of software could damage the marketability of the book if it was still in print.

Now, if the book were still available, even on PDF there would be an issue. Thus, there will be no business loss since it is not being sold and has been out of print for nearly 20 years. The only market value the book holds is to people that own a copy.


I would suggest that if you do not have a copy then go find one, because I will not be explaining much (that would get risky). In other words, you will not be seeing pieces of the book in a help file.

Your point regarding a third party making money is a valid one and my attorney and I discussed this. As such, that is part of the disclaimer (that is, this is for personal use). You can bet it will be carefully worded spelling that out; it cannot be associated with anything regarding a fee. The software will not be in the public domain (free to use and public domain are not the same thing), so using it to make money will actually require permission from three people.

The bottom line is that in order for such a lawsuit to be viable, you have to prove that you suffered a loss or someone else profited. You can still file a suit, but it will probably be seen as frivolous.

Now things could change. Lets say the owner releases the work on PDF before I actually post anything. That would be an entirely new ball game.

 

[CosmicGamer]

"It" may not be available but did you check if it is included in any of the pdf or hard copy re-release bundles that are still available?

If other sources are licensed to use the material can they sue you?

Example: Quote I found online that gives info about the World Builder's handbook "Some of this material later appeared in the World Tamer's Handbook for Traveller: The New Era"

Is the World Builder's handbook an item created from a previous source which could come after you?

Again a quote I found online that gives info about the World Builder's handbook "A compliation and expansion of, and replacement for, DGP's Grand Survey and Grand Census."

Has anyone who has created an automated world builder received a license to do so. See THIS LINK for just one of many world builders out there.

I am not purposely being negative because I think there is anything wrong with what your doing. I'm just playing "devils advocate" to help make sure you thought of everything.

 

[sid6.7]

its a minefield i'll admit..

i watched this happen live on a forum of a unamed game maker.
the game maker made a computer game based on an old board game
it just so happened that the original board game maker arrived on scene

after much debate it was found out to be that the game maker had
to change the graphics but could steal the name and the game mechanics
with no penalty...and he still makes money off the game....

go fig'r

on a different day it could have gone the other way...

i'm not so sure far futures would bother you as it seems they don't bother anyone
that does some kind of "derivitive" for traveller...so far...but ya never know...

i'm wondering that since your NET builder would be pointless/useless without the core game
by itself its not much of an issue.

 

[Tysis]

Oh I understand what you are saying and I appreciate it.

To answer you question, there is not going to be a zero percent chance of a lawsuit. And I went over all these issues in my consultation today.

I did attempt to contact the holder but the messages bounced back so we return to fair sue.

The answer is: probably safe.

Of course, all the holders have to be properly credited and the disclaimer has to be specific (that is no fees at all, including advertising, donations, sales, etc).

Of course, this is not stopping me from writing anything. The only issue is that if I share it.

 

[Tysis]

its a minefield i'll admit..

i watched this happen live on a forum of a unamed game maker.
the game maker made a computer game based on an old board game
it just so happened that the original board game maker arrived on scene

after much debate it was found out to be that the game maker had
to change the graphics but could steal the name and the game mechanics
with no penalty...

go fig'r

on a different day it could have gone the other way...

i'm not so sure far futures would bother you as it seems they don't bother anyone
that does some kind of "derivitive" for traveller...so far...but ya never know...

Nah Marc is ok as long as he is credited and you do not sell anything. I do have to "follow the rules" laid down by the game mechanics as best as I can.

I have learned a lot regarding copyrights since i started this. You cannot copyright an idea; just the approach. The veil can be pretty thin, but like you said, it only takes once.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

The issue here is not Marc. It is DGP. Apparently, they held the rights to some things (like the WBH) and have refused to release them - even for the MT CDROM for example. Evidently, they have exercised their copyright previously when someone began distributing copies of their oop material.

Tysis is right to check with a lawyer if he is the least bit worried. But, derivatives like this are usually covered by Marc's overall copyright, and, therefore, not a problem. (WBH is based at least partly on LBB6 - Marc's material - and is therefore covered.)

 

[Tysis]

Here is something else that is interesting. If I attempt to explain the rules, that could be construed as copying the book.

This means that to make sense of some of the material, you will need access to a copy of the physical books. For the old GDW titles this is not an issue (you can purchase them on PDF), but for WBH that is going to be a problem unless you own a copy.

Well, at least it makes the documentation simple.

 

[sid6.7]

Here is something else that is interesting. If I attempt to explain the rules, that could be construed as copying the book.

really? wouldn't that fall under more of a "critique" of a product?


for example a book critic can post an image of the book and give excerpts
of some of it while critiquing(sp?) it...

 

[deniable]

(WBH is based at least partly on LBB6 - Marc's material - and is therefore covered.)

And some part of WBH was used in WTH which is also Marc's. (It wasn't a lot, but it's mentioned on the credits page.)

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Full marks for due diligence, but Marc et al have always been pretty relaxed about this. As long as you give proper credit, don't charge for it, and don't quote huge chunks of the books, there's usually no problem.

I don't think your restriction on commercial use of your program would work, because there's no way of proving it was used.

 

[aramis]

Copyright only protects the words, not the ideas. (See http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect)

 

[Tysis]

Full marks for due diligence, but Marc et al have always been pretty relaxed about this. As long as you give proper credit, don't charge for it, and don't quote huge chunks of the books, there's usually no problem.

I don't think your restriction on commercial use of your program would work, because there's no way of proving it was used.

That came from a recommendation from my attorney. While it can be difficult to prove that it was used in such an enterprise, it is none the less a violation to do so (fair use generally does not include any thing commercial). It is more about self-protection than anything else. It is similar to those silly disclaimers on a household chemical that tell you not to drink it.

I am not concerned about Marc. I have had this conversation with him in the past.

 

[whartung]

I don't understand how automating something is copyright infringement. Going back to the board game issue, game mechanics are not copyrightable, they're a system (they may be PATENTABLE -- Magic the Gathering for example).

Most (if not all) of the words in something like WBH are common words, not specifically tied (or copyrighted) by WBH. It's not like there are special labels used for most things. (like, for example, LASER is public domain, but Phaser is a Star Trek thing).

WBH is filled with formulas and tables. How does a program infringe on that?

Just curious.

 

[Tysis]

I don't understand how automating something is copyright infringement. Going back to the board game issue, game mechanics are not copyrightable, they're a system (they may be PATENTABLE -- Magic the Gathering for example).

Most (if not all) of the words in something like WBH are common words, not specifically tied (or copyrighted) by WBH. It's not like there are special labels used for most things. (like, for example, LASER is public domain, but Phaser is a Star Trek thing).

WBH is filled with formulas and tables. How does a program infringe on that?

Just curious.

It is the game mechanics that are the issue, but the fact that there is no market is the key. I did not understand this until I did some research and spoke with my attorney.

Basically, the copyright is intended to protect economic rights. In other words, someone else cannot make money off it or use it to cost you money. Since neither of those is happening here, use of the material constitutes fair use.

The thing is this is not so simple. The phasor, for example appears in other places other than Star Trek.

 

[aramis]

Game mechanics are SPECIFICALLY excluded from US copyright. Only their specific wording is protected. (According to the Trademark and Copyright office.)

Tysis, your attourney's advice doesn't seem congruent with what's in both the actual laws (I've read them, but IANAL), and what's on the USCO website (Copyright.gov).

 

[Tysis]

I looked at copyright.gov and went through the fair use check list. Frankly, that material is vauge. The checklist leaned towards fair use so I sought legal advise.

Anyway, the biggest issue is market impact. No market impact, no issue.

I am comfortable with the advice I was given; we talked in detail and I have not disclosed the bulk of the conversation (after all, that is confedential!).

If the community feels this is risky I will withhold it and place it in an area on my website where only personal friends have access (they are drooling over it, silly people).

If you guys are comfortable, I will start disclosing some conceptual information. It is getting close to the API being finished and the design of the user interface. The source code will be kept to myself, of course.

 

[Merxiless]

The thing that makes automating it a problem is that it is a derivative work.

But, as long as he is credited, and kept in the loop, Marc doesn't typically have a problem with it. He just doesn't want to lose the Strength of the Traveller Trademark.

R. Sanger is a whole other ball game, and reportedly has asked for six figures for the rights to DGP, in toto.

 

[sid6.7]

I looked at copyright.gov and went through the fair use check list. Frankly, that material is vauge. The checklist leaned towards fair use so I sought legal advise.

Anyway, the biggest issue is market impact. No market impact, no issue.

I am comfortable with the advice I was given; we talked in detail and I have not disclosed the bulk of the conversation (after all, that is confedential!).

If the community feels this is risky I will withhold it and place it in an area on my website where only personal friends have access (they are drooling over it, silly people).

If you guys are comfortable, I will start disclosing some conceptual information. It is getting close to the API being finished and the design of the user interface. The source code will be kept to myself, of course.

just put it on your website where anyone can see it... CoTi has no legal bearing
on what you have on your own website...a link to your site is not a violation nor
discussing how your making something is a not a violation either...