[Robbert]

Originally Posted by Wrong. Terribly wrong. Keep out of this discussion unless you know what you speak of, Robbert. I could build an area on notepad, completely unconnected to the internet, that would work with a MUD. However, a MUD cannot operate without areas - an area is independent of the MUD, but a MUD is dependent on areas.

Reread my statement. I said the builder used the medium of the owner, not a third party system. I also fail to understand the animosity in your statement. I'll ignore it, since there's no point to it.

Originally Posted by Wrong again. The work would and could exist without the MUD - it would not be playable unless installed in a different MUD, but it would exist. The concept behind the area could exist as well - regardless of what you may try to claim.

Again, you're placing a narrow focus on a broad scope. Remove your rose colored glasses, Dulan, and look at the greater picture. Yes, you could easily claim that the two could be created independently of one another. It is entirely possible, for example, for JRR Tolkien and Fred Smith to both have created a Middle Earth, for example. However, since Mr Tolkien published his, he has the creative licensure rights to the idea.

I operate a uniquely themed MUD. Were a builder to create an area which was based upon my theme, regardless of the medium used, it would be unusable elsewhere without my permission. Note that this is entirely independent of whether or not this area was built for me, or even with my knowledge. The builder could certainly change the names and use it, however.

Originally Posted by This is irrelevant, and I fail to see how this applies to the MUD Community. However, a contradiction to this would be the Star Wars/Star Trek series of fanfiction that are published so widely.

Wrong. Both Star Wars and Star Trek novels require permission from their respective copyright holders prior to publication. They are utilizing a theme without which their work cannot exist, and therefore are intimately dependent upon that relationship. The Star Wars multiverse requires approval of LucasArts prior to publication. Star Wars MUDs, were they known to LucasArts, would also require their sanctioning. I suggest you look on the web for the letter from Mr Raymond Feist regarding creation of MUDs based upon a copywritten theme before you put your other foot in your mouth.

Originally Posted by Now, what I really must wonder is why Robbert is fighting so hard against this. Does he have something to gain from lessening builders rights to their area? What? Whenever someone brings in so much irrelevant and just -wrong- information in an attempt to derail or otherwise refute an argument....What's in it for you, Robbert? Why do you want to lessen, or even remove, builders rights to their areas?

Again, why the vehemence? I'll ignore the personal attack, and give a general disclaimer. All areas used on th eMUD for which I work were written by myself, my wife, or one to two other people. Prior to using work from other persons, I obtain a very specific written agreement between them and us which clearly outlines our various rights on each end. In over three years of operation, I have never had a request/demand/otherwise to remove an area, and I never expect to have one. I treat builders with the utmost respect, and understand from having done it myself the depth of the work they perform.

I have not lessened, demeaned, or removed the rights a builder has to his or her areas. I have merely expounded the other half, the right the owner has to the work as well. Show me where I have said a builder does NOT have the right to something. I challenge you, Dulan, to show where I have at any time attacked the rights of the builder in any of my posts.

[KaVir]

Can people please remember that it is copyRIGHT - the RIGHT to make copies - and not copyWRITE!

Work for hire applies under two circumstances - either you're an employee, or you've SIGNED a written agreement in advance. A transfer of copyright or exclusive rights must also be signed and in writing. This means that, without signing an agreement in writing, the builder still owns the copyright to their work, unless they release it into the Public Domain (in which case nobody owns it), or unless they are an "employee".

An "employee" has a whole set of rights, including the right to minimum national wage (plus a HUGE number of other rights - these vary from country to country, but I'm sure everyone is aware of most of them). If the mud argues that it's builders are "employees", then those builders would have a good case for demanding back-pay (this was the same problem AOL had with some of it's "volunteers").

Now while I agree that many muds could argue implied licenses, and any wise mud owner should require explicit ones, these would generally only apply to NON-exclusive rights. The Ack license claims exclusive rights, and does so without requiring that the builders are even made aware of it, let alone sign away those rights.

The point I believe Robbert is trying to make is that if a builder creates an area based on an existing theme, that area would become a derivative work (similar to "fan fiction"). The builder would still own the copyright to their work, but they would only be able to use it under the conditions specified by the copyright holder of the original work, unless they removed all references to that work. For example if you created an area based upon the Pern theme, you'd still own the copyright, but you'd get into some serious problems if you tried to use it on your mud.

So in short, it's fairly easy to stop a builder demanding the removal of their area, but if you want to stop them using their area somewhere else, then you're going to need a signature (it's simply not realistic for a mud to make its builders "employees", unless it's a highly successful commercial mud). However if you have an original theme, you at least have the right to make sure they remove references to that theme before using the area elsewhere.

The clause in the Ack license is legally worthless, and provides mud owners with a false sense of security. I believe that well-drafted licenses should be put together so that ALL parties know EXACTLY where they stand. Each mud is going to have different requirements, and that's fine, but it's important that those requirements are protected by legally binding agreements, not by ignorance and the belief that "they can't afford to sue me anyway". The mud community has enough problems over the wording of certain licenses as it is, without adding some outright worthless licenses to the pile.

[Kastagaar]

Nothing significant to add, but I just thought I'd point out that the famous quote "possession is nine tenths of the law" is actually a misquote of "possession is nine points of the law".

Kas.

[Robbert]

My thanks, KaVir, for clarifying my intention.

Also, for both the record and the dimwitted, let it be known that my position is not in favor of the strictures imposed by the ACK! license. Quite the contrary - I do not endorse, at any time, exclusive rights.

Also, KaVir - you mentioned a SIGNED statement of understanding or agreement. With the electronic signature law passed in the US, digital signatures are permissible as legal tender, from my understanding. I believe there is still some question as to what comprises a digital signature, however.

And, finally, let me extend my sympathies to those who have lost loved ones in conflict of any sort on this Memorial Day.