[John]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ July 10 2004,08:22) The mud can claim the nonexclusive right to use the contributions for whatever purposes they like - no problem there. What they cannot easily do is claim ownership of the actual copyright.

Has anyone said they're claiming exclusive right to the contributions? The first time I read it was in a reply to my post (and I didn't mention it anywhere in my post nor did I mean to imply it).

[Angie]

Originally Posted by What they cannot easily do is claim ownership of the actual copyright.

I've done some more reading on copyrights, and it would seem they can claim copyright to the area as part of the mud but not otherwise. That is, they are not allowed to move it to another mud, publish the code as snippets or anything in that sense - they can, however, keep the area open and revise it if needed. Once any part of a mud is opened, it is "published" as part of a collective work:

Under the present copyright statute, the copyright in a separate contribution to a published collective work such as a periodical is distinct from the copyright in the collective work as a whole. In the absence of an express transfer from the author of the individual article, the copyright owner in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of using the contribution in the collective work and in subsequent revisions and later editions of the collective work.

Thus, there are two distinct copyrights. You can take your area and do anything you want with it (use it on another mud, for example), but you cannot take it out of the mud, because there it falls under the group copyright of the mud as a whole.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by John wrote: Has anyone said they're claiming exclusive right to the contributions?

Several people have suggested that contributed code and areas become the property of the mud.

Originally Posted by Angie wrote: I've done some more reading on copyrights, and it would seem they can claim copyright to the area as part of the mud but not otherwise.

That's called a compilation copyright, and the important part to remember is that it doesn't give any ownership over the existing code.  What it does do is give you a copyright of the organisation of those parts, much like someone who has assembled a collection of short stories - they have no rights to the individual stories (nor can they use those stories without permission from the copyright holders of those individual stories).

U.S. Copyright Statute §103 (b):

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/103.html

"The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."

Originally Posted by Angie wrote: You can take your area and do anything you want with it (use it on another mud, for example), but you cannot take it out of the mud, because there it falls under the group copyright of the mud as a whole.

Not so - the compilation copyright protects your particular combination of areas and code, but it doesn't give you permission to use them.  That permission has to come from the copyright holders of the parts.

Take Diku as an example.  You can create a Diku derivative by agreeing to the licence.  Your new diku derivative is now copyrighted to you, but your copyright doesn't extend to any of the pre-existing material.  This means that you must continue follow the conditions of the Diku licence.

However if someone were to steal a copy of your mud and modify it, they would also be creating a derivative work.  But because they didn't have permission to create that work, you would be perfectly within your rights to legally prevent them from using their new mud.

Equally if I were to make some changes to your mud (at your request) I would effectively be creating a derivative work which was copyrighted to me - however my copyright would not extend to any of the pre-existing work, and so I wouldn't legally be able to take a copy of the entire codebase with me if I left.  However the nature of our relationship (the fact that I was creating work specifically for your mud) would give you very good grounds for claiming an implied licence to use my derivative, while preventing me from claiming the same.

[the_logos]

I realize you've edited your replies and deleted mine Kavir. Apparently you don't like having it pointed out that all you're doing is masquerading as an authority.

Here's a piece of advice to everyone else: If you're serious about knowing what the law is, consult an expert. Please do not depend on what is posted here as much of what is posted here by self-proclaimed legal experts is potentially wrong (we have no way of knowing as we're not IP experts).  The ability to post some web links does not give one much knowledge of how the law actually works. Case history, interpretation, and so on are at least as important as how the laws in question actually read. After all, if all we had to do to understand the law was read a website, there's a lot of people I know who have wasted their time going to law school and gaining actual experience.

--matt

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by I realize you've edited your replies and deleted mine Kavir.

I removed your posts because they basically amounted to "ignore the law - nobody will do anything anyway".  That is not a constructive opinion.  I edited my posts to remove the questions directed at you, so that you wouldn't be incited to respond to them again.

Originally Posted by Here's a piece of advice to everyone else: If you're serious about knowing what the law is, consult an expert.

Absolutely - and even then nothing is final until decided in court (both sides will have legal experts, but only one can win) and will vary from case to case.

However you can get a very good idea of some things (such as ownership) simpy by reading the appropriate laws.  That is why I answer with links as much as possible - because those links go to the sites of experts.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by I removed your posts because they basically amounted to "ignore the law - nobody will do anything anyway". That is not a constructive opinion. I edited my posts to remove the questions directed at you, so that you wouldn't be incited to respond to them again.

No, what I said was that the law in this instance is irrelevant, because nobody is going to do anything that involves the law. In the case of something worth suing over, nobody with half a brain is going to base their actions on the postings of random mud forum inhabitants.

Originally Posted by Absolutely - and even then nothing is final until decided in court (both sides will have legal experts, but only one can win) and will vary from case to case.

Now that's a sensible response.

--matt

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by In the case of something worth suing over, nobody with half a brain is going to base their actions on the postings of random mud forum inhabitants.

Yet unless they have lots of money to blow, they would at least do a little research before paying for a lawyer. The links cited may not cover specific cases, but will at least give the reader a good idea of general situations - for example (as per this thread) that if the mud owner seriously wants to claim ownership over the work of their contributors, they should speak to a lawyer about drawing up a work-for-hire agreement (or something similar). And that even if they don't, they would do well to arrange some sort of agreement for nonexclusive rights before integrating the work of others.

[Iluvatar]

Considering the last few posts, I just had to add in my two cents and it relates to the overall value of these types of discussions.

There is obviously a lack of case history and other clear legal precedence covering the types of situations that people producing a free Mu* encounter. PTP types typically are governed by business law and have legal gurus to dream up and administer contracts but the people who produce a world out of love for the game and a world vision can't usually afford that.

Most of the people here don't have law degrees and I seriously doubt anyone could be considered a legal expert without the precedences to cite. What we DO have are experienced veterans who can offer opinion, cite experiences, and provide references which contributes to the general creation and acceptance of a community standard.

In the end, if any of this ever does wind up in a court some day, which though unlikely, is possible then what WE as a community embrace will have great consideration in actually establishing that elusive case history.