[Mason]

Originally Posted by (Alastair @ May 16 2002,04:13 am) IMHO, the builder, as the IP owner, keeps the right to do whatever he wants with his areas - unless it is subject to the MUD's theme's copyright.

I was re-reading this thread and wanted to clarify something.  One cannot copyright a theme.  Neither can you copyright a storyline.  What you can copyright is a particular expression of a theme or a story.  

In other words, think of it this way:  There are thousands of love stories, many of which probably have very similar plot lines (boy meets girl, etc).  These ideas do not qualify for copyright protection.  However, a particular expression of the idea, i.e. a particular story, may be copyrighted.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Mason wrote: I was re-reading this thread and wanted to clarify something. One cannot copyright a theme.

I suspect what Alastair was referring to was the concept of fan fiction. If you created a mud based around the Pern theme, it wouldn't be long before Anne McCaffrey started threatening legal action against you (she's done this before). As you point out, the theme itself isn't copyrighted, but the stories are - and creating a mud based on the theme within those stories is going to result in a derivative work. If you have written up some lengthy information/stories about your custom theme and the builder has used that information to create their areas, then those areas are going to be considered derivative works - and can therefore can only be used under the "license" with which you allowed them to create that work in the first place.

[Alastair]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Sep. 05 2002,12:48 pm) If you have written up some lengthy information/stories about your custom theme and the builder has used that information to create their areas, then those areas are going to be considered derivative works - and can therefore can only be used under the "license" with which you allowed them to create that work in the first place.

Thanks for decoding my post - that's exactly what I meant.

For instance, the last MUD is used to code had a setting in a fully original world. We wrote lots of pages relating the history of the world, the pantheons, described the races which inhabit it and their relationship, how certain guilds were formed etc... a bit like all the stuff Tolkien wrote for himself about the background to the LOtR, and which his son finally published (although we don't come close neither in volume, quality and writing skill ).

That's what I meant by a strong-themed MUD. And since there is already quite a few stuff directing builders in creating areas, I believe this background material is enough that individual areas become a derivative.

[Mason]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Sep. 05 2002,06:48 am) Originally Posted by Mason wrote: I was re-reading this thread and wanted to clarify something.  One cannot copyright a theme. I suspect what Alastair was referring to was the concept of fan fiction.  If you created a mud based around the Pern theme, it wouldn't be long before Anne McCaffrey started threatening legal action against you (she's done this before).  As you point out, the theme itself isn't copyrighted, but the stories are - and creating a mud based on the theme within those stories is going to result in a derivative work.  If you have written up some lengthy information/stories about your custom theme and the builder has used that information to create their areas, then those areas are going to be considered derivative works - and can therefore can only be used under the "license" with which you allowed them to create that work in the first place.

Actually, let's consider this from a more popular source - Star Wars.  If a Lucas decided to bring suit against a mud that was using "Star Wars" in the title, the appropriate legal action would be Trademark infringement, not copyright violations.  One of the advantages for Lucas with a Trademark action instead of a copyright one is that it doesn't matter if the mud claims it was an original (i.e. non-derivative) work.  All that matters is that you are using a Trademark without permission.

On to your next point - developing a theme for your mud does not automatically qualify any work built for it as a derivative work.  As we agree, a theme cannot be copyrighted, only a particular expression of a theme.  A separate expression of the theme is not a derivative.  Think of it this way:  Let's say you are compiling a book of poems about ogres in the bathtub.  Just because you have an original idea doesn't mean that everyone who writes poems for your book with ogres in the shower has written a derivative work.  Each work is a separate, original work - unless it was a work made for hire.  



RE: copyrighting themes
17 USC §102(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Mason wrote: Actually, let's consider this from a more popular source - Star Wars. If a Lucas decided to bring suit against a mud that was using "Star Wars" in the title, the appropriate legal action would be Trademark infringement, not copyright violations

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

6) "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me."

False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission.
Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to write a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.

There is one major exception -- criticism and parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair use" works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made.

However, it's also worth noting that a court has never ruled on this issue, because fan fiction cases always get settled quickly when the defendant is a fan of limited means sued by a powerful publishing company. Some argue that completely non-commercial fan fiction might be declared a fair use if courts get to decide. You can read more

[Mason]

I guess you also forgot to read #5 from your same source.

If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!"

False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can't "copyright a name" or anything short like that, such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trade marks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended.
You generally trademark terms by using them to refer to your brand of a generic type of product or service. Like an "Apple" computer. Apple Computer "owns" that word applied to computers, even though it is also an ordinary word. Apple Records owns it when applied to music. Neither owns the word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn't mean complete control -- see a more detailed treatise on this law for details.

You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would steal the value of the mark, or in a way that might make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name. For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name like "mtv." :-) You can use marks to critcise or parody the holder, as long as it's clear you aren't the holder.

Moreover, from

Wincor, Book Review of Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright, 76 Yale Law Journal, 1473, 1478-83 (1967)

"Fictitious characters are not "copyrights." Neither are fictitious areas, languages or battles. If Shakespeare were under copyright today, another's piracy of Falstaff might be a crucial factor in determining copyright infringement of particular plays, but Sir John is no copyright. He is something else, something without a name.

And yet not entirely without a name. The right name is "literary service mark protected against dilution." It lacks grace, but perhaps we shall coin something better after examining what likes behind it."
...
The author then goes on to describe why trademark infringement is a better cause of action than copyright infringement.

Finally, for protection to be granted to characters, they have to pass the "specificty" test. In other words, they have to be immediately recognizable and be deliniated enough so that their characteristics are clearly definable. A mud making up a storyline that happens to have a few characters in it does not meet this threshold. Mickey Mouse meets the criteria, some random dude on a mud does not.

Fan fiction is something entirely different. Fan fiction is usually an interpretation of the work or placing the work in a new setting. These are clearly derivatives. However, return to my "ogres in the shower" example. If I make a mud based completely on ogres in the shower, and I write 700 pages of themes and give all my ogres names, the fact that someone authors an area to be included in my area does not make it a derivative. Themes cannot be copyrighted. However, names of stories, characters, etc can be trademarked. That is why Lucas can come after you for having a mud named "Star Wars" regardless of whether it is about jedis, siths, the force, the rebels and the empire, or whether it is about camel racing in the amazon.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by I guess you also forgot to read #5 from your same source.

No, I read it. However it's irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

Originally Posted by Finally, for protection to be granted to characters, they have to pass the "specificty" test.

So does that mean you withdraw your original claim - the one I was responding to - in which you said "Actually, let's consider this from a more popular source - Star Wars. If a Lucas decided to bring suit against a mud that was using "Star Wars" in the title, the appropriate legal action would be Trademark infringement, not copyright violations"?

[Mason]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Sep. 07 2002,4:28 pm) Originally Posted by I guess you also forgot to read #5 from your same source. No, I read it.  However it's irrelevent to the discussion at hand. Originally Posted by Finally, for protection to be granted to characters, they have to pass the "specificty" test. So does that mean you withdraw your original claim - the one I was responding to - in which you said "Actually, let's consider this from a more popular source - Star Wars.  If a Lucas decided to bring suit against a mud that was using "Star Wars" in the title, the appropriate legal action would be Trademark infringement, not copyright violations"?

I disagree that #5 is irrelevant.

"Protection" can refer to trademarks as well. I make no withdrawal of any points and continue to stand by my previous posts.

You fail to address my last two paragraphs that explain greatly the difference between copyrights and trademarks in these instances.

[KaVir]

If you write a story set in the "Star Wars" universe, it will violate Lucas's copyright. If it uses "Star Wars" in the title, then that will be trademark infrigement as well - but it will also be a copyright infrigement. The same applies to writing a story set in the "Star Trek" universe, or in the Tolkien world. I cannot simply change the names of the Tolkien races/characters and then copy them verbatum into my own stories - that would avoid the trademark infringements, but not the copyright ones. The same would apply to a well-developed "custom" theme - if you had written up a lot of information about it (and that information was used to create the area) you might well be creating a derivative work.

The link I provided earlier gives some good info on this: http://chillingeffects.org/fanfic/faq.cgi