Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 05-26-2002, 05:31 PM

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.

05-26-2002, 05:31 PM	#32
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	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.