|
Of course I can, that's the point I've been making throughout this thread - that there are many shades of gray. Someone once told me that an alcoholic is someone who drinks more than their doctor. It strikes me that some people here are more than happy to apply the same concept to copyright infringement, but it is hardly a fair rule for enforcement.
Right - and for all we know, Traithe may have done just that. It is possible to create fan fiction without using copyrighted work - particularly as the law does not clearly define how copyright extends to many concepts (such as fictitious characters, worlds, histories, etc). It is not as clear-cut as something like modifying mud source code (which would be more comparible to taking a copy of LOTR and rewriting large chunks of the story).
Actually that's a trademark issue, which is something completely different.
However Tyche seems to be of the opinion that it is okay to use one or two areas based on LOTR. Would you agree with him on that, or not? Two of the areas that spring instantly to mind are Moria and the Shire, which come as stock.
However it could be argued that you are profiting from their work, should you continue to use the same strategy for your commercial mud. Furthermore, I very much doubt that a LOTR mud would "steal" any copyrighted material - at least, I don't recall ever seeing any muds which have copied chunks of text from a book. What you're probably referring to is the creation of unauthorised derivative works, which may or may not occur, depending on what exactly is used from the book.
You have halflings, which are clearly based on Tolkien's "hobbits". You also have "drow", which are from AD&D. I've no doubt that I could find other references if I looked.
Well that wipes out most muds then - and that assumes you're only talking about Tolkien's work.
Right! Exactly! And that is one of the major points I have made right from the beginning - the LOTR scenario is not a clear line.
|