Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 07-10-2004, 01:40 PM

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

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):

"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."

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.

07-10-2004, 01:40 PM	#33
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	Several people have suggested that contributed code and areas become the property of the mud. 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): "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." 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.