Area usage rights has been a bone of contention between mud owners and builders for a long time.  This issue is further aggravated when the builders and owners part on bad terms.  This thread is an attempt for administrators and builders to draft a clear usage statement.  All mud owners would benefit from having usage statement that is freely available to builders.  Builders who work on a mud without one, would benefit by submitting one before working.

Here are the initial points that I wish to raise:

1.  When a builder submits an area to a mud, they are giving the owner permission to use that area for that mud only.
   a.  Publication rights are given to a mud, not a person.  The owner cannot use it on any other mud without seeking additional permission from the builder.
   b.  The builder may not request removal from the mud that the area was given permission for unless the owner of the mud has violated any of the usage clauses.  Violations include:

(list violations as clearly as possible, below is an example based on this post)
       i. Removal of area credits from any area without permission from the builder.
       ii.  Using the area on any other mud without further permission from the builder.
iii. Distributing the area to any another mud without further permission from the builder.
       iv.  Making the area publicly available for download without further permission from the builder.

(Choose one of the twos, the first one is most common, the second would be for muds that wish to have a unique world)

2.  As the copyright holder, the builder retains the right to redistribute the submitted area as they wish.

2.  The builder consents that they will not distribute the area to any other muds, persons, or make it publicly available.  The mud owner must still abide by the limitations set forth in the rest of this document.

3.  The mud owners retain the right to modify the area or make derivitives.  All modified or derived areas must retain credit to the original author.  The original author must still be contacted if the mud owner wishes to publish the modified/derivative area on another mud or distribute it in any form.

4.  All muds using the area must credit the original author.  The credit may only be removed at the author's request.  If the author requests the credit to be removed, the author may not like changes brought about by modification, credit will be given to Anonymous.  The original credit will never be usurped by people who modified the area.

This was just a first pass at publication issues.  Feel free to make suggestions and alterations as you like.

Neranz Laverani, Seeker of Knowledge

Maybe it's obvious, but perhaps something about area file retrieval by the builder?  Something like...

5.  The builder agrees that he/she will receive a copy of the area upon completion.  The builder is then responsible for retaining the relevant file(s) as subsequent requests for the file(s) are handled at the mud owner's discretion.

This is just to assist in matters where the mud owner gives the builder a copy, months go by (or even if they don't) and a mud owner has made modifications, then all the sudden the builder has lost his copy.  The builder then wants you to give him another copy... Your modified copy since you might not have an original (thank god I backup like crazy, I'm generally willing to re-give the original to the builder but I dislike giving out work that's been modified in any significant way).

In any case, great stuff Neranz!

--Validus

How about:

5. Upon submission of a completed area, the mud owner will provide the builder with a copy of the area before the area is modified or revised. The builder is then responsible for retaining the relevant file(s) as subsequent requests for the file(s) are handled at the mud owner's discretion.

(the additional phase is because of this after thought)

6. The original builder is not the sole copyright holder to modified or revised works. All modified or revised works require the permission of the original author and the modifier/revisee.

The issue (#6) gets sticky when you consider what kind of work is necessary to gain recognition, i.e., an editor does not get copyright rights over a story when correcting grammar and spelling. When does it stop being editorial and start being revision?

Again - first passes
Editorial - balancing mobs and objects
Editorial - correcting typos and grammar
Revision - modifying descriptions excluding the above
Revision - adding rooms, mobs, or objects

We could really use the input of someone who has studied copyright thoroughly.

To be honest, as far as copyright goes, the ideal solution would be to submit changes required outside of those listed as editorial in perview to the author. We do not live in an ideal world though.

7. The mud owner reserves the right to assign modification of submitted areas to another builder. Modification may include correcting errors and imbalances in the area as well as revising the area.

Neranz Laverani, Seeker of Knowledge

(Choose one of the twos, the first one is most common, the second would be for muds that wish to have a unique world)
Why not define it as both?

2. As the copyright holder, the builder retains the right to redistribute the submitted area as they wish. Unless the Owner/Mud has set and said guidelines for building a unique world.

Unique world being defined as:
A world where no stock code or areas can be found unless great modifications have been made to said code or areas. (Unique should be further defined but I will leave that to you)
In that case refer to next:

2. The builder consents that they will not distribute the area to any other muds, persons, or make it publicly available. The mud owner must still abide by the limitations set forth in the rest of this document.

Its early and I did a horrible job of voicing that opinion but I hope it helps, and gives you the general idea of what I'm trying to say.

That requires a signature from the builder - and if the builder is a minor, they can later opt out of it.

That brings up a whole slew of other questions.

1.) If you have something like this at the bottom:

Only persons of age 18 or older may enter into this agreement. By signing and returning this document, I am stating that my age exceeds 18.


____
Signature Date

Does that protect you from a minor lying about their age? Or would you have to go as far as having the builder have a signed, notorized document to ensure the age of the builder?

2.) Inversely, if the builder must be 18 to agree to the contract, must the mud owner be 18 as well? At a guess, I would think not because the mud owner is not the one releasing any rights here.

Neranz Laverani, Seeker of Knowledge

Cerise,
I understand the point that you are trying to make. I listed them seperately because the desires of the owners will vary and I do not think that one agreement will address the needs of all muds. #2 is a good example where two different statements will be used differently by different muds.

Neranz Laverani, Seeker of Knowledge

It wouldn't protect you if they lied, because it's not YOUR rights that need protection - it's theirs.

Right. If the mud owner was under 18 then they could opt out of the contract as well. However the contract is the only thing giving them permission to use the area - so they would have to remove it.

Another problem is that you're talking about a specific contract, rather than a regular license. A contract represents an agreement between two people - and a mud isn't a person. So if the original owner decides to leave the mud, that area would have to be removed.

Also, how do you define the point at which the mud is no longer the same mud? If I change it over time, will the contract become null at a certain point? If I rename the mud, is the contract voided?

-shrug- I don't see what the big fuss is, honestly, about distributing areas.

If a MUD has a unique world, you'd think they'd have modified their area variables - and, inversely, how the areas save. A unique world, such as mine, has rendered areas utterly incompatible with any other ACK! not using my code.

-D

When I am talking about protecting the mud owner, I am talking about confirming that the person they are dealing with is indeed 18 and will not later pull the rug out because they are a minor. I understand that a minor cannot be held to a contact. I was curious if there was any way that the age could be confirmed legally, i.e., by having the document notarized?

Setting aside the portion of number 2 that requires signature, there has to be a way to address that the area is being given permission to be used on the mud. Graphics companies or artists sell graphics to companies for use on their websites, not to individuals in the companies. When the point of contact leaves, that sale is not void.

The last point was something that I was wondering too. Do you have suggestions? While it is useful to know what could go wrong, it would be more useful to know possible solutions as well. I don't necessarily know how to solve the problems, that is why I asked for help.

Neranz Laverani, Seeker of Knowledge

While I certainly agree that an agreement is important to both the builder and the owner after reading Cerise's comments in an earlier post there needs to be some give and take on both sides.  It should have a few caveats in the one you are asking about Neranz to allow for some of the contingencies below.

Adminstratively a zone that is part of a MU* can not always be easily deleted since an integral part of many zones, addies of the builders change with no forwarding addie.  Deletion of objects or mobs in a published zone can wreak havoc on both pfiles and other zones when they are cross-utilized between zones.  Once a zone is published, it should retain the original author credited as well as become the property of both the author to use as they see fit AND the original MU* and its potential derivative to keep using it.

I posted a Builders Bill of Rights on <a href=" target="_blank"></a> quite a while ago which shows my feelings about the subject on behalf of builders.  I really think some leeway and rights need to be given the owner and add greater support to some standard agreement as Neranz is formulating.

Psst, Neranz, we need it for ImmU when you're done!

 Iluvatar

Mason,
instead of posing problems, could you try building solutions from the intent?  This is something that is meant help both builders and administrators, so input that helps would be appreciated.  I knew the wording was not right, that is why I asked for help.

The core intent:
1.)  To prevent mud owners from using builders' areas on multiple muds without the builders' permission.
2.)  To state that builders cannot request the removal of areas  just because they are out of sorts with the mud administration.  Owner's need to have some assurance that as long as they don't violate the stated rights, the area cannot be removed.
3.) To state that builders can request the removal of areas if the mud owners do something like distribute the area without the builders permission.
4.) To state that mud owners have the right to modify the area.  No area is perfect or completely balanced upon submission, changes must be made.
5.) To provide a builder with a copy of the area.
[start edit]
6.) To state that credit to the original author may only be removed at said author's request. There is no reason that a mud owner should remove area credit.
[end edit]

The icing:
To ensure that people who make serious modifications get credit too, just like the authors of Diku derivitive codebases receive credit with the Diku team.

The sprinkles on the icing:
To have a second similar agreement but with the difference that builders are refrained from submitting areas to multiple muds.

Please help me build something that the community can use.

Thank you,
Neranz Laverani, Seeker of Knowledge


P.s.
On a side note, after talking to a notary, I do know that in the U.S. you can have age verification be part of the notary signature block.  At least for U.S. citizens, age can be confirmed.

At the request of Iluvatar, here are my thoughts on the license (note that this is NOT legal advice, just my opinion):

Firstly, I would recommend you re-word the agreement to make it clear that it's the builder who is giving permission to the mud (ie a license) for the area to be used, rather than the mud assuming the permission of the builder.  For this reason it should also be made clear that the builder should email the license to the mud with something along the lines of "You may use <insert title of work here> by agreeing to and abiding by the following terms and conditions".  The mud owner should reply to the email with something like "I agree to your license".  Both parties should archive their emails (and better yet, agree to them in a publically archived place, so neither party can deny making the agreement initially).

Regarding point (1a), you should also remember that most muds are not legal entities.  There is no clear definition of the "mud", and so I wouldn't recommend licensing the area to the mud - it should be licensed to a person, *for* use on a mud.  However that in itself is going to cause problems, as I mentioned in the discussion previously - if the mud changes name, is it still the same mud?  If all the staff leave, is it still the same mud (and in this case, the person who agreed to the license will no longer be working there!)?  If the mud undergoes major changes (in both theme and code), is it still the same mud?  Obviously it would still legally be a derivative, regardless of how much was changed, but would it still be considered the same "mud"?  

Regarding point (1b), I would change "Violations include:" to "Violations include, but are not limited to:" (I believe it has a stronger legal meaning).

Point (2), I would change to something like: As the copyright holder, the builder retains all rights granted them under copyright law, including the right to copy, distribute, license, display and make derivative works based upon the work in question.

You have a second point (2).  Anyway, as I pointed out previously, this second point (2) is not legally enforcable without a signature.  I can, however, see two possible ways around this.  The first is to make some of the clauses conditional (for example, the license could state that the mud owner cannot distribute or use the areas in other muds UNLESS the builder allows the area to be used elsewhere).  The other possibility is to make sure that the areas are themselves derivatives of the mud owner's own storyline - which would then allow the mud owner to apply license conditions of his/her own (at least, unless the theme-specific stuff was later removed, but that would at least stop the area being used elsewhere without being changed by the author).  Of course this would require the mud owner to have written up an extensive storyline and world background for the builders to base their areas upon.

In point (3), I suggest that you clarify the definition of "credit".  I'm sure you wouldn't want the mud owner to get away with just making some vague comment about the author in some obscure extra description in a hidden room within the area.  I would suggest that the area authors get listed alongside their areas in the appropriate "area list" (but what if the mud doesn't have a publically available list?  I always liked the idea of a location-based credits command which listed the author of the area you are currently in, but that would require coding - perhaps it would be sufficient to add the author to the standard in-game credits for the mud?).

Point (4) - I suggest that the author can later request that credit be put back, otherwise I can see some nasty "he said..." "no I didn't!" arguments.

Point (5) sounds fine.

Point (6) - if someone creates a "new version", then yes, their additions would be copyrighted to them, as long as they make the area different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work", or it contains a substantial amount of new material (obviously they wouldn't have any ownership over the previous work though - that part would still belong to the original author).  However (as it stands) nothing in your license grants permission to create derivative works.  Furthermore, do you actually WANT that right to be given?  Do you really WANT someone adding a pimp, Darth Vader and papa smurf to your serious-themed area, and for other people to look at the credits and think "wow, that builder just doesn't know how to stick to a theme"?  If you do, I suggest you require the derivative author to follow the same license, otherwise you might end up with a single area which follows several licenses.

Along the same lines, I suggest you also add the "right to make copies for the purpose of backups".

Point (7) - see point (6).  Also take a look .

Thank you for your help, I really appreciate it.

I think you are right in the fact that creating derivitive works would not be a good idea. I had the term confused. I do want the copyright holder to grant permission for editorial revisions and modifications to the area. Every area that I have read has needed at least one stat fixed for balance reasons. Generally the newer the builder, the more stats need fixed. Then there are other matters: altering the area so bring it closer to the muds theme, fixing typos and grammatical errors.

The portion about the copyright holder being able to request removal of their name is in case the revisions turn the area into something that they are not proud of. Stating that they can have it re-added is a good idea. I took that for granted, but someone trying to bend the rules would not.

Who the license is given to is indeed a sticky problem. Any long running mud has undergone administration changes. I don't think there is any way to do this without creating some loopholes. It might have to fall to creating the least loopholes. I am beginning to get the feeling that freeing something of loopholes may be as easy as securing any box that is hooked up to the internet. Try as you might, someone who is very determined, deliberate, and persistant would get through.

Too bad we do not have some form of third party arbitration available in the mudding community for disputes before taking it to court.

Thanks again for your help. I am going to mull over what you said for a couple of days and have another go at this.

Neranz Laverani, Seeker of Knowledge

Thanks KaVir, wonderful suggestions and some I'm sure we'll incorporate.

A Builder's Guild heirarchy would be perfect to negotiate and archive stuff for both owners and builders but that's a failed plan so far and on the back burner.

If we could all join wits and hands and get ImmU off the ground, we could have a Builder's Guild within a year as well as a functional training and certifying site for builders.

Iluvatar, the one with stars in the eyes.

Cerise, I looked over your draft and would like to point out a few things that are immediately noticable to me.  I know Neranz said he wanted positive remarks, but the wrong things must be addressed, too.

The first thing that all contracts require is consideration.  If both sides are not giving something up then there is no contract.  Consideration doesn't mean money, just means that something is being traded for something.  Otherwise, you just have a promise, and a promise is not legally binding.  If I promise to give you a million dollars and you accept, you can't sue me for it later cause there was no contract.

Which leads to amendment #2.  The owner can not impose any conditions upon the author because it is the author who is licensing the work to the owner.  This can be seen as a take it or leave it offer.  Which means then, that you can really draft a license more favorable to the builder.

Also, I noticed you say the license goes to the mud, not the owner, but then you say that the owner has to do certain things.  This is slightly confusing.  Choose who it goes to and stick with it throughout your whole license.  I would prefer that the license go to the owner, as he/she is an ascertainable person and not some vague entity known as the "mud."

I also think you try to cover too many scenarios in your agreement.  The language need not be so complex.  You are not handling a merger between two fortune 500 companies, its just a basic license agreement.

Your clause #6 is very confusing.  You have an editorial and a revision and a derivative and a modified version.  I honestly don't know what #6 says.  But what it does seem to say is that the author does not retain rights to his work if it has been modified.  THIS IS ENTIRELY FALSE.  A modified work or derivative is not an original work and does not therefore grant any authorship rights to the modifier.  A correct formulation should be something like "the owner retains the right to modify said work in accordance with the license.  All modifications, revisions, derivatives, etc are governed by copyright law and thus bound to this agreement.  Modifications of the original work DO NOT remove any rights from the author."  

Your license should aim to be short and concise.  You also need to be a little more consistent with your owner/mud issues.  If I can help any more, let me know.

I did not mean that I wanted only positive comments.  Critiques are always needed in situations like this; however, critiques only serve to frustrate the process if possible solutions, or at least suggestions, aren't offered at the same time. Your second post contains a mixture of critism and suggestion. It is much more helpful.

Neranz Laverani, Seeker of Knowledge

grant the license to the owner. the owner is an ascertainable person and therefore is primarily responsible for conforming to the agreement. You say "non-exclusive." Don't you mean exclusive? In that the builder will only grant the area to that particular owner? Otherwise, if non-exclusive, it seems to suggest the builder can give the area to many people. also, who's right is non-revokable? if the license is provided without consideration it is not a promise and is therefore very revokable. maybe a better formulation would be:

BUILDER grants to OWNER a right to use this work for the MUD known as (MUDNAME). OWNER shall have the right to modify said work to conform with the MUD. OWNER shall not have the right to transfer said work to any other MUD other than the one indicated above without the express permission of the BUILDER.

This is a good starting point. after this, i suppose you could throw in whatever clauses you want. however, try not to get too confusing and make sure you are consistent with builders, owners, and muds.

if you have any questions, or would like any further help, let me know.

I am not replying as much as putting in my wishlist. This is because I am both an administrator and a former head builder. I tried to make it as simple as possible. Debate it, tell me why I am right or wrong, ciao!

1. It is the builder's choice on how to use the area, be it incomplete or complete, on the MUD in which the area is created. This is provided there is no underlying agreement with the MUD owner in advance or otherwise.

2. Builders can make an agreement with a MUD owner to make the area exclusive to the MUD.

3. Builders can make an agreement with a codebase developer to release the area as part of a codebase release.

4. Builders can give permission to others to use an area, provided it is not in breech of an exclusive use agreement.

5. Builders should always be given a copy of thier area at anytime they request a copy. Be it before, during or after construction. This is limited if there is later modifications to the area via other parties.

6. Builders have the right to grant the MUD or single staff members to modify an area. However, if an area is later modified once the builder has "quit or retired" from the MUD, the builder must aquire permission from the contributing builder's and the MUD owner before getting a copy.

7. A single room or help file in each area should contain information about the author and how to reach them. This will also help weed out copies that are immorally distributed.

8. At no time can the builder room or help file information be altered or removed, however contributors can add to the information. It is suggested the name of the originating MUD also be listed incase the builder can not be found.

9. Builders must allow the owner of the MUD in which an area was built to retain copy for MUD use only.

10. MUD owners have the right to a copy of each area made on the MUD. They get to only use the area on the MUD in which the area was created. No releasing the area by itself or seperately without the builder's permission. If a MUD's name is changed, but still owned by the owner at the time of the area's creation, then the area can remain on the MUD.

11. If an area is released with the builder's approval, the builder gives up most of thier rights to the area and how it is used. However, the builder reserves the right to challenge a MUD to ensure the credits were kept in tact.

I may add more later, but I think this is the big jist of it. Punishment it just a matter of how the area's creator wishes to go upon it. Something simular and that is multi-purpose should be used for code snippets as well.

All of this has good meaning when referring to one MUD of course, but what kind of trouble will you get into when you're trying to create a new code base? For instance, Rivers of MUD had a large collection of friends (if I remember right) who put out ROM originally, so the issue of contracts wasn't really necessary. But what about derivatives of those code bases, with completely new areas, from builders who aren't close buddies IRL to the coders?

The thing is, at that point there HAS to be distribution of areas, because otherwise you get some code and nothing else with someone else's cool new code base. I'm actually planning on something along those lines, but in the end I'm going to end up with a room or two that I didn't create, that I want to put into my distributed packet. Will I need individual, specific agreements at that point, or can I just ignore the whole thing and deal with it if/when it comes up?

The other point is....if someone breaks the rules, what will happen? I mean theoretically you could probably get into court about it and sue someone...but would you? Assuming the judge has enough intelligence and computer savvy to know about text-based games, would they care? Would anything of this sort actually hold merit in court, and would successful prosecution of this kind of contract yield anything worthwhile?

I understand the need for caution here, but this is a community based on contributions of imagination, creativity, and development of the "perfect" game. So should we worry so much about the times when we quibble, or should we just let it go, roll with the punches, and move on?

Just a few questions that arose while I was reading this thread. Cheers.

-Visko

I totally understand your point Visko and in a lot of ways you are correct. There is really no way to resolve this issue without signatures, notary and a bunch of totally technical jargon being put into print and validated by a lawsuit filed with a judgement issued.

Perhaps the best value is to establish a Mu* wide standard that is universally accepted as the moral norm regardless of age, signatures or ever getting to a lawsuit stage.

We, as a group, have some power in acceptance or denial of the validity of a Mu* as evidenced by the 'License Wars' of recent date. We can apply them to this situation also.

I certainly don't think I can come up with an airtight, binding agreement for our particular situation and I'm betting Matt Becker can't either. There are way too many variables and issues to dispute when push comes to shove in a courtroom. I DO believe we can create a Mu* wide policy of accepted behavior in a responsible, advertised Mu*.

The benefits to owners and builders is just too great to ignore.

Moved from Builders Forum

I'm glad you brought this point up, Ntanel.  One of the problems I have seen happen on a couple MU**s is a builder either leaving before an area is put in or before an area is completed and the administrators of the mud going ahead with putting the area in.

The builder absolutely should retain the rights to the use of the area up until the area is formally put into the mud.  I know some admin feel they should have total ownership of the area from the moment it is started because it is their money paying for the hosting of the mud, their code being used (sometimes), etc.  However, if I write a novel on a computer borrowed, but not purchased, from another person, the other person does not retain the rights to my novel.

With regards to credit, there is a very unpleasant trend starting on a few ROM based muds to remove credit on the areas list and put "Staff", justification being that they have had mob balancers and editors work on the area.  I have walked into stock areas that were renamed and listed with builders as "Staff."  I have also seen this done with areas that were built for one MU** when the builder has departed.  I think using the most specific language possible as to what credit is, who should get credit, and where credit should be placed is very important.

The concern noted earlier about how any of this matters, as few if any builders will take someone to court over the misuse of their areas is a good thing to mention.  I have never heard a builder worry about having done something they could be sued for (perhaps I don't know the builders out there doing bad stuff though).  However, administrators tend to recognize the risks they assume when running a game, be it from minors cybering, builders issues, or other things.  A builders contract that is constructed with very clear guidelines for the owner of the MU** is going to be adhered to more than one that focuses on the builders guidelines, simply due to admin knowing their responsibilities and taking them more seriously.

Last but not least, a few folks have mentioned the need for a community wide recognized basic contract for builders.  I think this is absolutely vital, though I do not know how it can become something most MU**s will use.  Brand new builders do not always realize what they are getting into.  They agree to terms that give them few to no rights because they are either unaware of the potential problems down the line or unaware of how many rights they should have.  If something happens to cause them concern, they feel they have no rights to stand on because the administration has told them and had them agree to terms that were unfair to begin with.  How you can insure a new builder knows what rights they should have, I'm not really sure on.  But it is something that needs to be done.

Little side point:  Things like comprehensive newbie guide books, developing new classes/races/etc. in concept and purpose, but not coding them, should be considered too.  I would like to see all MU**s out there error on the side of giving credit for too many things instead of the reverse.  It does not hurt the game in anyway to show how many willing, dedicated, and creative staff have worked to make it a great place.

Sapphar

In terms of fixing balance issues and making spelling/grammar corrections, I agree. However when it comes to the actual creative content, I'm not entirely convinced. The area represents the creative work of a builder - by making changes which aren't theirs and accrediting those changes to the builder, you could well be doing the builder a misservice.

One of the main reasons for this sort of agreement is to prevent the builder from demanding their work is removed. That's fair enough - often a builder will leave under unpleasant circumstances - but it can also work the other way around. Imagine a childish or vindictive mud administrator who decided to add rape scenes, references to pedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, etc, to an area - an area which was accredited to the builder. On a less vindictive line of thought, imagine the well-meaning (yet incompetent at building) administrator who decides to expand on an existing area, creating poor quality work which is once again accredited to the original builder. In both cases, the administrator could seriously damage the reputation of the builder simply through the "right" to modify the work.

In these cases it might be possible to have some clause in the agreement in which the builder can demand a visible comment is placed somewhere, stating something along the lines of "this is a modified version of the original area by X. To see the original, go here..."

However there are still the cases of mud administrators who deliberately use the area as a means to attack and defame the builder. I've had this happen to me before, so believe me, it happens. Here's a little story for you.

Most people know about how the original God Wars was leaked out, and how I created God Wars Deluxe to compete with it. What perhaps isn't so well known is that when I gave out copies of the Deluxe code, I informed each mud owner that as soon as the code became "leaked" to the public, I would release it to the public - and thus they would all lose their advantage over the other God Wars muds. It was a bit of an experiment, and proved quite interesting.

Well, when the code was finally leaked out publically, I followed up on my promise and released it myself. One of the people who I had originally given a distribution to decided that that meant they no longer had to follow the license, so they stripped my name off the front screen, removed my name from the internal credits, and replaced my name with theirs in the credits of the GW-specific area files.

Of course, being a TMC auditor it wasn't long before I discovered this, and so I audited them and reported the findings back to Icculus. He spoke to the owner, who - after a brief struggle - put back the internal credits and recredited most of the area files. But still no login credits.

After I once again pointed out the license violation (and bare in mind that I had an archived email from the mud owner in which they included the full license and a statement at the bottom saying "I agree"), the following was placed in their login sequence:

God Wars was created by KaVir, the other 95% of the code was written by various *MUD NAME* Coders past and present, see 'help code' for more info.

While the "code" help file contained the following:

CODE
Original Godwars Deluxe code created by KaViR (Richard Woolcock)

Code has been debugged, improved and fixxed by the *CODER NAME* Better-at-coding Team Altho it was one hell of a job, we managed to track down, fix and improve all that #### KaViR has distributed, also known amongst insiders as "SuckWars Not-so-Deluxe". We also have added things KaViR never has dreamt possible. But then again, what could one expect from someone named "WoolCOCK"...

Also, we would like to thank SaGe for buggin our code even more than KaViR already could....It has given us much time and pleasure to laugh at your stupid and senseless coding skills.

Anyhow, thanx to *CODER NAME*, *CODER NAME*, *CODER NAME*, *CODER NAME*, *CODER NAME*, *CODER NAME* and all those other hard working, know-how-to-code coders. We hope this will stay the only stable and good mud based on that ****ty codebase....
Seeing how we tackled 99% of the gazillion bugs on behalf of our dear "friend" KaViR, We think we did one helluva job already :)) Greetings and thanx for visiting our mud,

The Immortal team and coders of *MUD NAME*
-=-The only truly working, almost-bugfree code there is-=-

(Yes, I censored the mud/coder names; I don't want to start a flame war).

So back to the subject of builders, would you want the mud owner to be able to put something like that in the "credits" for your area? If they're allowed to modify your area, how could you stop them?

Then you move onto the whole topic of shared credits for derivative areas. Personally I think there really needs to be a better way of displaying credits for an area than just a few characters. I've thought about things such as a context-sensitive credits-style command which displayed the full credits for the area you're currently in. Or perhaps allow an area-name argument to the "areas" command which lists the full credits for that area. It still seems a bit cumbersome, but I really don't like the idea of the original author having their name removed from the main area list just because someone made some updates.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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: