Understanding Intellectual Property

[thelasthallow]

so then he should be Emailing CBS then? because if any ship is re created that is based on a ship that is already "owned" then the people who made them don't own them anyways therefor he would not need to ask there so called permission.

I really hate that people are like OH ITS MINE SO YOU NEED TO ASK ME TO USE IT (when in truth they never owned it anyways just copied it to begin with)

[Black Patriot]

so then he should be Emailing CBS then? because if any ship is re created that is based on a ship that is already "owned" then the people who made them don't own them anyways therefor he would not need to ask there so called permission.

I really hate that people are like OH ITS MINE SO YOU NEED TO ASK ME TO USE IT (when in truth they never owned it anyways just copied it to begin with)

Uh, no, that's not how it works. When someone recreates a ship from Star Trek they are essentially making their interpretation of the design, since it's impossible to make a complete recreation, just a very close one. Because it's their recreation they do have some rights as the original artist, though I doubt that they'd really have any legal recourse unless someone was selling it without permission.

No one needs to ask to use these artists work legally, but it's considered common courtesy, and many people who have been found to have ripped off other artists are usually shunned by the community, it's considered rude and very dishonest to misrepresent someone else's work as your own.

[thelasthallow]

Uh, no, that's not how it works. When someone recreates a ship from Star Trek they are essentially making their interpretation of the design, since it's impossible to make a complete recreation, just a very close one. Because it's their recreation they do have some rights as the original artist, though I doubt that they'd really have any legal recourse unless someone was selling it without permission.

No one needs to ask to use these artists work legally, but it's considered common courtesy, and many people who have been found to have ripped off other artists are usually shunned by the community, it's considered rude and very dishonest to misrepresent someone else's work as your own.

then that's how i feel about these artists who have made there own "interpretation" even though you could say it is there's it is clearly a copy therefor it is not there own work to say weather anyone can use it or not.

IF it looks like a galaxy class. and it sounds like a galaxy class. then it is a galaxy class. and that is owned.

The only time it would be there own Ship OR work is if it is a completely original design not already copyrighted. and as the ships he is using are already copyrighted by CBS he dose not need to ask anyone but CBS for permission (which he probbly wont like everyone else)

[Black Patriot]

No, it's called a derivative work. If I create a model based on the Sovereign class then I own the model, it is inspired by the Sovereign class from Star Trek and owned by Viacom. If I then go around advertising it as just a Sovereign class, or if I imply that it's from Viacom or one of their subsidiaries then I would be in the wrong. But if I go around saying that it was my Sovereign, my interpretation of all I had seen of the Sovereign on Star Trek, then that's still my model, I own it. If I were to try to make money off that model then Viacom would be legally right to request compensation, since it was a derivative work and based off their intellectual property. Now if Viacom were to try to claim that the model I had made was their IP they would have an uphill battle, after all I had designed it and built it myself, it may have been modeled after their design but I still did all the hard work. It is likely that a court could order me to not sell it or something like that, but they couldn't take away my work and represent it as their own.

The same thing applies to someone coming and taking your models, you made them, you put in the hard work and you technically own them. Just because they're inspired by something owned by someone else doesn't deprive you of the right to own your own work. It wouldn't be worth taking it to court or anything, not unless there was a lot of money involved, but it's still someone else infringing on your IP by claiming it as their own. As I said before, the internet has it's own way of dealing with this sort of thing. If we see that someone has misrepresented another persons work as their own we generally call them out on it. If they don't seek to rectify the situation (maybe they didn't realize, or though they already had gotten permission or something) or if they flat out deny it even though evidence point to the contrary then that person will generally be shunned by the community, even to the extent of being harassed or attacked (I don't agree with attacking people over this, but it happens).

tl:dr - If you make something then you own what you made, and if someone tries to claim it as their own then you, and the rest of the community, have every right to call them out on it.

[Mark]

Black Patriot is correct, there is a distinction between the design (which in this case is owned by CBS/Paramount etc) and the asset itself (which is owned by the author or in the case of most commercial games the game's producer).

But as I said in Darkthunder's post, this isn't the place for a discussion about credit theft so lets leave that up to BC-Central and all those other forums. Considering the amount of questions and suggestions you guys have about Excalibur I expected to see more questions of that kind.

[L.]

so then he should be Emailing CBS then? because if any ship is re created that is based on a ship that is already "owned" then the people who made them don't own them anyways therefor he would not need to ask there so called permission.

I really hate that people are like OH ITS MINE SO YOU NEED TO ASK ME TO USE IT (when in truth they never owned it anyways just copied it to begin with)

That really isn't how credit works and would get you banned from places like ModDB.

[thelasthallow]

No, it's called a derivative work. If I create a model based on the Sovereign class then I own the model, it is inspired by the Sovereign class from Star Trek and owned by Viacom. If I then go around advertising it as just a Sovereign class, or if I imply that it's from Viacom or one of their subsidiaries then I would be in the wrong. But if I go around saying that it was my Sovereign, my interpretation of all I had seen of the Sovereign on Star Trek, then that's still my model, I own it. If I were to try to make money off that model then Viacom would be legally right to request compensation, since it was a derivative work and based off their intellectual property. Now if Viacom were to try to claim that the model I had made was their IP they would have an uphill battle, after all I had designed it and built it myself, it may have been modeled after their design but I still did all the hard work. It is likely that a court could order me to not sell it or something like that, but they couldn't take away my work and represent it as their own.

The same thing applies to someone coming and taking your models, you made them, you put in the hard work and you technically own them. Just because they're inspired by something owned by someone else doesn't deprive you of the right to own your own work. It wouldn't be worth taking it to court or anything, not unless there was a lot of money involved, but it's still someone else infringing on your IP by claiming it as their own. As I said before, the internet has it's own way of dealing with this sort of thing. If we see that someone has misrepresented another persons work as their own we generally call them out on it. If they don't seek to rectify the situation (maybe they didn't realize, or though they already had gotten permission or something) or if they flat out deny it even though evidence point to the contrary then that person will generally be shunned by the community, even to the extent of being harassed or attacked (I don't agree with attacking people over this, but it happens).

tl:dr - If you make something then you own what you made, and if someone tries to claim it as their own then you, and the rest of the community, have every right to call them out on it.

you know i actually wanted to see what copyright.gov migh have to say about this so i did some didding. and i found pretty easily

How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14, Copyright Registration for Derivative Works.

This means that what i have been saying all along is true. lets use the galaxy class for example it is created and owned by CBS/Viacom There for they own it and have full copyright over it. Now if i were to take that ship and make my own interpretation on it. its still a galaxy class and its still owned and i also did not get CBS/Viacom's permission to do so.
 

[Mark]

This means that what i have been saying all along is true. lets use the galaxy class for example it is created and owned by CBS/Viacom There for they own it and have full copyright over it.

Nope, they own the design and they own the original models, they do not own every model that anyone makes based on the design.

Think about it, if what you are suggesting was true CBS/Paramount could rip any game asset they wanted out of BC/SFC/Armada/Legacy/STO and use it in their own games without any permission granted by the producers. Game producers wouldn't touch that with a bargepole.

[L.]

so then he should be Emailing CBS then? because if any ship is re created that is based on a ship that is already "owned" then the people who made them don't own them anyways therefor he would not need to ask there so called permission.

I really hate that people are like OH ITS MINE SO YOU NEED TO ASK ME TO USE IT (when in truth they never owned it anyways just copied it to begin with)

Are you advocating that it'd be ok for other people to steal Excalibur and take credit for it as their own?

[thelasthallow]

Are you advocating that it'd be ok for other people to steal Excalibur and take credit for it as their own?

From what i have read of the copyright laws yes they sure could. Due to the fact that it is not an official game and not authorized by CBS/Viacom it has no real protection. Now the game engine itself is probably copyrighted but pretty much anything in this game that has to do with star trek could be ripped out and used somewhere else without anyone getting into real trouble. although the guy doing it would probably be hated for the rest of his life by a small community of people.

[Josh]

Ok wheres ashton kutcher? Time he stops hiding to scream *you got punked*

thelasthollow you cant be serious about this

[Xsnip3rX]

Whether defending myself or BC2 i appreciate both but these sorts of posts are not needed.

[Aresius]

Once upon a time, there was a German baron zu Guttenberg. He plagiarised his exam work, spiced up his entire vita with fake info, and became defence minister. He failed being a good defence minister and became finance minister. he failed being a good finance minister and the whole scam blew right into his face. And he still keeps on yapping that it'S not such a bad thing.

Why do I bring this up here? Because I hate fakers and stealers.
What does it has to do with the whole situation here? Well, figure that yourself.
Now, can we please stop moaning about some moron and bring it either to a lawyer, or some authority. If worst comes to worst, contact the man owning the server where the site is hosted and tell him that you want the site to be taken down due to infringement.

Thanks, next patient. -,_,-

[metalnick]

^^^ Somebody give that man a cookie. 

[Black Patriot]

^^^ Somebody give that man a cookie. 

Done

[Aresius]

*munching cookie*
Phamks.

[Poseidon]

Ok,

Intellectual rights can be interpreted in many ways in a court of law.  What angle of infringement has been violated.  What were the violations intended for.  Was there no attempt to contact the owners and license holder for explanations.

Most of this can be disputed in court.  Lawyers make the difference here.  CBS/Paramount have some of the best.  So, if you wish to tread on there rights, you had better be prepared for a nasty battle (in which you are unlikely to win).

Now that I got all of that out of the way, the issue with copy right protection can be laughable when exercising something called "free interpretation".  We are all free to interpret anything any way we wish.  But when you charge a fee for that interpretation, you become liable for it's content.  If your interpretation closely matches someone else interpretation, you have to prove that you were the first to have created it.  Once that is established, everything that comes after can be considered plagerism if in lieu of charges were incurred. 

Now, as for Excalibur, the content can be considered plagerism.  However, no fee has been incurred from the interpretation of Star Trek, in and of it'self.  Therefore, CBS/Paramount can, at will claim right to this product, but would have to drag everyone to court and convince the judge that this is in fact the case.  That is, in it'self, A HUGE WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY.  Also, CBS/Paramount encourages projects that promote the Star Trek franchise.  This promotes better sales of merchandise and services.  Therefore, no need to worry about the future of Excalibur.  In fact, if Excalibur did go payware, CBS/Paramount would, most problebly, support such a venture and would want a "piece of the action" so to speak. 

It comes down to economics.  Anything CBS/Paramount might be able to make a buck off of, they would most likely, be interested in pursuing it.  Even encouraging it.  Even going to court over copy rights would not be in CBS/Paramounts best interests.  In fact, has anyone seen a law suite from CBS/Paramount to any up and coming game producers?  You won't find a single one as far as I know.  Food for thought......

[Chris]

In fact, has anyone seen a law suite from CBS/Paramount to any up and coming game producers?  You won't find a single one as far as I know.  Food for thought......

Food for thought is always tasty

Poseidon, a question if you don't mind:
In an academic sense (the only sense I am truly familiar with anyway), plagiarism only occurs when someone copies someone else's work (e.g. physical, results or a quote from a paper) and does not (correctly) cite the original author. I make the assumption that it is in a similar vein here with games, models and designs etc. But does that mean, if we correctly cite original authors/institutions then it is not plagiarism?

Obviously, if money was involved and the person being copied from didn't express permission, then it is an offence...but is it plagiarism, or is it theft (or some other fancy word )?

I ask as I have a pretty good inkling, but hell...I am no expert!

[Poseidon]

Food for thought is always tasty

Poseidon, a question if you don't mind:
In an academic sense (the only sense I am truly familiar with anyway), plagiarism only occurs when someone copies someone else's work (e.g. physical, results or a quote from a paper) and does not (correctly) cite the original author. I make the assumption that it is in a similar vein here with games, models and designs etc. But does that mean, if we correctly cite original authors/institutions then it is not plagiarism?

Obviously, if money was involved and the person being copied from didn't express permission, then it is an offence...but is it plagiarism, or is it theft (or some other fancy word )?

I ask as I have a pretty good inkling, but hell...I am no expert!

Great question Chris,

If fee's (money) is not involved, then including the original owners source mater does not constitute plagiarism (this can still be disputed in a court of law, but again, the effort and money involved is a waste).  When fee's do get involved, then there is the need for permissions upon exclusive rights and what the content is intended for.  Not to scare anyone, but if you intend to sell something, you are now considered responsible for it's content.  So, the content should be in accords with what you, the owner have created, and what content has been adopted for use with your work, from another author, needs to have rights granted to it.  In simple terms, you need a written document stating that "this is ok to use in your work" and will be limited to this work and to what the content can be used for, as stated by the property owner (author).

Again CBS/Paramount will, most likely, be more than happy to allow rights (exclusive) to STE for there work and the use of Star Trek and it's source matter under contract for money and a certain percentage from the profits.  If this goes freeware, then identifying all of the content which was used, from authors not directly associated with this project would be needed.

Theft occurs when a material is used and the original author is not recognized as "the original author".  In other words, someone steals the idea and calls it there own.  That is property theft and carries severe fines and jail time.  Everyone PLEASE don't go there.  It's a really F'n bad place to be if you get caught.  ALWAYS recognize any inspiration used in your work.  The original author and you will greatly benefit from it.

[Chris]

Excellent, thanks for the clarification

*cookie*