I've recently researched and written an article regarding copyright infringement as it applies to modding (and, briefly, the legal repercussions of hosting copyright-infringing materials). I completed it with the input of several lawyers and a professional game designer.
I realize that the "soapbox" feature's establishment is probably not coincidental with the "IP in mods" debate and that the article may seem a good candidate for inclusion in the "soapbox" feature. However, as the article contains a much higher ratio of legal citation than opinion (it contains a singular conclusion that is the reflection of a multitude of statutes and legal precedents), putting it in an oped feature would tend to undermine the amount of research and professional input it includes. As a result I would only be willing to let it run as a feature.
I'm sure the staff and users of moddb.com are just as concerned as I am about the survivability of modding. Hopefully, understanding the legal repercussions of making and distributing copyright infringing materials will result in change for the better and help to ensure the survivability of modding for years to come.
Thanks for your time and consideration and I hope to see the article featured soon.
Sincerely,
Michael Kelley
Are there any mods or content in particular you are thinking of when you say this?
Not in particular, basically any mod based on an ip that doesn't have the written permission of the ip owner.
You'll like this; in the article, each section's heading that employs quotes is a quote from moddb.com posts.
My favs were, “As Long As It’s Free”, “Who Loses Anything?” and “A Modification Based Off An Existing IP is Either An Authorized/Unauthorized Derivative Work That is Protected By Fair Use…” by tats which is particularly funny bcs he seems to believe the exact opposite of what the law actually states.
After correcting him, he sent his brain-dead zombie horde to vote down any comment I had posted anywhere. You can prolly relate, huh? XD
IDK I can't see tats doing that. Hes one of the few ZPS mods that actually uses moddb nowadays. I keep hearing all these bad things about him but never seeing any :\. Could have just been a ZPS fanboy.
No, it was him. I remember that after I had the audacity to refer to his zombie mod as a zombie mod he called DCD smthng to the effect of "just another cel shaded 3rd person shooter with elements of a 2d fighter" and I was all like, by "just another" do you mean "the only one ever"? Lol
This applies to almost all the "Star Wars/AlienPredator/StarTrek/C&C/Halo/Etc" remakes.
At one point I counted up 100 of moddb.com's front page news posts and found that about a third of the mods violated copyright law.
...the rest were zombie shooters. *sigh*
The only one that even gets close is NoMoreRoomInHell XD but really nothing zombie related has a copyright issue unless someone has the rights to the word itself.
About the remakes some have authorization to use the content. Renegade X for example got a go from the creators, which is one of the reasons I presume that they have to get authorization to enter the MSU contest. But the halo remakes and most of the others I'll fully agree are breaking these laws.
re:zombies, was just pointing out that once you account for all the ip rip-offs, the only thing left would be zombie shooters (and wwii shooters). Didn't mean to imply that zombie shooters were in violation.
Haven't looked into Renegade X, but aside from that, there was only one HL remake (that may or may not have gotten permission in writing) and one mech mod that got permission from the ip holders. But honestly, in competition, I still have a prob with these mods since by adopting an existing ip they essentially hi-jack several generations of the best proffesional writers, designers, and globe-spanning commercial marketers into doing their work for them - before ever creating the first mesh, model, or line of code.
I suggested at one point that moddb.com have a separate MOTY category for original mods that don't infringe on ip (since they have a HUGE and unfair advantage as aforementioned). It was well rec'vd by the community. Intense! however, refused. The prob w/ having a non-ip infringing category is that it is an admission that there are ip-infringing mods on the site *shock*! and would further obviate the site owner's liability.
Alternately, getting rid of the illegal mods would do away with the vast majority of mod-watchers, and hence, ad revenue.
Oh well.
So much for originality.
The one trick I have to deal with is use of real vehicles in my mod. That could be troublesome.
re: originality, yeah, there's def a dearth of it here on moddb.com. Long live OGC! haha
With the vehicles, you could do like GTA and just make implicit models with implicit names. The orig Goldeneye did the same w/ their guns, just a thought.
GeenYuss.
Ill do that. :D