Croesy

You can own a copyright in dictionaries. Open the Oxford Concise Dictionary and you will find copyright information. Language does not equal dictionary...

[align=justify]Nothing within this thread is intended as legal advice. It is a general outline of the principles of international copyright law. If you are in a dispute about violation of copyright you should consult with a qualified lawyer. This thread is not intended to be comprehensive and focuses mainly around issues related to game ownership. It will give some general information on copyright and answer some issues that have been raised elsewhere in these forums. [/align][align=justify]*I will edit this thread if people think it is necessary for more/less information to be included. Hope this is helpful, and that it does something to reduce the misinformation that was flying around in other threads. If there are mistakes please let me know, so I can change them. * [/align] [align=justify] [/align] 1) What is copyright? Copyright is a form of intellectual property. It allows people to protect fixed expressions of their ideas for a certain period of time, providing a work satisfies certain standards. Those standards, and how they are interpreted, vary from country to country. Generally there needs to be originality and fixation for a work to be protected. 2) What rights are protected? Copyright gives an author a wide range of rights over the use of their work. Without the permission of the copyright holder another person may not: make translations of the work; reproduce the work; perform the work publically; adapt or alter the work. In addition, the author (who may not be the copyright owner) also has the right to claim paternity of the work, and to object to any derogatory treatment of his work. There are certain exceptions which allow use of the work in particular circumstances (for education/news reading/commentary). These are known as fair use or fair dealing. (will extend this section later if needed). 3) How is it protected? Do I need to register? Provided your country is a signatory of the Berne Convention, any work which meets the standards above is automatically protected. Most modern states, including the US, are signed up to Berne. This means you DO NOT NEED TO REGISTER YOUR WORK! You also do not need to use the © sign or place any notice on your work for it to be protected. 4) Should I register my work in the US? Registration in the US, as noted above, is not necessary in order for your work to be protected by copyright law. There are some advantages to registering your work with the copyright office. Most importantly, it allows you to claim attorney fees and statutory damages. It also acts as prima facie proof that you are the copyright holder. Having said this, if you do not register before the infringement you are still entitled to remedies in court. You would still be able to claim actual damages and profits of the infringer and you could still get an injunction to prevent the person infringing from continuing to abuse your work. You can also retroactively register your work. 5) How long does it last? It varies, depending on the type of work and the country involved. For computer code, the Berne Convention sets a minimum period of protection of the life of the author plus 50 years. For all EU countries and the US it is life of the author plus 70 years. 6) What type of work is protected? Copyright can exist in a wide variety of works. They include literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. Computer code in the US and EU is considered to be a literary work, and is protected under copyright law. 7) Can I just change a few things and claim copyright in a new work? (the derivative works issue) No, you cannot. If you take a song as an example, if you change a few words of the lyrics, the ‘new’ work will not be copyrightable and you will certainly infringe the original copyright. If you make substantial changes or adaptations to an existing work it may attract a new copyright in the new material, if that new material itself is sufficient to attract copyright protection. This does not affect the original copyright.Only the copyright owner can give permission to make derivative works that use copyrighted material. Any copyright which exists in a derivative work only extends to the new material and has no effect on the material of the original.   8) I’m not making any money out of my actions, am I still breaching copyright? Whether you make money/charge is immaterial to a finding of infringement.   9) Does copyright mean I can’t make something similar, or use a similar idea? Copyright does not protect ideas. It protects specific expressions of an idea. So, provided you do not copy the particular expression of an idea, you are free to use the same idea. The precise difference between an idea, and the expression of that idea is sometimes difficult to make.

I think I would welcome a Google ISP in the UK. Why? Even in a "competitive" market like the UK we get a poor service, poor customer service and relatively high prices. I won't launch into a tirade about my provider (British Telecom) but suffice to say those and Virgin are considered to have overall poor customer satisfaction. Now if another big boy enters the arena it gives them a kick up the backside, and makes them improve their service or haemorrhage customers. I equate it to the entrance of Chrome to the browser market. I don't use it, nor do I intend on starting. However, it has forced Microsoft to start innovating again on IE. It may come at the cost of smaller providers but I am not entirely convinced that is the case...

I think I can explain why a simple disclaimer would not have satisfied Adobe. There is also a little known doctrine in US law known as "Initial Interest Confusion" (IIC). A "normal" trademark infringement would occur where the use of a mark is likely to lead to confusion in the eyes of a consumer about the source of the goods/services in question. Now the way IIC works is that the use of a trademark causes an initial confusion about the source of the goods, even if this is dispelled before the final transaction (See Dr. Seuss Entrs. v. Penguin Books (1997) 109 F3d 1394). It is a stupid doctrine, but this is what happens in common law countries when judges make decisions based on what it perceives to be "fair" in a particular set of circumstances. I am in no way saying that 1) Adobe would win on a simple trademark infringement basis 2) Adobe would win on a claim of IIC. As I said before, I just wouldn't want to take the risk over the name of a site. Incidentally it seems "Flash Den" are branching out into Silverlight applications and other products. So, I think maybe they used this letter as an excuse to grab a LOT of publicity and change the name of the site at the same time (something I imagine would have been unpopular with the user base if it had been done independent of an Adobe interference). I also agree it seems counter-productive for Adobe to do such things. However, if they have a mark (and all the rights that involves), it is perfectly legitimate for them to exercise the mark law. As there would be (de facto) no confusion with "The Flash" comic book hero, and products from a software company like Adobe, DC Comics has nothing to fear. Anyhow, I think DC Comics could just release Batman and Superman on Adobe if it came to that :thumbsup:

Usual disclaimer applies about this not being my subject area or jurisdiction (maybe I should add it to my signature!?) Not siding with Adobe here (as I think it is a mean-spirited and counter-productive) but I can see the potential for a trade mark infringement. It would certainly be an interesting case to go to court, but I am not sure whether ActiveDen would/could have won. It is certainly easier and for them to change their name and gain HUGE publicity from the "look what the big bullies made us do" reaction . I believe this is not the first time for Adobe to try such things and there is a suggestion that perhaps this is also marketing for them (though I fail to see how annoying half of your user base helps). The essence of a trademark infringement of this type is (normally) that the use of a trademark would confuse a consumer over the origin of the goods. This can affect the reputation of the mark holder. So lots of sites with flash in them will not be affected in the slightest. My feeling is Adobe will be selective as to who receives these "letters". It isn't nice, it is just big business throwing about their weight, but there is something in their claim. Whether it would stand up in court, we will never know. This is just my view from an initial skim of the facts.   EDIT: In the EU (I assume (but am not sure) something similar in the US) you can prevent the use of a later registered trademark if it dilutes/infringes the earlier one. See Case C-252/07 Intel v CPM...though not so easy to do... There are of course fair use defences which could (maybe apply here) but would you really want to take on Adobe and risk losing?

Hi, The NEaB game itself has such a tool called "Real time monitor". It gives you a list of the exact location of all players online (with minimap if it is a 2D location, their experience, and any special php page they are viewing). It is self refreshing. It does not show if they are viewing a profile, nor do I think that is possible as the player info pages are all kind of external to the game. Alain is away until the 10th, after that, if you were interested, I am sure he would talk of the possibility of either including this in the next upgrade of the engine or as a small paid mod. I include two screen shots one in list view and the lower one of an individual player. Hope this helps

Thanks Kaboom. My post was a reply to some odd information circulating in another thread. I seem to vaguely remember md talking about getting his lawyer friend to write some sort-of copyright help. That would certainly be useful (and him being in the US would certainly make him more qualified to comment than me, given the preponderance of US users)! If it isn't forthcoming, and I get a spare hour, I may write something up that is a bit more comprehensive/structured (although any simplification is bound to lose a bit of accuracy): sort-of a copyright basics/FAQ. I will see how my time goes... Anyhow, it is good to see it was useful even to someone who wasn't part of the original discussion. Copyright (and intellectual property more generally) can certainly be of interest to game owners/developers, even if is rather a "complex" and incoherent given the international dimensions of the internet.

Just to confirm a_bertrand is correct...in pretty much everything he says. You do not need papers to have copyright it exists when the conditions for existence are met. You do not need to register it/you do not need to place a © sign or any of those other things. Just to point you in the correct direction for the two examples given above (UK and US and I include internationally as well). With threads like this lingering, and a lot of misinformation hanging about, it is certainly time for a sticky "All you need to know about copyright but were afraid to ask" thread (which should be routinely cleared of false information). UK: The CDPA 1988 s.1 and 3(1) make it clear that computer code is covered (as a literary work) by copyright. Cantor [2000] RPC 95 is a recent(ish) case illustrating application of copyright to code. Demonstrates that the code itself and the programming architecture is capable of protection. Hawkes and Sons [1934] 1 Ch 593 copyright infringement happens where a substantial and/or essential part of the work is taken. USA (though not my jurisdiction): Title 17 of USC c.101 (definitions which INCLUDE computer software/code) and c.102 which talks of general application. So, provided the conditions for copyright are made out, such code/software is capable of protection. This was recognised BEFORE the legislation was updated to reflect this in Apple v Franklin 714 F.2d 1240. Copyright law also protects websites, both on the individual elements (graphics, musical works, text, HTML, software etc) AND the overall selection and placement of those elements. On the HTML point, cannot be copyrighted (aside from being too short) the same as a "standard" table format cannot give rise to a copyright. This is not something "novel" to HTML/code. This is something all works (particularly literary) share in common. In US you need fixation, originality and a level of creativity in order to be protected. The "standard" things lack the last two criteria. However, if your HTML is original and demonstrates a minimal level of creativity then it can qualify for copyright protection. This is just plain incorrect for both computer programs and works of copyright more generally. Altali 982 F.2d 693 case makes it clear if a work is "substantially similar" then there is an infringement. There is a huge Novell case going through US courts at the moment about the alleged "misappropriation" of some source code, which means it is, as bertrand suggests, a huge deal in the US. International: World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty Article 4 includes computer programs/code within the copyright protection scheme established by Berne Convention (of which US and UK [and most others] are signatories) *This is NOT to say that FUNCTIONALITY is protected. This means if I see a computer program which achieves X, copyright only protects the particular expression of that idea. This means I may try to achieve the same purpose/idea, provided I do not copy the code.* I would like to see how you come to the contrary conclusion to the above. Unless I am missing something fundamental, I don't think you are correct. That is no way to win an argument. Everyone knows if you get 3 lawyers together and ask them something, you get 3 (or more answers) ;) . As it happens, I also have a law degree (and a masters degree with 25% of study of intellectual property law) and disagree with what you say (quite fundamentally). So, if you could look things up to form a rebuttal, that would be great. :thumbup: Simply not true. USA is signatory to the Berne convention which states that NO formalities are required. Also, both following Berne and being common law countries protection of copyright in US and UK are very similar. If the stakes are high, you can simply be sued or have some form of interlocutory relief (like an injunction). Just because the vast majority of authors do not pursue infringement, does not mean some will not.

Just to confirm a_bertrand is correct...in pretty much everything he says. You do not need papers to have copyright it exists when the conditions for existence are met. You do not need to register it/you do not need to place a © sign or any of those other things. Just to point you in the correct direction for the two examples given above (UK and US and I include internationally as well). With threads like this lingering, and a lot of misinformation hanging about, it is certainly time for a sticky "All you need to know about copyright but were afraid to ask" thread (which should be routinely cleared of false information). UK: The CDPA 1988 s.1 and 3(1) make it clear that computer code is covered (as a literary work) by copyright. Cantor [2000] RPC 95 is a recent(ish) case illustrating application of copyright to code. Demonstrates that the code itself and the programming architecture is capable of protection. Hawkes and Sons [1934] 1 Ch 593 copyright infringement happens where a substantial and/or essential part of the work is taken. USA (though not my jurisdiction): Title 17 of USC c.101 (definitions which INCLUDE computer software/code) and c.102 which talks of general application. So, provided the conditions for copyright are made out, such code/software is capable of protection. This was recognised BEFORE the legislation was updated to reflect this in Apple v Franklin 714 F.2d 1240. Copyright law also protects websites, both on the individual elements (graphics, musical works, text, HTML, software etc) AND the overall selection and placement of those elements. On the HTML point, cannot be copyrighted (aside from being too short) the same as a "standard" table format cannot give rise to a copyright. This is not something "novel" to HTML/code. This is something all works (particularly literary) share in common. In US you need fixation, originality and a level of creativity in order to be protected. The "standard" things lack the last two criteria. However, if your HTML is original and demonstrates a minimal level of creativity then it can qualify for copyright protection. This is just plain incorrect for both computer programs and works of copyright more generally. Altali 982 F.2d 693 case makes it clear if a work is "substantially similar" then there is an infringement. There is a huge Novell case going through US courts at the moment about the alleged "misappropriation" of some source code, which means it is, as bertrand suggests, a huge deal in the US. International: World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty Article 4 includes computer programs/code within the copyright protection scheme established by Berne Convention (of which US and UK [and most others] are signatories) *This is NOT to say that FUNCTIONALITY is protected. This means if I see a computer program which achieves X, copyright only protects the particular expression of that idea. This means I may try to achieve the same purpose/idea, provided I do not copy the code.* I would like to see how you come to the contrary conclusion to the above. Unless I am missing something fundamental, I don't think you are correct. That is no way to win an argument. Everyone knows if you get 3 lawyers together and ask them something, you get 3 (or more answers) ;) . As it happens, I also have a law degree (and a masters degree with 25% of study of intellectual property law) and disagree with what you say (quite fundamentally). So, if you could look things up to form a rebuttal, that would be great. :thumbup: Simply not true. USA is signatory to the Berne convention which states that NO formalities are required. Also, both following Berne and being common law countries protection of copyright in US and UK are very similar. If the stakes are high, you can simply be sued or have some form of interlocutory relief (like an injunction). Just because the vast majority of authors do not pursue infringement, does not mean some will not.

Re: *special* McCodes v3 BETA Release Registration of copyright is not a requisite of protection. Nor can it be so required in the US (Berne Convention). Copyright is acquired as soon as the work is created.

Re: PHPMYADMIN query Your query was simply incorrect. You have: AND =>4000 instead of AND >=4000. You just had the "=" and ">" the wrong way around.

Re: World Map Just a heads up that if you wanted to use the NEaB engine and offer donation services on your game you would need to buy that engine, the explorer version (free) does not allow commercial services to be offered on parts of the base code. Secondly, if you used a modified version of the NEaB map code you would not be able to sell that without permission from the NEaB engine creator as derivative works are not permitted to be passed on. Just so you don't waste time if you aren't willing to follow these conditions :)

Re: *special* McCodes v3 BETA Release Computer programs/scripts are normally to be regarded as literary works and as such have protection. Just calling it "unofficial" is not enough to make a derivative work legal (assuming your new engine is based on V2). Protection of literary works in Berne convention countries (most countries) is to be at LEAST life plus 50 years. In the US and any member of the European Union, it is life plus 70 years. The evidence that this is a derivative work here sort-of comes from the admission that this is "Version 2.9" of the MC codes. Normally you need to show that it uses a substantial amount of the protected work. If you re-coded everything then sure you wouldn't be in trouble. It would be for a court to decide whether you had used a substantial amount.

Re: miniNEAB engine 2.0 Hope you like it. You will likely get a faster response to any questions you have at the NEaB forums: http://www.nodalideas.com/rpg/usebb/index.php Simply register for a game account: http://www.nowhere-else.org/rpg/index.php and you will automatically have a forum account created with the same name, password :) Hope to see you there.

Re: wtf tables are f d up The problem is simple, it is one of counting ;) You have too many "VALUES". You should count the number of rows you are trying to INSERT and make sure it matches the number of VALUES you are inserting. The error message pretty much tells you this :)