After seeing what has recently happened with 1-2 peoples maps being ported and remade for dod source without permission I thought it might be a good idea to have our own thread regarding Copyrights for the mapping section.

So this is how it basically goes (In nonlegal form):

Person A decides to make a map named dod_mymap. This map is original and hasn't been made before at all, it isn't a port or remake of someone elses map. Therefore this map is now the property of its creator Person A. This person now also owns the copyright of the map, meaning that no one without the express permission of the creator of said dod_mymap can decompile, recreate or port this map in any way shape or form. Including the name aswell I beleave (I'm not 100% on this but I'm assuming it follows the same principal of the map).

Now where does this leave you, the person who wants to recreate this dod_mymap for say the source engine. Well legally speaking if you remake this map without permission you could face legal preceedings if the map maker was inclined that way.
So what are the best ways to adviod such nasty happenings? I'll tell you,


Ask the permission of the map maker (check the readme file in the map zip for contact details)
Wait for the map source file to be publicly released (if that ever happens)


Now its up to the mapper to decide weather he'd like the map redone by someone else. Don't get anti if the person says no, they put alot of work into the map and may have plans later on for remaking it themselves.

Right so thats basic copyright law 101 in laymens terms, if you've got questions please post them below and we'll answer them the best we can. I'm no lawyer but these things are very clear cut to me, ie don't rip someone elses work off, even if you don't want credit.

Possibilty of a sticky for this aswell mods?

Someone told me once that when you use someones work as a base and the final product is about 80% or more completly new and there are no similarities to the old work, it counts as a new product.

Originally posted by Apu
Someone told me once that when you use someones work as a base and the final product is about 80% or more completly new and there are no similarities to the old work, it counts as a new product.

that could be true, but I'm getting more to the point of straight remakes or remakes that are 80% or more the same as the old version

Originally posted by Sly Assassin
that could be true, but I'm getting more to the point of straight remakes or remakes that are 80% or more the same as the old version

When you're talking about citations and the like, you're right. You could perfectly quote people. As long as you credit them.

In scientific publications, everything revolves around citations of your work by peers.

Anyway, we are talking intellectual property here. The creator of an original idea or other intangable product of the mind has well-defined, exclusive rights over his or her work. I talk things as copyright (the right to make copies!), the right to distribute your work under your own terms, make profit out of it,... Unless you give up this right, you actually own your work and other people can merely use it.

More - summarily - info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property


In this case: the mapmaker has the right to do with his map whatever he likes. Altough players can play the map, they can't just distribute it, alter it, etc. without the express permission of the original author.

The issue here is that there are a lot of IP incompatibilities between nations' legislation. On an international scale, it's hard to sue some infringer on the other side of the world. On the other hand, if the infringer lives in your country, you can actually sue the pants out of him. If you can afford the costs that is.

A lot of maps come with a readme.txt with either a small copyright notice and the email of the author. Or just the copyright without contact or with no copyrightnotice at all (which doesn't mean the work belongs to the public domain!!)

So, licensing is a problem. At first sight because there is a solution: the Creative Commons License. Instead of "all or nothing", some rights are reserverd. As an author, you could easily create a CC license that allows for distribution but not altering. Or you could say that your work can be altered (with credit!) but not distributed. The Creative Commons motto is: "Some rights reserved". I think this is a great license for distributing custom maps. It has legal backup and you can generate your own license very easily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons

Another license you could use would be the GPL. It's the license of the Free Software Foundation. This license is a form of copyleft rather then copyright. You release your map ánd the source to the public. Anyone can use the source to build something new, as long as they distribute their work under the GPL and give you credit for your work. This goes further then the CC license, but it's also welldefined and it has some legal backing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons

So, IP shouldn't be a big issue for mappers. There are solutions to protect your work in the legal domain. I for one would release my work under the Creative Commons license if I - not likely but hey - finish a map.

So what you're saying is that cs_assault_upc and cs_city_assault and cs_assault_insertinfinitecopieshere are all illegal?

That just hurts the entire community when people can't tweak a certain map that is loved by many people.

How does altering a map come into play in regards to copyrights?

I think your taking the copyright issue in too broad a context really and its going to cause confusion and conflicts between definitions and meanings.

When anyone creates something new and original they automatically own the copyright to it. There is no requirement to register the copyright or place a copyright notice on it (although this helps a lot) and you only need to enforce your copyright by raising issues and taking the action your deem appropriate in the case of your copyright being violated.

Everyone who makes a map, model, texture, etc. owns their own copyright and has every right to dictate what happens to their work. Some choose to be layed back and let others make derivitive works, others choose to enforce their right and refuse permission. Its a purely personal choice.

It should NEVER be assumed that just because a map is released and is free that the author is happy for anything to happen to it. Its should be common courtesy to ASK the author for permission and accept their decision if they say no.

Note however copyright permits you to decompile a map for your own purposes to LEARN from it. However if you then re-compile/re-work it and re-distribute it you are then violating the authors copyright.

To summarise:

Map makers/authors should for their own sake include a copyright statement in the readme of their maps. It should state who owns the copyright and the terms of use. Examples could be:

This map and all content is (c) John Doe. This map may be used only for the game Day of Defeat 1.3 and may not be decompiled, re-worked or ported to any other version or game.

This map is (c) John Doe. Elements of this map such as models and textures are copyrighted to their respective authors. This map is free and you may make derivitive versions of this map as you see fit.

As for the comment about "well is map X or map Y illegal?" - their not so much illegal as in violation of the authors copyright. Its up to the author to decide if he wants to make a legal issue out of it. With regard to maps based on the original Valve maps, I belive Valve stance is that they are cool with that as long as its not ported to another game/engine and is not done for profit.

What about converting official DoD 1.3 maps to Source?

Valve own the copyright but as I said, I belive Valves stance is they don't mind as long as long as its for one of their games or a mod based on their engine and not for profit.

Keep in mind though - if a custom mapper makes a version of say dod_sturm its going to cause a lot of confusion and possibly conflicts if Valve then makes their own version in the future.

I would suggest you leave official maps alone and at least give Valve a chance to convert them and if they then choose not to, well then go ahead.

The only thing I remember was when CS:CZ came out ... they had an issue with people using the content for other HL mods as well.

Leaving aside decompilation or reuse, I think the first -common sense- rule for map ports by others is to use a different map name.
For example dod_omaha appears to be a source map, but was originally a 1.3 map. This name should be altered for example to dod_omaha_newauthor or dod_omaha_biggestchangeshere, so that the community knows what they're getting and the credit of dod_omaha remains with the original author.
Dod_kalt_remake would be an example of a better mapname. The original author of kalt can still use his original mapname without ambiguity. Ideally dod_kalt_remake could have been dod_kalt_nosnow.

Again not mentioning decompilation and such, but not stealing names is the minimum of respect you can give to the author, and the players who download them.
After all, a mapper who steals the exact name of an existing map is clearly trying to abuse the original for his own popularity.

@Trp. Jed

You're right. Of course. What I did want to point out, is the fact there are legal alternatives to actually defend your intellectual property. In case you're not pleased with a simple copyright notice, that is.

In the end, a mapmaker can only assume that's alright to decompile a map under some circumstances. Educational purposes i.e. In others, it's not so clear. Can you redistribute a map as part of mappack? i.e. a mappack called "Operation Overlord" composed of other people's Normandy themed maps. (I believe in the past, someone had plans to sell mappacks with custom dodmaps!! I remember correctly)

When you, as an original author, are quite stringent on your IP, I think the use of a clear-cut license like Creative Commons could come in quite handy.

Okay, that's been my general understand all along. If you remake a map and tweak it, you would never steal the same name. That's whack. And you would never just copy the map verbatim and then release without even caring about the mapper.

My main concern is that maps that are tweak versions don't disappear. I personally hate cs_assault, but I love many of the altered versions, which never would've existed with the first Assault.

And of course, all maps should be renamed that that the original author still holds control AND so that the map is not confused with the original.

As in:

dod_charlie_homage
dod_bridge_tribute
dod_avalanche_dark

Originally posted by haircut
The only thing I remember was when CS:CZ came out ... they had an issue with people using the content for other HL mods as well.

I think thats because Valve didn't make all the CS:CZ content. Ritual made the "Deleted Scenes" part and owned the copyright to it. Valve just had the rights to use their content as part of the game.

As a result, Valve as the "end point" to the user was *required* to protect Rituals copyright hence them clamping down on its use.

Originally posted by Inch
You're right. Of course. What I did want to point out, is the fact there are legal alternatives to actually defend your intellectual property. In case you're not pleased with a simple copyright notice, that is.

Sure, im not disagreeing - I was talking in more generic terms of how copyright works.

Of course, you need to come up with your own license/terms of use or choose an existing one such as the GPL or Creative Commons license. The nice thing about the later is the wording and terms are spelled out for you and often make things easier and less likely to be misinterpreted.

@Bocasean & Nibelung - your both right, you should always use different names for other maps at least so end users aren't confused.

Regarding map-packs, I don't think theres much of an issue as your not claiming the maps are yours or altering them. I'm sure most mappers would want their maps to be as widely spread as possible.

However the crux of this debate is the idea of taking an existing map and decompiling/recompiling or simply stealing the idea, concept or form/layout of someone elses map and calling it your own. That just ain't right and is disrepectful to the often hundreds of hours custom mappers put into their work.

I agree with everything that's being said here. If you look at my dod thaw map for 1.3 you will see that its "like" kalt, however nothing was ported, nothing was stolen, it was done from scratch. I did decompile kalt to get the basic layout structure, which from my understanding is ok. No one complained or *****ed about it, I didn't get sued, and the map is running on several servers. My only regret now is that I didn't name it dod_kalt_nosnow :p

So, if you liked a map from 1.3, why not make something similar from scratch, name it something entirely different, then there are no issues. I wouldn't suggest using official map names, #1 it would be rude, #2 I think valve owns those names and #3 we don't know what maps they are working on right now from the 1.3 lineup. A good example is dod anvil for source. It looks like falaise, it plays like falaise, but its not called falaise, for good reason. Valve owns the map name, and someone had the foresight to not name it dod_falaise_omfg or something, and went with something new. I think the main point is to respect others property.

Who in their right mind would sue over a rip'd off map design? The legal fees alone would be thousands of dollars. Regardless of copyright, if someone rips off a DoD 1.3 map and remakes it for DoD:S, it really comes down to the server ops refusing to run it.

It's always been a policy on my Kustom Kettle servers to never run ANY map that's a rip off. Since we have a close relationship with many of the custom mappers, I know who's done what and when. So when someone releases dod_oldmap_remake, the chances of making it into the rotation are about zero.

:cool:

Originally posted by swordzkof
Who in their right mind would sue over a rip'd off map design? The legal fees alone would be thousands of dollars. Regardless of copyright, if someone rips off a DoD 1.3 map and remakes it for DoD:S, it really comes down to the server ops refusing to run it.

It's always been a policy on my Kustom Kettle servers to never run ANY map that's a rip off. Since we have a close relationship with many of the custom mappers, I know who's done what and when. So when someone releases dod_oldmap_remake, the chances of making it into the rotation are about zero.

:cool:

you'd be suprised who'd do something like sue, some people don't care about the cost they'd do it for the sake of making the point.

I know you guys are pissed that someone ported your maps. But damn Im glad someone is porting these maps over. Im downloading and playing these maps as fast as they are ported. Im loving them besides the same old boring default maps.

Originally posted by Mucko
I know you guys are pissed that someone ported your maps. But damn Im glad someone is porting these maps over. Im downloading and playing these maps as fast as they are ported. Im loving them besides the same old boring default maps. Mucko, how about you try spending literally 300+ hours on a map. Trying to come up with something original, try to make it look good, balance it out, test it for hours on end.... and release it. Only to find ou that later, somebody ripped your work off without asking for your permission, used practically the same name as you named your original map, and gave you absolutely zero credit?

How would you feel?

I do graphic design and the rule with anything we create that "barrows" attributes from other material is that if it is at least 20% different then it does not infringe on the copywrite laws

But most of the maps being remade such as hill were way before dod went retail so they are, as far as i know, not copywritten and the mapper is long gone which is the only reason i remade and am remaking hill

Note: I think seeing hill_classic for source would be awesome.

On that note, I would have to mention that even very recently, some people thought that Mike Kennely "disappeared" from the mapping scene and was thinking of doing their own version/port/remake of bleakhill2... but suddenly Kennelly appears out of nowhere and releases his map for source.

So.. are you *sure* that hill_classic won't be remade for source by the original author? Even if it was done before it went retail, the original author technically does still have the rights to the map and the map name because it is his original creation.

Just to clear up a couple of points of law.

Maps made for DoD or indeed any other similar game are not covered by the laws regarding intellectual property.

Copyright also doesnt come into play for much the same reasons that you couldn't patent a map.

This is to do with the licensing and "ownership" of the base tools you use to make the map.

Valve and indeed the entire HL series has always been open source to encourage people to create within that framwork, lets face it we have DoD because of this... (well that and FuzzDad saying to Mrs Fuzzdad, "Fancy an early night, dear?"

In fact with the Tomb Raider Level Editor, a similar problem happened with websites hosting custom maps and nicking them off each other as there was always a rush of hits on a site with a never seen before level. When arguments ensued and litigation was threatened by some of the authors, as their levels were appearing on sites that they hadn't submitted them to, Core and Eidos neatly stepped in and made us all read the small print that basically said as the Level editor itself was their software anything made on it became theirs too.

In the end they released a compilation of the most popular custom levels for distribution with PC mags and the authors never received a penny or indeed any credit unless their name formed part of the filename.

I wouldn't be surprised if a similar clause is somewhere in Valve's paperwork....

The base result is I guess we stop considering million dollar lawsuits and just use some common decency and sense in approaching modifying someone else's work.

I have converted a number of maps to DoD from other HL mods, but these were either ones from the original version of that mod so open source by association, ones where I knew the authors or in a couple of cases where the author had not made him self known so I couldn't contact them for permission (this I did from a point of view of common decency not from fear of litigation). In these few instances I reasoned that at the end of the day, I'm not doing it for commercial gain and hey it is just a game and in the instances where I did contact authors they were dead chuffed that their map was getting aired to a whole new audience

Originally posted by StreamlineData
Mucko, how about you try spending literally 300+ hours on a map. Trying to come up with something original, try to make it look good, balance it out, test it for hours on end.... and release it. Only to find ou that later, somebody ripped your work off without asking for your permission, used practically the same name as you named your original map, and gave you absolutely zero credit?

How would you feel?

And always sub-par "remakes" at that.

[SAS]==Colster==, I had to post something because your post is so wide of the mark and so wrong on so many counts its almost dangerous.

Maps made for DoD or indeed any other similar game are not covered by the laws regarding intellectual property.

Copyright also doesnt come into play for much the same reasons that you couldn't patent a map.

IP and Copyright are closely linked but two different things.

Intellectual Property is defined by WIPO as:

"creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.". Basicallly IP is your own "creativity" - your idea, concept, etc. which you own the rights too.

Copyright is the right to reproduce or make derivitive works from amd belongs to everyone. To quote from the US Copyright office:

"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright."

A map for DoD is covered by both of these - Intellectual Property for the creative idea and copyright from the moment you lay it down in Hammer and it becomes a file on disk.

Valve and indeed the entire HL series has always been open source to encourage people to create within that framwork, lets face it we have DoD because of this...

Open source? Err, Valve released an SDK which contains content creation tools and partial code only. None of this is "open source" in any way shape or form.

All of the content in the SDK is owned and copyrighted by Valve. Its used is limited to creating new content for its product range and the development of new third party mods for their game engines. Nothing else.

If it was true open source, say under something like the GPL, we'd see the entire engine source code and by definition anyone making anything with it would have to give access to their source code.

Core and Eidos neatly stepped in and made us all read the small print that basically said as the Level editor itself was their software anything made on it became theirs too.

Well thats because that was the terms dictated in their EULA for the SDK. It has nothing to do with Valve. Different companies release tools and such under their own terms.

I wouldn't be surprised if a similar clause is somewhere in Valve's paperwork....

I'll be honest, if there is a EULA with the SDK I've had problems finding it and I have looked. Its either very well hidden or someone forgot to include them. Valve has numerous legal notices on their Source Wiki but all relate to the Wiki and its content and the third party notices for software they use in Source.

However, I think you'll find Valve isn't quite so "greedy" in that respect and wants to own everything we make. To be honest, if that was the case, I'm sure a lot of people who do make stuff would stop.

To back this up - Valve bought the IP rights and copyright to DoD from the dev team when it went retail in 1.0. Likewise, myself and others who have had content included in the retail version of DoD have all been paid and signed legal documents transferring IP and Copyright for our work over to Valve.

There has never to my knowledge been a case where Valve has simply taken anything from anyone on purpose. In all cases where they've wished to use third party content they secure the IP rights to it and if they can't, they simply don't use it.

The base result is I guess we stop considering million dollar lawsuits and just use some common decency and sense in approaching modifying someone else's work.

Which is what I and other have been saying all along. However many have argued that a mapper has no right and once release his map is "public domain". Your post, in some ways, inferred that.

Every mapper, modeller, sound or texture artists automatically owns the rights to his or her work and may dictate who or how it may be used. No-one can take that from them.

If you really want to know more about IP and Copyright law, I would recomment the following:

US Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov/)
UK Copyright and Patent Office (http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/)
World Intellectual Property Organisation (http://www.wipo.int/)
UK Government Intellectual Property Site (http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/)

Originally posted by Trp. Jed
[SAS]==Colster==, I had to post something because your post is so wide of the mark and so wrong on so many counts its almost dangerous.

US Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov/)
UK Copyright and Patent Office (http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/)
World Intellectual Property Organisation (http://www.wipo.int/)
UK Government Intellectual Property Site (http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/) I just have to say this:
PWNED.

Very good read Jed! Thank you!

In Canada, I've personally read all references to Copyright law (or as much as I could find - which is alot), and it's basically the same as everywhere else.

It is my understanding that whatever you produce is of your own idea, your own creativity, (including music... art... level design :p), then it's automatically copyrighted even if you don't attach some kind of notice.

On that note, unless "okayed" by the original author of whatever copyrighted work, by "default" (at least in Canada), it is fine for everybody/anybody to obtain the work... but not distribute it (this especially goes for copyrighted music ;) ), especially to not redistribute it for profit.

Since DOD and all of its content is international (in a sense), I would think there would be a same type of law that protects all of it's "custom" and related content.

Colster, ever heard of Creative Commons (http://www.creativecommons.org)?

Well helvan, the original mapper of hill and caen disapeared back in like PR 1.2 or something so i doubt he will ever return and do anew version of hill let alone any new dod map

to be honest I have to agree with Streamline... pwned


I have read what you say and it does rebutt my points almost completely, save for the fact that we agree in the way foward not being to sue each other.

I was commenting on my experiences with TRLE mainly and there are similarities but I take your point about different corporate intentions between Eidos and Valve.

Also my use of the word Open Source is inaccurate, Valve have made their code for the most part open to editing which led to mods like DoD existing.

I just remember from the issues surrounding that event that IP is possibly the hardest case to prove as you in the end, making a WWII map, draw from experiences which are not probably your own, places that exist in fact, real events in history etc so the line becomes blurred as to what intellectually is actually yours... or at least any half decent lawyer would blur the line for the sake of the defense.

My post was only to serve as a further warning on other posts here that considering legal protection is not really a way forward for mappers as individuals or for the community as a whole.

As for ppl ripping off a mappers work and passing it off as their own?

I think birching is the way forward.

Originally posted by StreamlineData
Mucko, how about you try spending literally 300+ hours on a map. Trying to come up with something original, try to make it look good, balance it out, test it for hours on end.... and release it. Only to find ou that later, somebody ripped your work off without asking for your permission, used practically the same name as you named your original map, and gave you absolutely zero credit?

How would you feel?

I know your right i wouldnt like it. But I'll tell you I didnt even like source after playing these same default maps that I played for years.

I wish all the mappers who know how to port over their maps would, even if they look like the old versions just to keep the community going for now. Then update them with a new version later on.

Im looping these maps on my server now.
dod_kalt_remakefinal
dod_verdun_beta1
bleakhill
dod_anvil-b12
dod_saint-lo_v2

Those are the only maps I can find worth playing and i know everyone I play with is really itching for more custom maps.
Sorry if Im contributing to the problem but without these maps I know alot of people who wouldnt bother to even turn steam on.

Originally posted by StreamlineData
I just have to say this:
PWNED.

In Canada, I've personally read all references to Copyright law (or as much as I could find - which is alot), and it's basically the same as everywhere else.


If anyone wonders:

Check the Berne Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_an d_Artistic_Works) on that one...

Originally posted by Mucko
I know your right i wouldnt like it. But I'll tell you I didnt even like source after playing these same default maps that I played for years.

I wish all the mappers who know how to port over their maps would, even if they look like the old versions just to keep the community going for now. Then update them with a new version later on.

Im looping these maps on my server now.
dod_kalt_remakefinal
dod_verdun_beta1
bleakhill
dod_anvil-b12
dod_saint-lo_v2

Those are the only maps I can find worth playing and i know everyone I play with is really itching for more custom maps.
Sorry if Im contributing to the problem but without these maps I know alot of people who wouldnt bother to even turn steam on.

ditto

Originally posted by Inch
If anyone wonders:

Check the Berne Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_an d_Artistic_Works) on that one... ooo thanks Inch!
Though, your link is broken. Looks like the forum automatically breaks it :S

@Mucko
Well, in that respect, I totally understand... but I'm (as well as many others I presume) talking about those who do rip it off. Ideally it would be nice if people wouldn't redistribute the ripped maps via their servers. But when people are desperate for the maps that they loved when they played 1.3, but still want the graphics and the gameplay of Source... then... well, can't really help that, I suppose.

Ripping off other maps is still the most unholy sin you can do around here though. Even if you're not religious.... :p

[SAS]==Colster==, Trp. Jed & others ... thank you.

This thread is a fascinating read.

No one in their right mind would sue because of a map?

Being 39, degree educated (with honors) and having the financial backing to actually do it doesn't mean I would, after all it's only a game :kitty:

Originally posted by haircut
Being 39, degree educated (with honors) and having the financial backing to actually do it doesn't mean I would, after all it's only a game :kitty:

You could always write them a nice letter ;)

I know this thread is old but it has a lot of good information related to this new development, I got a few cal leage maps and found Cal have added a readme text to cal_coire and cal_stug_b1

All files contained herein are property of the Cyberathlete Amateur League and as such may not be mirrored, distributed or modified in any way without express permission from the CPL Commissioner, Chris Moncivalles (chris.moncivalles@thecpl.com). Any organizations wishing to use this map must also retain such permission.

Interesting
Discuss

Originally posted by Ripster
I know this thread is old but it has a lot of good information related to this new development, I got a few cal leage maps and found Cal have added a readme text to cal_coire and cal_stug_b1

All files contained herein are property of the Cyberathlete Amateur League and as such may not be mirrored, distributed or modified in any way without express permission from the CPL Commissioner, Chris Moncivalles (chris.moncivalles@thecpl.com). Any organizations wishing to use this map must also retain such permission.

Interesting
Discuss

Maybe the creators have been contacted?

It goes like this: Either the mappers involved agreed to giving all rights to CAL, or CAL has no right whatsoever to enforce such copyrights and IP rights.

If the use of the term CAL in the map's name becomes a problem, the map should be renamed.

The question is not about whether CAL| has the right to dictate who uses "their" maps but whether any organization or private sector has the right to control the use of custom maps.

I don't believe that anyone would get sued by anyone for remaking a map without the original author's consent. not in the valve games' community, anyways. this has been going on forever and while it's not acceptable, it continues to be so.
It's not okay to remake a map and claim that you made it, but if you give credit, it might be more ethical. I understand how frustrating it is to those who made maps for dod 1.3 and had them ported before they could do it themselves. but if remakes are made of maps already out on Source... then it's certainly more acceptable!

Copywrites also have very many loopholes, as long as you are not using the EXACT same name and your final product is at least 20% "different" you can claim rights to it, if you look into any industry, the fashion industry for example just about everything you see has been "splashed" meaning based on someone else's idea, the same goes for car designs, advertising, etc

With dod:s though as long as you are not using the product to make profit and are not claiming official rights to it there is not much that can be done against you legally no matter what propaganda the developer throws out there

However there is a moral obligation not to kype someone's idea and say you can do it better

When i did the hill_classic maps it was because the original mapper, Helvan abandoned the DOD team and i really missed playing hill, i never claimed rights to the original property and gave credit where it was due, the same can go for dod_caen which was also made by Helvan and later redone by Waldo for 2.0 back in the day

Obviously if you are going to do a remake of a map you should try to contact the original auther and get their permission, if they can not be contacted or are no longer involved with the comunity then their work is up for grabs as far as i am concerned

Theres no harm in being inspired by a map and remaking the whole thing using all your own brushes etc, is there? I always liked bleakhill but thought the source conversion is not so good. I've fooled around for a few weeks or so making it from scratch. I assume since its my own work and i'm not calling it bleakhill thats ok. I'll give props to the original designer in the text file.

Originally posted by JohnnyBeverage
Theres no harm in being inspired by a map and remaking the whole thing using all your own brushes etc, is there?

Doubt there is any harm. Look at my map dod_celes -> Based on snowtown, however quite different too, I have credited the original map (didn't have to, but did out of respect) and yeah, so far no problems.

It's like people making maps out of real places. They don't need to credit the town, do they? That's another question that might rise up ;)

Never misjudge the stupidity of people or the means of revenge, if a person was suitibly pissed off about their map being 'stolen' they could well sue someone over it, trust me when I say some people are stupid/crazy enough to sue someone over something like this.
Look how much Bull<3<3<3<3 is happening these days and what people sue each other over and ask yourself is it that unconceiveable that someone could sue me for copying their work? Answer, not it's not.

Basically my whole point is to cover your arse and give credit where credit is due, and also to ask first before redoing ;)

You could not successfully sue anybody over this kind of thing. The notion is simply absurd.

It's not just absurd, it's legally stupid to sue someone for making a remake of your map.

Basically, almost 99% of DoD maps use textures existing in either HL2 or DoD, and these textures, as far as I know, are NOT public domain since they need to be bought (you buy the game, hence you buy the textures.)

Sueing someone for the idea of a map would be overruled by the fact that said map is using content that isn't even yours, so basically the case would be benign.

It's not about content included in the game, or specific textures, or even official "remakes" etc.

It's about decompiling a custom map, and then making some minute, piss-poor alteration because you didn't like that door, or that color, or that pile of rubble, or because you always thought the map should have this, or that (regardless of the effect it may have on gameplay) ...and then re-releasing it as your own work. :(

As previously sited, these maps typically take hundreds of man-hours of effort to get it to meet the authors vision of what they had in mind to begin with.

Asking permission to "remake" or even "fix":rolleyes: a map is a simple courtesy.

If permission is granted, then credit to the original author should be given in the readme, as well as making an appropriate name change for the new subsequent release. It just makes good sense,.......to adults.

If the answer is no for whatever reason, ..then make your own version,........from scratch,....you might learn something to boot. :D

However,....there are more than a few "mappers" out there (and I use that term very loosely), that have never released an original work of their own and find it far easier to simply cut up the herculean effort put forth by someone else in the original work, and at the same time compliment themselves on how fast they have mastered to "art" of map making.

No, ...I wouldn't file suit either, it's just a game afterall, but I might just
post on every forum that has the acronym "DOD' anywhere on it that "lazy_mapmaker_name_here" is a fraud, or hack, etc. etc.
It may or may not have any impact on whether the re-release gets played, ...but I'd feel better. ;)

To answer the questions some (or one) of you have about CAL.

CAL contacts the mappers themselves asking if they could use the maps. The mappers would then edit the map in whatever way CAL desired, then releases the map to them. Then CAL has it for themselves, and the mapper gets the satisfaction of knowing that it's THEIR map out on CAL's rotation. It's an honour thing, really.

Originally posted by Toby Wong
The notion is simply absurd.

Exactly my point, wait and see someone someday will try it, never count out the possibility of someone being stupid enough to try it.

this all makes sense to me. I asked Insta if i could modify salerno for a movie set because id need toi get rid of all the game only parts (flags, spawns, etc) and put in movie props and such for the movie. He said all i needed to do was make sure it was unplayable and rename it. This thread really is putting things straight about map modifiying policies

This happened to me a couple weeks ago, again. Some guy from sweden raped my HL2DM map, dm_district33, then called it his own and submitted it to Strider Mod. This was straightened out quickly fortunately. I've had it happen a couple of times with my UT projects as well.

Regarding hiring using stolen material. I'm assuming most prominent companies would quickly recognize a poser upon a simple test, that is if you're worried about someone getting hired using your custom material.

Unfortunatly, there will ALWAYS be some clownhead who will rip off your map and give no credit at all. No matter what threats you conjure up.

Sad fact

:rolleyes:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are ways to protect your map from Vmex users. I know many have now decided to put them in place, but others aren't even aware of that.

It's a sad fact that we may need this to protect our own maps, but if it's what needs to be done, I won't even second guess that choice.

you can never make sure you're map is fully decompile safe

you can only make it harder :)

the ppl that want to rip your map normally know how to decompile anyway

the ppl that want to decompile to learn a few things prolly not

so making ur map harder to decompile is (imo) pretty useless :)

fact is that ripped maps will never be popular because a lot of the custom servers / custom map sites will know that it's a rip

just my 0.05€ :)