Legality of using WADs as a base.

Obviously, when WADs state in their text files that you can use the level(s) as a base for your own, you're free to modify said level(s). But what's the situation if permission to modify is not explicitly given or denied in the text file? What if the WAD has no text file? What if it's a reupload by a third party and the original author is unknown, lost to time?

I believe the general rule errs on the conservative side. If permission is not explicitly stated, then it has not been given.

If the text file for a WAD does not explicitly state whether or not its map(s) can be used as a base for another project, then it is best to contact the author(s) and ask for permissions. If the WAD was uploaded by a third party with a text file that does not state whether or not the map(s) can be used as a base in other projects, and the author is unknown or no one can seem to contact him/her/them, then you'll just have to deal with it--can't get permission, then you can't use that WAD as a base.

Megamur said:

What if the WAD has no text file? What if it's a reupload by a third party and the original author is unknown, lost to time?

I disagree with the previous posters: Go ahead and use it. First of all, it's highly doubtful any "legal" action will be taken against you. Worst that can happen is the author will show up and be like "hey asshole plz put me in the credits thx"

Are you talking about a specific PWAD? If so, we might be able to find out the author and/or the textfile

They could also demand the wad's removal from any website or archive that happened to host it. It'd be just my luck to recycle the work of a litigious bastard who'd proceed to sue me into penury.

Hey, stop using my maps! I demand compensation for something I don't even vaguely remember or care about anymore, or heck even cared much about back then since I didn't bother to even put my name or email addy on it.

Yeah, so stop using my maps, damnit. Or else I'll have to prove I actually made them and not someone else. Which will be hard since I don't even have tax records from a couple decades ago, much less about trivial things.

And actually, this is really a lot of trouble for me to go through for something I don't even remember or care about anymore. So hey what the hell, just use my maps I guess. They're not so good anyway. ;)

I'm just sayin'! As specified, files including resources used without permission are supposed to be rejected, and I think in this context a level used as a base counts. In practice, the matter is much more complex (considering the proliferation of commercial game resources one can find, or the blind eye toward historic mods like the Aliens TC, which certainly uses sound clips from the movie).

I doubt most people who haven't been involved with Doom for fifteen plus years care what's done with their maps, but I'm also not about to lobby for some kind of public domain policy for "abandoned" Doom files.

Megamur said:
But what's the situation if permission to modify is not explicitly given or denied in the text file? What if the WAD has no text file? What if it's a reupload by a third party and the original author is unknown, lost to time?

In copyright, which applies to PWADs as much as any other creative work, permission is absent if it isn't explicit. The default is "all rights reserved." Copyright has various purposes including protecting the relative uniqueness of works and the author's attachment to it, and it's not just a business thing, so people arguing "they can't sue us" or "no money is made" are degrading copyrights into exclusively commercial purposes.

One of the things that can happen if you use a map without permission, is that it gets rejected in /idgames, the main repository for DOOM files.

kmxexii said:
In practice, the matter is much more complex (considering the proliferation of commercial game resources one can find, or the blind eye toward historic mods like the Aliens TC, which certainly uses sound clips from the movie).

As far as idgames is concerned, which is managed by Ty Halderman, it makes sure stuff by people from the community (custom levels, graphics or other resources) is used only with the author's permission, while commercial rips aren't rejected unless a company complains to the archive.

The idea behind this difference is that companies don't participate in the community and can send a legal letter and they will be heard, while on the other hand, fans are our peers and can do very little to protect their creations, so we have to take respecting each other's work in our own hands if we want something resembling a community here.

myk said:

As far as idgames is concerned, which is managed by Ty Halderman, it makes sure stuff by people from the community (custom levels, graphics or other resources) is used only with the author's permission, while commercial rips aren't rejected unless a company complains to the archive.

The idea behind this difference is that companies don't participate in the community and can send a legal letter and they will be heard, while on the other hand, fans are our peers and can do very little to protect their creations, so we have to take respecting each other's work in our own hands if we want something resembling a community here.

It's an interesting dichotomy, but I understand the reasoning behind it.

Myk said:

(...) so people arguing "they can't sue us" or "no money is made" are degrading copyrights into exclusively commercial purposes.

But wasn't the concept of copyright conceived exactly for business purposes? Otherwise, why bother?

Megamur said:

Obviously, when WADs state in their text files that you can use the level(s) as a base for your own, you're free to modify said level(s).

Agreed. But suppose that one known level which is copyrighted is taken as a base, and modified quite extensively so to result in parts completely overhauled, and others completely untouched. Some may want the resulting level taken down for copyright infringement, but couldn't others state that the author had actually started from scratch, and deliberately happened to come up with parts that are exactly coincident with the supposedly-copied WAD, just by chance?
To sum it up shortly, one thing is saying that somebody has copied you because he/she produced something very similar to your stuff, but another thing is having seen him/her copying...

myk said:

while on the other hand, fans are our peers and can do very little to protect their creations, so we have to take respecting each other's work in our own hands if we want something resembling a community here.

With that in mind...if someone wanted to use a resource, made an honest attempt to find the author, and called on the community to help find the author, but to no avail, I think they should use it. At least until the author comes along and complains.

I think by trying to obtain permission we would be respecting the author. However, it is the author's responsibility to keep track of their work IF they don't want it used elsewhere. I think if someone really put in the amount of effort required to make something that would legitimize restricting it from use by others, OR if they were enough of a jerk to say people can't use their WAD even though it's just another map or whatever, then they would probably have included a text file to cover that.

I know this goes against the "rules." I just think that if we're going to take protection of work in our own hands, we also need to be able to depend on authors to be clear about their expectations. I would probably feel differently about this if it weren't for the fact that 99% of wads do in fact give permission. I would be proud of myself if someone liked my work enough to use it for their own project, and it's cool to have your name in their credits.

This is one of those cases where I feel that going by the books should only happen when there is a problem. The rules are in place to protect people's work, but that doesn't mean we have to follow them to the letter when realistically the work in question has probably been long forgotten.

Great stuff - keep at it!

p.s.: oops... wrong thread - delete.

Personally I'd find it weird to use someone's map as a base. It would just feel wrong as it wouldn't be in my style. The only exception is if a map has no detail at all.

chopkinsca said:

Personally I'd find it weird to use someone's map as a base. It would just feel wrong as it wouldn't be in my style. The only exception is if a map has no detail at all.

Yeah, I've never used another map as a base, although the '94 tune-up project looked like a good way to do that.

However, there's also the possibility of resources other than maps such as textures, sprites, sounds, etc

chopkinsca said:

Personally I'd find it weird to use someone's map as a base. It would just feel wrong as it wouldn't be in my style. The only exception is if a map has no detail at all.

I just thought it might be useful since I have such a hard time getting any maps done. I thought having a basic outline that I'd detail and tweak would get me somewhere.

rsl said:
But wasn't the concept of copyright conceived exactly for business purposes? Otherwise, why bother?

It was also conceived for artistic, intellectual and moral purposes. One key reason for copyrights, which also affects business but is not exclusive to it, was that authors and artists were being pushed aside by publishers who would do whatever they wanted with their works just because they could through the control of printing means or with a monetary advantage.

All reasons are economic, because in any case an "unprotected" work will easily dilute itself into a mass of other works that use it more or less indiscriminately, discouraging its possible distinction, whether intellectual, artistic, commercial or individual.

magicsofa said:
I think by trying to obtain permission we would be respecting the author. However, it is the author's responsibility to keep track of their work IF they don't want it used elsewhere.

That would leave most of the protecting in the authors' hands, making them into an "other" with an opposing stance, possibly making even more people care less, since they don't feel identified with a "it's their prerogative it's their problem" notion. I mean, against copyright principles, it would isolate them to only a direct influence, making them look more like lil' bitches that complain selfishly.

The protection is solid only if the community participates. No one's going to really suffer any loss if they can't use some fellow custom designer's resource, and there are many free resources to use, shared freely by their authors. There are always other options, such as teaming up with an artist, polishing one's own artistic skills, or trying some other idea that requires less or other resources.

Rather than an "if I can get away with it because he wasn't looking," trying to encourage authors to share their work freely is a much more honest and friendly way to get more "reuse" options. Not to mention that a work full of stuff taken without permission that got a compliant from an author would end up nuked from an archive with those rules, making a file previously available hard or impossible to get. Thus, the potential for removed files would only increase, making the archive less stable or reliable, subject to when and whether authors were paying attention.

myk said:

The idea behind this difference is that companies don't participate in the community and can send a legal letter and they will be heard, while on the other hand, fans are our peers and can do very little to protect their creations, so we have to take respecting each other's work in our own hands if we want something resembling a community here.

Now that's hypocrisy at its best. If you respect copyright, do it right. Such half-baked attitudes only weaken your position because it's obvious that it's not taken seriously. A copyright violation is a copyright violation, no matter whose copyright gets violated.

Nope, Graf Zahl, not all actors are equal. For example in labor, you don't assume an employee and a hiring company are bargaining at the same level, thus one has different responsibilities than the other. Not to mention that black/white stances tend to be very impractical.

Any group or class behavior is "hypocrisy"?

The logic is there and I stated it: At any moment, a company can have things removed from the archive though a legal demand. Given companies generally have money or can associate to lobby groups that can provide legal support, the archive is in a position it would be forced to comply or get shut down. If a fan gets his copyrights infringed, he generally has nothing to rely on unless he's rich.

My only experience using a wad as a base was when I edited Lorenzo's Alienation Zone map for DTWID. It was mostly just dragging vertices around, moving some monsters and items to different places, adding and deleting a sector here and there and changing textures. I actually had a lot of fun doing it and I would like to make a wad that consists instead of maps I made, maps I manipulated.

Have people ever directly edited an IWAD and tried to release that instead of making PWADs?

Sigvatr said:

Have people ever directly edited an IWAD and tried to release that instead of making PWADs?

They have, many times, unfortunately.

Either that, or they copy the layouts when making their tribute wad.