Is it etiquette...

[infurnus1]

TimeOfDeath said:

Assuming the author doesn't give permission for re-use, then yeah I agree with you. Except I definitely think there's a big difference between giving credit or not giving credit for the replica/imitation. Without credit, that's total plagiarism. With credit, you're telling everyone where it really came from. But we're still talking about textures, right?

In the end, you're still using someone else's work.

[Gez]

That's not bad in itself. Modding a game is also using someone else's work. :p

[esselfortium]

Gez said:

That's not bad in itself. Modding a game is also using someone else's work. :p

But it's not illegally reusing or distributing someone else's work. :p

[TimeOfDeath]

That's the whole point of making it from scratch instead of using the original. While you're making a replica/imitation of someone else's work, you're doing much more work yourself than just reusing the original, and you're not reusing the original, and you're giving full credits to the original. Not that that justifies it, but you know? Also, keep in mind that doom editing is all for free. I really don't think it's "illegal", but I don't know.

I think it would also matter how the original was made. Obviously someone can't claim copyright over something that uses pieces from other sources, like what's been said about gothictx etc.

Infurnus said:

In the end, you're still using someone else's work.

How many mappers have used architecture and gameplay from other people's maps without credit?

[esselfortium]

TimeOfDeath said:

That's the whole point of making it from scratch instead of using the original. While you're making a replica/imitation of someone else's work, you're doing much more work yourself than just reusing the original, and you're not reusing the original, and you're giving full credits to the original. Not that that justifies it, but you know?

What difference does it make? It's still an unlicensed derivative work, and in particular, it intends to directly replace and imitate the copyrighted original.

Also, keep in mind that doom editing is all for free. I really don't think it's "illegal", but I don't know.

It seems to be a common misconception that you're legally allowed to ignore copyrights if you're not charging money for something. While you're less likely to be found out, and the laws are less likely to be actively enforced in such a case, it's technically still just as illegal.

I think it would also matter how the original was made. Obviously someone can't claim copyright over something that uses pieces from other sources, like what's been said about gothictx etc.

Well...that becomes a somewhat sticky situation. The GothicTX guys own the rights to the modifications they made to the ripped resources they used, but not to the resources themselves. If I take a bunch of Doom textures and arrange them in a new and interesting way to create something "new," it's still based on Doom textures and id Software still owns the copyright for the pieces I used, but they can't lay complete claim to my derivative work. The result is neither wholly mine nor wholly theirs.

[TimeOfDeath]

esselfortium said:

What difference does it make? It's still an unlicensed derivative work, and in particular, it intends to directly replace and imitate the copyrighted original.

What about cover songs? What about a replica painting?

It seems to be a common misconception that you're legally allowed to ignore copyrights if you're not charging money for something. While you're less likely to be found out, and the laws are less likely to be actively enforced in such a case, it's technically still just as illegal.

I'm not talking about making replicas and making people believe they're the original. There's no deception involved. I'm talking about replicas with full credits to the original.

Well...that becomes a somewhat sticky situation. The GothicTX guys own the rights to the modifications they made to the ripped resources they used, but not to the resources themselves. If I take a bunch of Doom textures and arrange them in a new and interesting way to create something "new," it's still based on Doom textures and id Software still owns the copyright for the pieces I used, but they can't lay complete claim to my derivative work. The result is neither wholly mine nor wholly theirs.

Well, I don't think someone can lay any claim if they modify copyrighted textures. If someone does that, they should never prohibit others from re-using the work. IMO anyway.

[esselfortium]

TimeOfDeath said:

What about cover songs? What about a replica painting?

Cover songs are easily licensed for very reasonable rates. Nearly any song would go through the same agency for it, even.

I'm not talking about making replicas and making people believe they're the original. There's no deception involved. I'm talking about replicas with full credits to the original.

Who said anything about deception being involved? You can tell everyone that it's not yours, sure, but it's..you know, still not yours.

[myk]

TimeOfDeath said:
Also, keep in mind that doom editing is all for free. I really don't think it's "illegal", but I don't know.

Practical legality aside, there's still effort, respect and pride in free work. Time is money, they say, so if someone put many hours into a mod, they may not like it if someone else bastardizes it in a few minutes, any more than if it were a commercial work. Copyright attaches a work to its author, and that attachment isn't just for monetary reasons.

The fact that this activity is not for money can also be used against the idea that copyright doesn't matter. If this isn't serious business for money, then we can concentrate on our skills and capabilities to be more creative and respectful of each other, instead of grasping at whatever we can to get some extra profit.

Yes, outright lying about sources is even worse, but taking something that was not offered is also not good. Giving credit has a limited effect, in any case; often users don't read the text files giving credit, or simply don't know where each bit or resource comes from.

How many mappers have used architecture and gameplay from other people's maps without credit?

It may happen, and may go unawares, but let's also distinguish between copying ideas and copying specific aspects of works. A work that obviously has some ripped content will get people asking whether the author got permission; a work that is similar to another will usually just get questioned for its originality and creativity unless the resemblance is so evident that it looks like (either mechanic or manual, possibly modified) copying.

[TimeOfDeath]

esselfortium said:

Who said anything about deception being involved? You can tell everyone that it's not yours, sure, but it's..you know, still not yours.

I understand that and I agree with you. To me, it doesn't make any sense to prohibit re-use on a replica/imitation of someone else's work.

[myk]

TimeOfDeath said:
To me, it doesn't make any sense to prohibit re-use on a replica/imitation of someone else's work.

Keep in mind copyright isn't there "just because." It's there mainly to serve creativity and value. "Manually" produced imitations affect that as much as modifications starting from a material piece and both depend directly on the existing work, so allowing a manual imitation just because it doesn't contain literal traces of the original defeats that purpose. How much they depend on the original is generally answered by how much creative work is placed on top of that base, or alongside it, if it ever existed as such. If it's so much that you can hardly tell the original was there in the first place, the weight of many other influences have granted your work a character of its own. Copyright restrictions force us to look for more varied and more influences to give the new work such character.