Copyright Protection and Clip Files

rcallicotte · May 20, 2009, 11:24:00 PM

Since I have been interested in copyright protection for software for about 20 years and I've seen all sorts of scenarios, one thing I've found consistently - it's always better to be clearer than leave anything to chance. I hope everyone will feel comfortable to help us all see the same thing, at least according to Planetside's belief.

First, I'm not exactly sure what Planetside thinks about this, so this is my own observation. Planetside, since it owns TG2, has the final word.

What I'm concerned about is this - with all of the various sales going on for clip files for personal or commercial use, it's evident that someone believes they can reinforce the professional use of their clip files and I agree that a certain amount (how much?) of this should be proprietary. But, I believe not that much. Why? Because I can buy the personal edition, learn from it and then create my own similar settings. Or, a better example yet, I can not even buy the clip file and then figure out the same thing on my own and then it begins to be interesting.

This last scenario is my concern, which is more important than any other. I have purchased numerous clip files, so this doesn't mean we shouldn't buy clip files. But, I do wonder what would happen if someone gets fortunate with a certain media outlet or advertiser or producer of a film or a TV show by doing their own work and someone who has sold a clip file claims a violation of copyright protection. This will be very easy, unless we understand something fundamental to this whole process - an idea cannot be copyrighted. Furthermore, an idea that can be reproduced in many various forms cannot be copyrighted. For example, I can write a program to submit images to a website and, believe it or not, someone tried to sue Google over that one. Another person claimed to have conceived of the idea behind eBay and tried to sue them for breach of copyright (and failed).

Some things have been copyrighted that probably shouldn't have been allowed, due to a steep slippery slope that leaves anyone who creates anything at risk of breaching someone's unclear definition of ownership. For example, some businessmen have copyrighted algorithms for certain types of images and, if you use these images, they can actually charge you for their usage (GIF). This company has legal rights to get money from you for using the GIF format, if they want to enforce it.

So...where is the line with clip files? Am I in breach of copyright if I take a clip file from Volker and TU, learn from it and then create something similar on my own to make money? In this case, do I owe Volker and TU a percentage of my money? I believe in light of recent sales of clip files, we need to understand our legal rights of even using TG2. What is my right, when I create something from Terragen 2?

neuspadrin · May 20, 2009, 11:41:03 PM

I think a lot if it will have to do how the license you get sold it for is. If they offer free for non commercial or pay for non commercial, direct use would be a violation. However, if you learn from it and then later created your own structure from knowledge you learned (not a direct copy paste), you are ok.

Really it falls down into how much similar is considered the same thing.

But I have a feeling most the packages being sold by NWDA and such they really will be relying on honesty, and would probably only be going after anyone who just buys and redistributes them for free to everyone or tries to set up shop selling their own materials.

Cyber-Angel · May 21, 2009, 12:22:29 AM

Under Copyright there is some thing called fair use (See this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) but how this would relate to the use of clip files I am not sure, unless you could say some thing like the person who made the original clip file, was in affect the Aurthur thereof and the person who used it in their own work (I assume we are talking about passing off of another persons work as your own, without giving credit) in effect creating a derivative work: that is the only route I could see you taking under copyright law (Depending also on how copyright law is interpreted in each individual country).

The rights that Planetside hold are in the file formats .TGD, .TGO and .TGC not in the works contained therein. I think that Planetside before commenting further on this issue should really talk to a lawyer to find out the situation.

Regards to you.

Cyber-Angel

Aagam · May 21, 2009, 01:33:53 AM

Interesting post... this is exactly why I prefer Creative Commons licensing

Will be interesting to see Planetside answer to this. Assuming I"ve understood your post (and I'm very tired

, as far as I'm concerned, once you buy the license to use Terragen, you're able to make money off of it. It's no different with any other program really. As long as you legally purchase it, your ideas can be sold. You've already paid a license to do so. As far as I'm concerned, it's no different to people charging for usage of certain Actionscript files (since Actionscript is owned by Adobe).

Walli · May 21, 2009, 05:05:44 AM

I think most of this legal stuff and speech would not be necessary, if people are fair (which is a dream, I know)

I think its very simple - if you benefit in a commercial way of such a product, then you should be fair and get a commercial license. In case of a clip file I even would pay a commercial license if I only take the file and learn from it. It saves me time, it saves me money and so the author should be rewarded.

In case of objects the case is much simpler - if you only use it in a private context, then you only have to pay a private licencse

FrankB · May 21, 2009, 05:59:49 AM

I can't speak to your planetside part of the question, but here's how we handle these things at NWDA.

At the moment, there is no way for us to create any sort of "protected" macros. Single new shaders, that actually host the complex networks which you use to create those skies, clouds, rock surface, etc...., and which when opened, only present you with a custom user interface, letting you adjust selected parameters. Anyone who remembers the now depreciated planet surface shader will know what I mean. Eventually, also from a user experience perspective, that is what we *would* like to deliver, if we only could.

Now, we have started making available the unprotected, full networks of our presets, regardless. We are aware that there is a risk of someone just taking what we created in the first place, give it a different color and distribute or sell on their own. Of course we would go against that, but we actually grant trust first. We completely believe that our works are respected and valued by you all. We also fully believe that you can see the experience, labor, and love that went into making these presets and objects. We made prices very affordable, too, so that there is not even a psychological reason for theft.
We may be naive, but we are part of our community here. We are rooted here, and in other communities across the globe. So far we have not been disappointed.

Lastly: for any image produced by you, made with the help of any of our presets, you own the copyrights of the result of your work for any private use, if you have purchased the private use license. An if you would like to use your works in a commercial way, making money from it, we ask you to be fair and purchase a commerical license for the presets and objects - which is really not that much either.
I think that's fair, wouldn't you agree?

Best regards,
Frank

Goms · May 21, 2009, 06:04:25 AM

Also theres another question: if you buy a clip file which contains a more or less simple combination of nodes, and you modify it in a way that there is no number the same any longer, is this still the clip file or something new? You can't hold any copyright for a combination of nodes.
And what when i see how something is done (in an image of a clip file) and rebuild it?
Ok, it will fuck the one who wants to sell the clip files up, but theres no _real_ reason to complain about this.
I don't think you can claim any copyrights on a combination of nodes without something "external" (a mask or something else).

Seth · May 21, 2009, 06:37:13 AM

hehehe
buy the clip file, modify it to make it better and sell it !
at least, you bought the file

i am very far from this technical copyright thing... i only sell one clip file through NWDA so far (the big fat atmo pack), and it is a "simple combination of nodes" as Goms said, but what is important is the value inside each nodes. And I repeat what i thin : if you can make better clip file, go ahead !

The TG2 community is a really good one and i hope (as Walli and Frank said) that we won't have those kind of problem..
anyway, if somebody steal the stuff we sell... we will all know what to think about the guy ^^

Quote from: Goms on May 21, 2009, 06:04:25 AM

Ok, it will fuck the one who wants to sell the clip files up, but theres no _real_ reason to complain about this.

I'm not sure to understand correctly what you said here but that doesn't sounds right to me... I mean.. getting fuck... by you... ^^

rcallicotte · May 21, 2009, 07:38:36 AM

I forgot to mention TGOs - this is a completely different area, since the created object can't be learned from and really belongs to its creator to do as they please. Since I bought Walli's grass recently for personal use, this is all I'll use it for...unless something in my fortune changes and, in this case, I'd gladly pay for a commercial license if I'm making money.

I believe learning through a clip file should be a free experience. I've already paid for a few clip files I believe will be good to learn from, but I've learned a lot more by the generosity and patience of others here on this forum. I've tried to repay that kindness by posting some of my own free work. Clip files are a very fuzzy area and I hope Planetside will clear up their stance. Otherwise, it can't be possible that someone can tell me they own the node-structure-thought-pattern and I owe them anything, if I happen upon the same idea as the creator of a specific node network. That is too similar to programming...

Quote from: Walli on May 21, 2009, 05:05:44 AM
I think most of this legal stuff and speech would not be necessary, if people are fair (which is a dream, I know)

I think its very simple - if you benefit in a commercial way of such a product, then you should be fair and get a commercial license. In case of a clip file I even would pay a commercial license if I only take the file and learn from it. It saves me time, it saves me money and so the author should be rewarded.

In case of objects the case is much simpler - if you only use it in a private context, then you only have to pay a private licencse

rcallicotte · May 21, 2009, 07:40:49 AM

This is what I believe.

Quote from: Goms on May 21, 2009, 06:04:25 AM
You can't hold any copyright for a combination of nodes.

@Seth - I am in your corner. To steal anything, even if it is taking something you or Volker or TU or efflux (etc.) made for free here and just use it to make money without learning anything and taking credit for such work is despicable. This community has been pretty good about learning from one another and being truly liberal. I only hope to see that increase with understanding.

By the way, in the case of some of the NWDA clip files, I had no problem purchasing a clip for a couple of dollars knowing I could learn something fantastic. Another way to look at this (Frank and everyone at NWDA) is that you're getting a little cash and the Terragen community is learning, while the clip itself (along with your graphic work) is like a resume that makes it clear you at NWDA could do the work on a big(ger) project where you could make some real money.

efflux · May 21, 2009, 03:23:18 PM

My opinion is this.

There are two distinct areas. You have clip files etc which are very technical. I don't mind posting about this stuff, giving files etc. I plan to do this more in future and people can do what they want with it but there comes a point when these files become art. This I won't give away except the renders of course but these are still under my copyright. This is why Planetside asks us to use images in gallery etc which is simply the right thing to do anyway. UK copyright law means anything you create is yours at point of creation no matter about licenses etc unless you specify otherwise. UK law is above any of this but of course things are international which makes it complex. Copyrighting a bunch of nodes would be difficult but your final art can clearly be yours so don't give away the files for that unless you really want to. There is no need to. This was the problem with Mojoworld planet sharing. The gallery ends up with pastiches of different planets rather than people concentrating on technical issues to learn the app to create original art work.

It would of course make more sense to sell shaders etc that were not open to studying how they were built but then there is a danger of things becoming a bit locked up as far as learning how to do stuff.

Oshyan · May 23, 2009, 07:16:33 PM

Planetside does not claim any copyright over node configurations created by 3rd parties. Your images, TGD files, clip files, etc. are yours, to the extent that copyright could be enforced on such things (probable but still not certain due to points made above).

As far as sales go, this is a personal opinion not a legal one, but I think the exact product being sold by NWDA and anyone else is what is copyrighted. If you modify it and re-sell, since the configuration of nodes is likely a more difficult thing to enforce copyright on, it is really the package that needs to be different - node setup and names, file packaging (zip or other), included files (documentation, license), etc.. If you include the same nodes with the same grouping and names, and only change the settings within the nodes, that's probably not salable. Fair use mostly covers non-commercial use. But if you change names, arrangement, etc. - though it may be only minor technical differences - I think there is a more compelling case for original work.

We do intend to create some kind of "macro" system in the future, which may include security features for closed node networks so commercial producers can more easily protect their work. We don't have a timeline on that though.

- Oshyan

rcallicotte · May 24, 2009, 06:46:34 AM

Thanks Oshyan. This is very helpful to know.

Mr_Lamppost · May 24, 2009, 12:56:53 PM

I think there is one aspect that has not really been addressed in this discussion.

There is a patchy cirrus cloud layer in at least one of the presets in Frank's sunset pack, I noticed that it got used in several images published here shortly after the sunset presets became available. Several people mentioned that they had purchased the preset pack in their image description. Not a problem they purchased the presets so have every right to use them. Obviously if the image was to be sold it is hoped that the artist would pay for the commercial version of the preset pack.

Now here is the complicated part.

I haven't purchased the sunset presets as I know hot to create the results shown in the sample images myself which is all well and good but what happens if I sell an image that includes a patchy cirrus layer that looks similar to the one on the sunset pack? Frank sees the image and thinks "Those are my cirrus clouds and he didn't pay for the commercial licence". The chances are that my nodes are quite similar to Frank's so how do I prove that they are entirely my own work?

I have made similar points elsewhere while I was deciding about purchasing an XFrog licence. One of the accusations levelled at Lightning was that the trees he was selling were just minor variations of models sold by Greenworks; fair enough if that is what he was doing but what happens if I make an oak tree? If I am any good with the software it will come out looking like an oak tree as does theirs how can I prove that mine is not just theirs with replacement textures and a few parameters changed slightly?

FrankB · May 24, 2009, 01:33:31 PM

Quote from: Mr_Lamppost on May 24, 2009, 12:56:53 PM
...and good but what happens if I sell an image that includes a patchy cirrus layer that looks similar to the one on the sunset pack? Frank sees the image and thinks "Those are my cirrus clouds and he didn't pay for the commercial licence". The chances are that my nodes are quite similar to Frank's so how do I prove that they are entirely my own work?

Dear Mr. Lamppost, here's the simple answer:
I have a good indication as to who has purchased my presets and the ones of the NWDA partners, because for all transactions I know every customer by name and their email address. That gives me clarity one the who *has* obtained the rights to use the presets as purchased. That's the easy bit.
Now on to your case. If ever in doubt, and I mean really in doubt, first thing I would do is simply ask. If you reply, "no Frank, I've done this myself", I would default to believe you. Simple as that. Secondly, I have no interest in wasting my time chasing a potential 10€ value over a legal argument. This will be my policy until eventually I will be given the ability to package and protect presets in a macro.

However, if I see my presets or the ones from my partners, or the TGO's massively and illegally distributed, I will probably close the shop. Period. No more presets.
To this day, though, I have no reason to believe this is happening, or going to happen.

I hope this answer satisfies everyone's questions. I would appreciate if you all could now let us get back to work again, and let us return our focus back on having fun with TG2, and develop more good presets for the TG2 universe.

Cheers,
Frank