Distributing user made content

[Josiah Pisciotta - CL]

I searched the forum but could not find any topics on this. Does anyone know the legality of distributing levels created with your game editor by people who have purchased your game? Is it legal to update to your game with a bunch of user made levels and include these levels in the full version when purchased?

[Vorax]

I searched the forum but could not find any topics on this. Does anyone know the legality of distributing levels created with your game editor by people who have purchased your game? Is it legal to update to your game with a bunch of user made levels and include these levels in the full version when purchased?

It is if you recieve permission from them. You should ask if they are interested - if so, fax (or email) them a form granting you permission to distribute the game level. Have them sign and fax back.

[ErikH2000]

American copyright law is that the creator reserves all rights to his work by default. So at least in the US, you'd need to get permission.

IANAL

-Erik

[Robert Cummings]

I think it is better to make a disclaimer that all content made with your game belongs to you, but you aren't responsible for the content people make.

Then you can distribute it how you see fit, and not in any way get sued for porn/other content individuals might make.

[Phil Steinmeyer]

Lots of games with level editors include the statement in their EULA that any content created (by users) with the editor automatically belongs to the developer. Frankly, I doubt that's enforceable and I wouldn't want to try to stand on that in court.

For our commercial games, whenever we'd do a Gold/Platinum/Super Ultra Plus! version, we'd scan the user sites/forums for good levels, then have the creators sign a simple 1 page agreement to give us the rights - we'd pay them $50/level and a free copy of the game. That worked for us, and users always seemed excited about it. Sometimes we couldn't reliably locate a level's author, and so we wouldn't include that level. I think, assuming we located the author, they virtually all agreed to license us the levels.

If your levels are real simple to make, you might even pay less than $50, but that's what we used to pay...

[soniCron]

I think it is better to make a disclaimer that all content made with your game belongs to you, but you aren't responsible for the content people make.

Then you can distribute it how you see fit, and not in any way get sued for porn/other content individuals might make. That is not legal. You cannot control the output from a tool you write.

[soniCron]

Refer to this question (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput) in the GPL FAQ. While the GPL itself is legally questionable, I don't think this interpretation of copyright law is.

[revve]

I think it is better to make a disclaimer that all content made with your (... product ...) belongs to you, but you aren't responsible for the content people make.


Imagine Xerox had this.... Or MS Office. Hmmmm. Better check my office EULA.....





I think having a clause that by creating content you give the author permission to redistribute it (not OWN it). Personally, I think just asking will be better. It's the polite thing to do and probably legal in more places than futile-ly forcing the issue using your EULA.

Maybe having a clause in your EULA like above, but adding that if they wish for this to not happen, they can specify this. You can then put a very, very obscure option in the level editor that flags the level as "not distributable" or something, with it not being set by default.

[mahlzeit]

IIRC, there is a good thread on this in the Dexterity Archives (but IANAL :)).

[ErikH2000]

I think it is better to make a disclaimer that all content made with your game belongs to you,
I think this is a bad way to encourage people to make content for your game. When I talk to the people who get involved in making levels and other content related to my game, there are many people who care about what is done with their work. If I just said, "it's mine automatically" there would still be extra levels and whatnot, but not nearly as much.

-Erik

[Abscissa]

Personally, I wouldn't have any desire to have default ownership of user-created levels in the first place. I really don't see much of a point, other than saving a two measly seconds by not sending off a permission request. It's not like their levels could compete with mine - they'd still need the full game to run anyway.

[ErikH2000]

Personally, I wouldn't have any desire to have default ownership of user-created levels in the first place. I really don't see much of a point, other than saving a two measly seconds by not sending off a permission request. It's not like their levels could compete with mine - they'd still need the full game to run anyway.
If you were distributing them as an add-on product then it would be useful to have ownership. But I agree that getting explicit permission is preferable.

-Erik

[soniCron]

Is it unclear that it is simply not legal to enforce such a claim (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput)? Or has everybody just got me on their "Ignore" lists. ;)

[ErikH2000]

Yeah, I guess this is all moot then. Cool!

-Erik

[soniCron]

Yeah, I guess this is all moot then. Cool! Sort of... See, this brings up another interesting issue: what's to stop the community from releasing their own level pack for sale? :)

[ErikH2000]

Sort of... See, this brings up another interesting issue: what's to stop the community from releasing their own level pack for sale? :)
That sounds like a good problem to have to me. If people are putting that much energy and care into making levels that can be sold as products, then you've got a well-developed community supporting your game. In that case, I think I'd just try to make a deal to sell their levels on the site.

And actually I've done something like that (http://www.drod.net/forum/viewtopic.php?TopicID=7274) with my game. Basically, I solicit for people to publish their levels through me. So far it's worked great, resulting in one add-on product with another one currently in the works.

-Erik

[Abscissa]

Sort of... See, this brings up another interesting issue: what's to stop the community from releasing their own level pack for sale? :)
id had that "problem" with the first Doom. IIRC, the Masters of Doom book said the business guys weren't thrilled with it, but I don't see any problem:

- As long as they don't work on the demo, it does not, in any way, cannabalize sales of the game. If anything, it boosts sales.
- They're the ones that made the levels anyway, not the developers.

The developer gains something while losing nothing. It's a win-win (unless the developer gets greedy as decides they're somehow "entitled" to it, just because there's a potential for gaining extra money by just demanding it).

[Sillysoft]

I have a web form set up where users can submit the levels they have created for inclusion in the Plugin Manager where all registered users can install them. On the web form there is some text saying "Legal Stuff: Only files that you created and have the right to publish should be uploaded. Submitted works must comply with all applicable laws including copyright and trademark law. All submissions are subject to editorial review. By uploading your file you are giving Sillysoft Games the right to distribute your work and use it in promotional materials."

At last year's IndieGamesCon during a legal session I asked the laywer running if about distributing user content. He said that by distributing it you become responsible for it (actually his words were more like "you'd be crazy to do it" - but that's what lawyers are supposed to say). If it contains anything under copyright/trademark then it's your problem. So it's up to you to make sure that it's all their own work.

[Robert Cummings]

But it is legal to claim that and I am right. There is a legal precedent for it.

Sort of... See, this brings up another interesting issue: what's to stop the community from releasing their own level pack for sale?

id software backed this up as well: it's illegal to sell custom made levels or content made with their editors. You cannot do it. People have tried and been screwed for it. They made their terms watertight for Quake2 and 3.

Mission Packs are part of id's strategy, and they enforce this. You cannot make ANYTHING with their editors and sell it. Free, yes, but selling, nope. You cannot sell a level made with their editors.

They also took the best user levels and intergrated them into the Quake2 and Quake3 games. I think they did ask politely but this was more of a gesture.

As for paying for the right to use levels in a mission pack... you are joking right? 9 out of 10 fans would be overjoyed to see their work showcased and their name in the credits...

[Ricardo C]

As for paying for the right to use levels in a mission pack... you are joking right? 9 out of 10 fans would be overjoyed to see their work showcased and their name in the credits...

Perhaps... Until they stumbled upon posts such as yours and realized the kind of yokels you take them for ;)

After reading your opinions in this thread (instant ownership of future content, etc.) I would refuse you permission just to annoy you, to be honest.

Why not play nice, tell users that they are not allowed to sell their content except through your site, splitting the profits with you? I think such a policy would cause a steady stream of quality user-made content which both you and them could profit from.

[James C. Smith]

American copyright law is that the creator reserves all rights to his work by default. So at least in the US, you'd need to get permission.

IANAL

-Erik

Does it matter how you got possessions of the user created content? Is it legal for you to host the user made content on your web site if the creator owns it? Well what if the creator sent it to you for the purpose of you distributing it for them? Are you then only allowed to distribute it for free but nor for profit? I agree that the creator owns the work. But once he sends it to me and asks me to distribute it for him it seems very different.

[ErikH2000]

Does it matter how you got possessions of the user created content? Is it legal for you to host the user made content on your web site if the creator owns it? Well what if the creator sent it to you for the purpose of you distributing it for them? Are you then only allowed to distribute it for free but nor for profit? I agree that the creator owns the work. But once he sends it to me and asks me to distribute it for him it seems very different.
I don't have authoritative legal answers to those questions. And I guess I find a lot of IP issues are unfortunately grey areas and end up being about what risks are practical to take. For example, Fair Use in the US is terribly fuzzy. But for the questions above, I think the answer is still probably that the user reserves all rights by default until an explicit agreement is made where they give up rights. And then there are just degrees of risk after that about what you do with the user's work. If you do exactly what the person expects to be done with his work, then there is little risk, although technically you still wouldn't have a legal right to distribute their work.

Let's be honest--it's not really about getting sued, because there's little chance of that. It's about pissing off your users. There's no need to do that when you can show a little respect and obtain permission.

-Erik

[soniCron]

But it is legal to claim that and I am right. There is a legal precedent for it. You can say that as many times as you'd like, but why not show us? What sources do you have that say this? After all, you ANAL. ;)

[ErikH2000]

Oh, come on! He used that as a concrete example of someone enforcing that type of license and actually cited the book he pulled it from. That's better than you usually get around here. :)

EDIT: Oops, never mind. It was Abcissa earlier who cited a book as a source. I'm getting out of the forum debate business.

It might be the case that id had an unenforceable EULA, but they bullied their users into compliance. I dunno.

-Erik

[Robert Cummings]

I can't be bothered to carry on explaining, as I am not sonicron's tutor. The facts are out there and if sonicron wishes to look them up he can.

You can say that as many times as you'd like, but why not show us? What sources do you have that say this? After all, you ANAL.I do not like that acronym or your "humour." I think it's pretty said people are using that because frankly it is pathetic. People with any intelligence will know the vast majority are not lawyers.

It might be the case that id had an unenforceable EULA, but they bullied their users into compliance. I dunno.More bullet proof terms and conditions. People see EULAS but forget the terms and conditions of use are legally binding. EULAS and Terms and conditions of use mustn't be muddled up I don't think. Personally I'm never going to be in a situation where it affects me or I need to enforce anything.

Basically the idea is that a level is a mod, and mods cannot be sold or distributed on a profit making medium. I recall they did actually put someone out of business who made a mission pack for Quake2. Similar enforcing has gone on for Quake3, but I think everyone has the message now that ID does that kind of stuff.

id even make it illegal to use content from their level editors in your own games. You can't for example, make a Quake3 level in radiant and use it in your own game if you are making money from your game. This also extends to any of their code used in MD3 plugins and so on... They are very particular about it.

For example not too long ago, Mark Sibly added MD2 support (quake 2 model format support) to Blitz and was brought down fast by id's legal hitmen, we're talking a couple of days. Mark managed to get permission from John and co to use the MD2 format, and since then id has relented for this particular format. Their tools and the output from those tools remain protected and in effect, their property though.

After reading your opinions in this thread (instant ownership of future content, etc.) I would refuse you permission just to annoy you, to be honest.That would not annoy me. Nothing you can do in your life would affect me. I don't understand your post.
Why not play nice, tell users that they are not allowed to sell their content except through your site, splitting the profits with you? I think such a policy would cause a steady stream of quality user-made content which both you and them could profit from.This is a good idea for the right product. Of course I won't ever be making a product like this. To be honest, most user-content is pretty dire, so only the cream would be used anyway so it's better to politely ask.

If you're making money then it's only fair they get some sort of kickback I suppose. I would probably offer a full version, and some fame :) After all, they weren't commissioned to do it.

[Ricardo C]

After all, they weren't commissioned to do it.

And you aren't entitled to take it. The assumption that they should be glad to get the credit while you turn a profit is naïve at best. No doubt many would indeed agree to such terms, but you shouldn't expect it.

[GBGames]

Regarding the selling of mission packs or whatever: couldn't they be considered derivative works? After all, you would require the game engine to play the levels.

I'm not familiar with the terms for id's editors, but I would think it would be a violation of copyright law if I created new graphics and sounds and created an installer that required Gish to actually be used. I think they are usually referred to as Total Conversion Mods, and developers that allow them usually welcome them since it means more people buying their game. Of course, the developer has the right to say no, and if the TCM violates copyright (like a Starcraft mod for a C&C game), the developer can take action.

Of course, if you create the stuff yourself and don't distribute it, I would think that it would be overly draconian of a company to want to take action and so I don't know if that would technically be a violation of copyright anyway. IANAL, and I actually like the acronym. B-)

[soniCron]

I can't be bothered to carry on explaining, as I am not sonicron's tutor. The facts are out there and if sonicron wishes to look them up he can. And here I was thinking you had some definitive evidence to back up what you said. Perhaps you missed the post in which I did look it up (http://forums.indiegamer.com/showpost.php?p=59072), and I did come to a wholly different conclusion about your "interpretation" of copyright law. Until you show me otherwise, your insistence that it's legal to claim ownership over the output of a tool is falling on deaf ears, anecdotal rhetoric or otherwise.


More bullet proof terms and conditions. People see EULAS but forget the terms and conditions of use are legally binding. Wrong. The terms and conditions are assumed to be legally binding, but have yet been held up in court. In addition, there is a limit to which EULA's can extend. People are given certain rights that simply cannot be extinguished. I certainly can't include a provision that you kill your mother in order to use the software. Similarly, violating the user's basic copyrights is not legal. Period.


Basically the idea is that a level is a mod, and mods cannot be sold or distributed on a profit making medium. I can understand that mods cannot be sold or distributed in such a manner. They use copyrighted materials. (Specifically, the mod source code.) However, I'd believe you'd be hard pressed to enforce that same bit from a mod written entirely from scratch. That would be considered a derivative work, would it not?


You can say that as many times as you'd like, but why not show us? What sources do you have that say this? After all, you ANAL.I do not like that acronym or your "humour." I think it's pretty said people are using that because frankly it is pathetic. People with any intelligence will know the vast majority are not lawyers. Who said anything about lawyers?