The ethics of converting levels from other games

[Hannibal]

At the end of the day? If I wanted to use an existing level in a different game, and I contacted the mapper and they said no, I would still remake that level for the game. As for whether I'd release it publically, probably not.

...if someone credits the original author fully in the release, and appends their own name to the level clearly marked as the convertor and not the creator... then even without the original author's permission I personally can't see the problem on a moral level.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what your view is Foo. In the first quote, you seem to be falling in with the majority view. In the second case, you clearly are not.

Making sense of your position seems to depend on whether you view 'permission-seeking' as a mere courtesy or as a kind of ethical obligation. Looking at the above quotes, you seem to be in the courtesy camp...is that right?

[Foo]

I'm sitting on the fence. I'm not set on the course of action to take if the situation really did arise for me, but I think I'd give a mapper the courtesy of letting them know that I was using their level layout.

This is really the only direction I'd ever take I think, as directly recompiling doesn't produce what I'd call 'good' results, and texture sets don't cross to other games so well.. so the only thing I'd ever find myself doing would be recreating a level from the ground up, or deriving a fresh layout by starting with an existing one of someone elses.

I wouldn't feel ethically obliged to obtain permission under those circumstances as I've described them.

See... my position on it isn't that straightforwards. Lots of 'ifs' and stuff.

[obsidian]

I do see level design as a creative process, I think I'm more dissapointed at what I see as an underlying culture of self-importance which is accepted in the modding circles of PC gaming as the 'normal' attitude. I think a more laid-back attitude would benefit everyone as a whole and indeed I would say it's the attitude that built the modding scene up into the huge thing it now is. Modding communism, if you like

Well, I'm sure everyone would like to see a more "laid-back" attitude towards a more community centric style of content creation. The problem is that when we release content, you have the majority of people who utilize it to build their own stuff the 'proper' way - by crediting the author, etc. But then you have the 1% who will ruin it for everyone and clearly steal work. It's because of that 1% that we still have a relatively rigid system of what you call "self-importance" - but what I call, "just-in-case" someone tries to rip me off. Same reason why socialism isn't a perfect system, no? Looks good in theory, but fails in practice because of the few people who exploit the system.

From a personal standpoint, if you were to copy one of my maps or other assets without my permission, I would be okay with it if you gave me proper credit. I would look at it and say, "Yup, Foo copied my work and didn't ask me, but I can see that he gave me credit and did it with the proper respect that I deserve. I can see that Foo also has a good reputation as a mapper and someone who contributes back to the community, so I don't mind so much that for whatever reason he didn't ask for permission".

On the other hand, if someone else copied my work it would be, "Who the hell is this guy? Even though he credited me for my work, he didn't ask for permission. He's not known to the community, and as far as I can tell, he hasn't ever contributed anything back to the community. As far as I can tell, he's just ripping other people's work. Good thing I had that EULA with my map, I'll ask him to stop distributing the map until I can get stuff sorted out and find out about his intentions."

So really, the reason why people are strict about the EULA with community assets is for "just-in-case" situations rather than any selfish "this is mine, go make your own" attitude.

[Tormentius]

So really, the reason why people are strict about the EULA with community assets is for "just-in-case" situations rather than any selfish "this is mine, go make your own" attitude.

Although ripping off map work is definitely in bad taste I would think that it would be almost impossible to enforce a EULA for a game map created by an individual. Does anyone know if there is a legal precedent to indicate whether it could be enforced?

[Kat]

You'd have to quantify the question of 'ownership' before you could do something like that within what we're talking about here I guess.

What is it *exactly* that's being infringed upon? Artistic and intellectual copyright would be the immediate ones, but what other 'damage' would be caused by someone willfully 'ripping' (i.e. taking without consent and claiming as their own) a 'map'?

I'm inclined to agree with what obsidian pointed out above, a respected member of the community called 'Foo' would have different motives for 'copying' a map compared to a newb no one knew anything about, called 'FooBAR', copying the same map for the glory he thought it'd bring him; even if both did or didn't get permission from the originating author of the work being copied.

Both would get different reactions to what they had done, people would be 'okay' with 'Foo' becuase he never tried to 'hoodwink' anyone. FooBAR on the other hand would most likely be tarred and feathered becuase he 'cheated' and perhaps we'd feel cheated as a result.

[MegaMan44]

Uhm, hello !? I dont have a problem with some game reading in my q3 maps. i dont have a problem seeing my map in a different game. i have a problem when someone touches what I did and feel is finished.

The point is that a map is something very personal and you don't modify it if the author doesn't agree. You just don't do it.
would you want someone read/write into your diary? If you were a painter that had just finished his masterpiece, from your point of view changing the world of today, would you like to have it changed just because it might fit a certain personal taste better?

[Foo]

Those examples don't paralell with digital content though, since you're not directly altering the original works.

[obsidian]

Although ripping off map work is definitely in bad taste I would think that it would be almost impossible to enforce a EULA for a game map created by an individual. Does anyone know if there is a legal precedent to indicate whether it could be enforced?

If you really wanted to, I suppose you could take legal action and hire a lawyer and all that, but the cost of doing so will probably outweigh the return. AFAIK, (and thankfully) this situation has never happened in the community. Usually the community notices when someone does a direct rip of other people's work and confronts the offender before ever needing to progress legally. So it seems as if 'tar and feathering' works well enough rather than any legal action.

You'd have to quantify the question of 'ownership' before you could do something like that within what we're talking about here I guess.

What is it *exactly* that's being infringed upon? Artistic and intellectual copyright would be the immediate ones, but what other 'damage' would be caused by someone willfully 'ripping' (i.e. taking without consent and claiming as their own) a 'map'?

Well, I do believe that you 'own' your work even though it is digital information that is distributed electronically without profit.

Also, how would you quantify the difference between 'inspiration' and 'copy'? While it is okay to draw inspiration from other works, but not okay to copy, at which point does inspiration meet copy? There's a pretty big grey area in between. A general rule I would go by is that the work must be created from scratch and the inspiration should be used as a very loose reference only.

Those examples don't paralell with digital content though, since you're not directly altering the original works.

Well, I agree that the diary/painting analogy doesn't fit the topic, but what about stuff like texture modification? If you modify someone else's texture without permission and/or credit, even though it's not the "original", but a digital copy of the original, is that still not wrong?

[Kat]

Lets assume we're talking about the single subtopic of 'copyright', it just makes things slightly easier to focus one aspect of this issue.

The production of 'copies' has a special provision within copyright law called 'derivative works'. Generally speaking duplications of an original work not made by the author are consigned to that catagory of copyright. So someone making a map that was either 'influenced by', or a direct 'copy of' would effectively be making a derivative work. Keep in mind that were talking in v.e.r.y. broad, all encompassing terms here.

It's my understanding, at least from a fine art point of view that 'derivative work' does not in fact need originating author permissions so long as it's clearly stated to be a derivative work. That doesn't however protect the copying artiste from being sued by the original author should they so wish it.

As for the "how do you tell". Again from my fine art understanding, it's usually taken to mean that it can be 'obviously' determinded that 'x' artiste copied 'x' painting or picture. However, it would more than likely boil down to which ever of the artistes had the better case of proof of origination.

There's a sort of irony here is that for us mappers letting the community at large know what you're up to serves a very useful purpose of creating a sort of 'notification of origination' that other content creators should be mindful of - depending on their motives as we've mentioned above.

At the end of the day though, people that don't care about the wider community will copy maps regardless of the considerations and concequences voiced in this thread. People that do care will treat the subject with some sensitivity; which camp a given mappers falls into is up the the mapper in the end I guess.

[SonicClang]

I've just never seen the sense in spending time remaking something that has been done before. Why not spend your time making something original?

Ok, I may be kind of a hipocrite saying this because I'm in a team remaking the original Doom in the Doom 3 engine, but I feel that project is different.

All in all I say leave the past in the past and always try to move forward. It's like when bands remake songs from 20 years ago... what can possibly come from that? What greater good is served?

Ethics? I don't see anything wrong with remaking anything. I just think it's a waste of time.

[Foo]

I've just never seen the sense in spending time remaking something that has been done before. Why not spend your time making something original?

Ok, I may be kind of a hipocrite saying this because I'm in a team remaking the original Doom in the Doom 3 engine, but I feel that project is different.

All in all I say leave the past in the past and always try to move forward. It's like when bands remake songs from 20 years ago... what can possibly come from that? What greater good is served?

Ethics? I don't see anything wrong with remaking anything. I just think it's a waste of time.

So hang on, WHY is this project different? Your post is frustrating to read because you're contradicting your point completely and (not) justifying it with "that project is different".

Not a flame BTW, I'm interested.

[Foo]

At the end of the day though, people that don't care about the wider community will copy maps regardless of the considerations and concequences voiced in this thread. People that do care will treat the subject with some sensitivity; which camp a given mappers falls into is up the the mapper in the end I guess.

You're right, and I think & certainly hope I'm considered to be the latter. I worry about the members of the community that don't appreciate the gap you describe and would tarnish me with a very unpleasant brush for doing something which I think could only be viewed as bad from an ignorant perspective.

For my own part, most of my Q3 work nowadays revolves around preservation of the content we had at the peak of Q3's success, and the presentation of it in a form that will encourage people to actually take that content and use it. For example with the Map Archive, what I was trying to do was pimp an awful lot of maps at once in a package which I thought would appeal to a regular gamer today (hugeass bittorrent files are the new mp3 it seems). Was I risking crossing a line when I did that? Definitely, I would imagine numerous levels in those packs contained specific instructions that they could only be shared via FTP/HTTP.

Other examples are FPS-Media (never took off but the intention was there) and now the Q3 Wiki. They're not as easily related but the general idea is the same. With the Wiki I'm constantly wrestling with the issue of copyright... then the site that held the information in the first place drops off the web and it's lost not because noone wanted it but because the original author took what I consider to be a misguided decision to restrict that information, one that I suspect they'd agreeably reverse if I presented them with what I was intending to do.

But I expect general opinion to be that I don't have the right to make that assumption, despite it being truly impossible to contact a great number of authors of a great number of works, all of which I consider to be as significant as each other when it comes to looking back at what most of us have spent maybe 1/10th of our lives doing for a hobby.

rantoveromg!

[Kat]

With regards to you specifically Foo, I don't think you'd get into any hot water at all, you've done a fair few things for the wider community on the whole (certainly not preparation H worthy fortunately), esp. here where we do know who you are and your history.

Obviously the quality of the work you do will also show you're not exactly a spring chicken in regards to mapping either! (and by proxy[?] would mean you're not trying to make a name for yourself) Without knowing the details, I'd say just treat each map individually and go from there.

[Foo]

I got lucky with ZTN's stance on the issue. He publically stated over on ESR:

I don't mind people making their own versions of my maps as long as they are releasing them under their own name. I appreciate if they ask first, but that really doesn't change anything, does it? If the map turns out to be bad, it'll be forgotten in 2 seconds... if the map's good, then *I* can use the new ideas and make my own version.

Which echoes my own view.

[Fjoggs]

Less talk, more mapping!

*lays down foot*

[jester!]

While ZTNs view matches up with yours and thats great there are others like Preacher and Hubster who seem to on the opposite side of things with their own post about aerowalk for q4.

http://esreality.com/?a=post&id=950334

Ultimitly thats what it should come down to imo. The people who make the maps, whether they care if someone rips them or not in the end it should be up to them.

Not sure if I said it in this thread or not but the very fact that people are talking about law and copyright in what should be a community setting where things should just come down to common respect is more then a little sad...

[Foo]

While ZTNs view matches up with yours and thats great there are others like Preacher and Hubster who seem to on the opposite side of things with their own post about aerowalk for q4.

http://esreality.com/?a=post&id=950334

Ultimitly thats what it should come down to imo. The people who make the maps, whether they care if someone rips them or not in the end it should be up to them.

Not sure if I said it in this thread or not but the very fact that people are talking about law and copyright in what should be a community setting where things should just come down to common respect is more then a little sad...

Yeah I read hub's position. It seems hypocritical becase I remember it being stated in a thread a while back that his first conversion was done without permission (but with credit).

[jester!]

I dont know anything about that.

[SonicClang]

So hang on, WHY is this project different?

It's different in a couple ways. It was something lots of people wanted to see done, and eventually someone was going to do it. I joined the team well into the development. Also, remaking the old Doom music was something I had always wanted to do. But for the most part... most of the time... usually... 9 times out of 10... I say do something original and leave the past in the past. I don't think it's a rule at all though. Just ask yourself before entering a project, "would it be better if I did something new, or should I redo something old?"

[Hannibal]

Yeah I read hub's position. It seems hypocritical becase I remember it being stated in a thread a while back that his first conversion was done without permission (but with credit).

Hypocritical....I'm not sure that's entirely fair. Hub took a lot of shit for releasing the first aero without Preacher's blessing...and I know he agonized, argued, and re-thought the whole thing because of it. I'd point you to the original thread over at the Promode forums as evidence, but it got nuked.

[Foo]

I realise his position has now changed, you might not have seen this post by him on ESR:

Remaking the map and porting the map are no different in principle within the context of this topic - one is releasing another person's work without seeking permission. It is akin to theft.

What amazes me is that this would never have happened in the old days of QW and Q2. It is the "new" breed of gamers who seem to be doing this. It appears the days of mappers having respect from players for their hard work is coming to an end.

One of the reasons I decided to become a mapper was because of the appreciation that players gave to level makers - I thought that was a really nice and honourable thing, a real community thing and a just reward for a level designer who's worked hard to bring something to players that they can enjoy.

Now look at ZTN and his contribution to the community? Is this how he gets rewarded? It's not very fair.

This is where I was deriving that his stance is one of hypocracy and convenient forgetfulness, and I should have cited it.

[Foo]

Wait there's more!

I received an email from someone the other day was approx 75% of the way through remaking one of my maps without permission, and then he decided to ask me if it was ok.

Let's put my response this way - he's no longer making it.

ANYONE who chooses to remake someone else level should ALWAYS seek permission before even starting the level!!! Where the hell is the honour in the Quake community these days?

Most newbies have NO respect for others and will blatantly rip off other peoples work without blinking twice. This is DIGUSTING.

This map SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED. You are ripping off a very talented mapper who has given the community some amazing work over the years, and this is how you reward him?

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether you are a mapper or not, and whether your intentions are good or not. WAIT FOR THE MAPPER TO AUTHORISE YOUR WORK OR DONT RELEASE IT.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

This all rests on the knowledge that hub's first remake wasn't authorised. Since someone else has corroborated that there was a thread confirming it, that looks likely to be true. If not then I don't have an argument and I'll drop it. But current evidence points to the guy being a bit of an idiot TBH...

[Hannibal]

Oi.

Madam doth protest too much methinks? :icon25:

Leftover guilt can be a stinky cologne...or something.

[Foo]

Good point, I'll drop it. It's not entirely relevant to the topic either I guess

[Hannibal]

Good point, I'll drop it. It's not entirely relevant to the topic either I guess

Just to be clear. I was agreeing with you (at least in part), and I know for a fact that the first aero wasn't authorized. I'm just being charitable to Hub in thinking he modified his views via reason, even though the strident tone of the posts you cited may be evidence of a little leftover guilt on his part.