The ethics of converting levels from other games

[wviperw]

Like Hannibal said, the whole reason Hubster is taking the stance he is taking now is *because* of the whole hub3aeroq3 incident. Though at the time he did agonize over it, he eventually released it w/o Preacher's permission and has since learned from this mistake.

[Lukin]

Making map remakes is like covering a song. Some guys sing/play only covers (Johnny Cash). It's OK, but I respect a lot more those who create something new. The worst thing is when someone sings the same song through whole his life. That's just sad.
So when I heard that Hubster work on Q4Aerowalk my reaction was something like this:
I really think he can create something that is new and is as good as Aero. Leave Aerowalk, Blood Run, dm4, Sacred etc. to noob mappers. When experienced/talented mapper is going to make a remake I hope he will at least refresh a less known map.

[JuanSanchez]

I'm looking at Quake 1 levels which haven't been sucessfully ported to Q3.

Such as:
Dapak1-12
Punish
Ultrav

Very interesting thread (even for a non-mapper such as myself). A few observations:

Some of the levels listed above appear to have already been remade for Half-life.
http://dmc-central.com/Downloads-index- ... d-12.phtml
The readmes credit the original author(s) but I don't know if they were made with their advance permission. It seems ironic that the levels are available for Half-life but not Quake 3.

Incidentally, the Half-life mod they were made for (Deathmatch classic) is a remake of Q1 multiplayer including maps. This mod was developed by Valve and is distributed through Steam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathmatch_Classic
I don't know the history but if there were legal obstacles preventing such remakes, I would not expect this mod to be available. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Using the term 'theft' normally implies the victim has suffered a loss. It could be argued that the original (custom) map authors have gained by these remakes as:
- their maps will be enjoyed by new players (in the same way as a remade song introduces that song to a new generation of listeners).
- they have been given credit, so more people will find out about the original mapper.
Even if the remake was without their permission, perhaps the author would lose more if their map had never been remade and a great design / layout drifted into obscurity. To continue the music analogy, what use is a great song if no-one ever listens to it?

(In the case of the maps listed above, it's clear that the authors won't be converting the maps themselves.)

More generally, the issue about asking for permission before attempting a remake seems to be one of etiquette. An artist creates a song through a creative process - in many ways, the artist may be more emotionally attached to the song than a mapper is to their map. If an artist doesn't need to obtain permission to remake someone else's songs, maybe this is acceptable in the music industry but viewed as disrespectful in the mapping community.

Just a few thoughts I had when reading the thread...