New FMV how important is this to the community?

[Chojun]

Copyright infringement...

Laws aren't pick-and-choose...  If you refuse to distribute the original FMVs, then why should we be able to just copy and redo them?

[kage]

presenting the same concept and copying the movies aren't the same thing. i think the new movies should be different, but hold to the same storyline. afaik, the story came with the source.

[Chojun]

I see.  Well, that would be pretty cool.  But to basically re-create the old FMVs, that would be copyright infringement.  But what about the different faction logos (Collective, New Paradigm, etc)?  Copy those and...

[kage]

i guess this is an oppurtunity for artists to get creative.  maybe we should hold some kind of concept-art contest for the logos, and then refine them into videos.

[DevUrandom]

Ok, we discussed this yesterday in IRC...
The sourcecode of Warzone is definitely covered by the GPL. We also assumed In Good Faith that the data is also covered by that. This includes the few snippets of rpl videos which were included.
Those are mainly faction logos and other simple things, as far as I know.

So I think we are safe (under our own assumption that is) using the logos, story line, texts and the likes. Just those parts which were not included (the videos telling this story) have to be redone to be shiped with WZ.

[wardog]

cool im a animator myself i might make one for you to use  ;D
does it have to be a moving one ???

[kage]

cool im a animator myself i might make one for you to use  ;D
does it have to be a moving one ???

lol. an animator that doesn't like to make "moving" animations.

[Per]

Actually, a few of the videos were in the source code release, and I think they contain all the logos etc., so we should be well covered there.

Listing them here:

-r--r--r-- 1 per per 1426481 1999-04-07 15:13 BrfCom4s.rpl
-r--r--r-- 1 per per  858029 1999-04-07 15:14 BrfCom.rpl
-r--r--r-- 1 per per  716811 1999-04-07 15:13 end.rpl
-r--r--r-- 1 per per 1169567 1999-04-07 15:14 IncomInt.rpl
-r--r--r-- 1 per per 1139081 1999-04-07 15:14 IncomTns.rpl
-r--r--r-- 1 per per  731533 1999-04-07 15:14 nexend.rpl
-r--r--r-- 1 per per  767814 1999-04-07 15:14 npend.rpl
-r--r--r-- 1 per per  993288 1999-04-07 15:14 npstart.rpl
-r--r--r-- 1 per per  686085 1999-04-07 15:13 player.rpl
-r--r--r-- 1 per per 1413050 1999-04-07 15:14 Plyr4sec.rpl
-r--r--r-- 1 per per 1088422 1999-04-07 15:13 PrjUpDat.rpl
-r--r--r-- 1 per per 1086316 1999-04-07 15:13 res_com.rpl
-r--r--r-- 1 per per  758784 1999-04-07 15:13 res_droid.rpl
-r--r--r-- 1 per per  754040 1999-04-07 15:13 res_pow.rpl
-r--r--r-- 1 per per  574513 1999-04-07 15:13 res_struttech.rpl
-r--r--r-- 1 per per  855778 1999-04-07 15:13 res_systech.rpl
-r--r--r-- 1 per per  670314 1999-04-07 15:14 res_weapons.rpl
-r--r--r-- 1 per per  602172 1999-04-07 15:13 Victory.rpl

[wardog]

lol. an animator that doesn't like to make "moving" animations.

no seriously look heres an example

[Giel]

presenting the same concept and copying the movies aren't the same thing. i think the new movies should be different, but hold to the same storyline. afaik, the story came with the source.

Even without that: the storyline is an idea. And copyright only applies to one expression of an idea, not to the idea itself. And since stories are still not patentable that doesn't apply either.

As for whether the movies should or should not be different that's a vagueness of law if you'd ask me. It may very well be legal, it might just as well not be fully legal. So sticking to the storyline but using different videos would probably be the safest bet (and more original as well ).

[Chojun]

index.php?topic=828.0


............................................................  >:(

[Olrox]

  By my opinion, that's not just moving in circles. That's moving in circles around the topic: The topic name is already a question. There's a topic called "getting FMV-s on wz 2100 ressurection project", where the same discussion was created. And ended. There's an topic actually in the fourth page of the development subsection that reads "FMV and briefing transcripts". The last post was in January 2007. And there are more, wich I think that were already deleted from the list because were dead already. And then, Grim asks a simple question: "New FMV how important is this to the community?", and people start to be attracted to their continuous orbit of copyright discussion. My vote is for "Copyright discussion leads to nothing but dead topics". And I pledge that we keep thinking abut the question of the topic, as it doesn't even mention copyright, copying or getting the early FMVs: it's about NEW FMVs, wich require NEW discussion and NEW opinions, like mine, wardog's and Grim's willing to help.
  Again, I say that my opinion is that the Maps and briefing are essential. I'm willing to help with sound effects.

[lav_coyote25]

and i second that... ;D


and with all the chat in and around and ove and under - the fmv's apparently are quite usefull to the community - so now we have a sound person willing to do the ... shoot..... sounds.... good.

[Chojun]

Warzone was fun and it was a new concept for an RTS game during its time.  However, the FMVs I believe are what defined the game.  It kept you eagerly playing through each mission so you could see the story unfold.

I think doing new FMVs is a great idea but again I question it in the strictest legal sense...  Forgive me for again beating this half-dead horse but I'm holding this community to its philosophies.  The whole reason why there is a discussion for new FMVs is because of the whole "FMVs weren't distributed with the source."  "So we can't use them."

OK, that's fine.  So the FMVs themselves are copyrighted, are they not?

Now, what would you foresee happening if someone were to create a (not-for-profit) Harry Potter comic or movie or fan-fiction?  I know the rules are very strict and I know of many people who have had cease and desist orders served against them for violating Trademark rights (case-in-point, fan art and fan fiction sites such as Elfwood; Elfwood has very strict rules regarding this).  So it would be highly convenient for this project to shut out the original FMVs but then go ahead and create new ones, essentially copying the old ones.  Where is the line drawn?  Where is the grey area?  Is there any grey area?

Even without that: the storyline is an idea. And copyright only applies to one expression of an idea, not to the idea itself. And since stories are still not patentable that doesn't apply either.

As for whether the movies should or should not be different that's a vagueness of law if you'd ask me. It may very well be legal, it might just as well not be fully legal. So sticking to the storyline but using different videos would probably be the safest bet (and more original as well  ).

Can you prove this?  Is this community willing to travel down this route without any legal advice?  Most (if not all) people here are pretty resolute about FMV use breaking GPL licensing and copyright law.  But this issue (new FMVs) is being, as I see it, conveniently overlooked.

People will argue with me about this, saying Trademark rights are not an issue, but if you say that, you're saying the same thing of the copyrights for the original FMVs.  By overlooking this issue you all are confirming what I have been saying all along:  The legal issues surrounding the FMVs are not an issue.

Still, people probably will never offer the FMVs on this site, so why wouldn't they be reluctant of even touching the FMVs content, even if it be by concept only?

Again, I wish to reiterate, I am not by any means an opponent to creating new FMVs; I'm holding this community to its own values.  The concept of creating new FMVs is an interesting idea, and I'm willing to help with SFX and music (along with MichaelB and any others).

Heh, and I also want to thank Coyote for always being so positive and one with an "always forward" point-of-view...  It's good to see that you haven't changed through the years

[Giel]

OK, that's fine.  So the FMVs themselves are copyrighted, are they not?

Unfortunately in this world: every "work of art or expression of thought" is implicitly copyrighted unless explicitly released into the public domain. And since the FMVs where not released under a license for us to use them, we cannot legally use these.

Now, what would you foresee happening if someone were to create a (not-for-profit) Harry Potter comic or movie or fan-fiction?  I know the rules are very strict and I know of many people who have had cease and desist orders served against them for violating Trademark rights (case-in-point, fan art and fan fiction sites such as Elfwood; Elfwood has very strict rules regarding this).  So it would be highly convenient for this project to shut out the original FMVs but then go ahead and create new ones, essentially copying the old ones.  Where is the line drawn?  Where is the grey area?  Is there any grey area?

Ask some judges; chances are that all will say there is a huge grey area, and that some, if not most, will say using another name than say "Harry Potter" is enough, while others would say the story line would have to be substantially different. (I've read about court cases concerning the Harry story where there where different outcomes for each case, even while the situation was largely similar.)

Even without that: the storyline is an idea. And copyright only applies to one expression of an idea, not to the idea itself. And since stories are still not patentable that doesn't apply either.

As for whether the movies should or should not be different that's a vagueness of law if you'd ask me. It may very well be legal, it might just as well not be fully legal. So sticking to the storyline but using different videos would probably be the safest bet (and more original as well ).

Can you prove this?  Is this community willing to travel down this route without any legal advice?  Most (if not all) people here are pretty resolute about FMV use breaking GPL licensing and copyright law.  But this issue (new FMVs) is being, as I see it, conveniently overlooked.

No I cannot prove this, this is something that can only be proven in court. And we all agree none of us would want to go there, right?
Anyway simply put: "copyright law deals with expressions, not with the ideas of which they are the expressions", every sane judge (and laywer) should agree with that statement. And in this case the storyline is the idea, and the orginal FMVs are one expression of that idea. By making substantially different FMVs, but sticking to the storyline we ought to be legally immune to copyright violation. It could b e concidered "plagiarism" by some though, but that's not a problem, as there is no law prohibiting plagiarism.

People will argue with me about this, saying Trademark rights are not an issue, but if you say that, you're saying the same thing of the copyrights for the original FMVs.  By overlooking this issue you all are confirming what I have been saying all along:  The legal issues surrounding the FMVs are not an issue.

Trademark law is an entirely different topic. And I won't even go there besides from saying: it doesn't apply to Warzone 2100, as there is no party holding a trademark on it anymore.

Even though some large companies and laywers like to throw stuff like copyright law, trademark law and patent law into one big pile they like to call "intellectual property" you have to keep in mind that there still is _no_ law acknowledging "intellectual property" (and I hope it'll stay that way!). In our case only copyright applies, trademarks and patents don't.

Still, people probably will never offer the FMVs on this site, so why wouldn't they be reluctant of even touching the FMVs content, even if it be by concept only?

I believe I answered this above with "copyright deals with expressions, not ideas".