Add-on copyright? (Lol?)

[DontCare4Free]

this is the way it works with legal stuff, it is illegal to distribute and make money off of someone else's mod, it is not illegal to link someone to a mod's direct download. it is unethical to distribute someone's mod because it reduces their ad revenue, fame, or both. unethical and illegal are two different things. this also works with other game's mods and texture packs.

Depends on whether you have a license to distribute it.
Also, here's the funny thing. Because of something here called "kasettskatt" (tape tax) or "privatkopieringsersättning" (private copying "payback"/whatever) it'd actually be legal anyway as long as:

• It's not DRM-protected (check) and
• I consider the recipient a friend.

Not sure about whether a similar law exists in the US.

[Ad Bot]

[CityRPG]

1. All Add-ons for Blockland are property of Eric Hartman.
2. CityRPG is my product. Your drug mod is a manipulation of an existing product.
3. Attempting to copyright a modified version of my product is asking to be hit with a lawsuit from yours truly.

[DontCare4Free]

2. CityRPG is my product. Your drug mod is a manipulation of an existing product.
3. Attempting to copyright a modified version of my product is asking to be hit with a lawsuit from yours truly.

I can see this, yes, but what law/eula line is

1. All Add-ons for Blockland are property of Eric Hartman.

based on?

[CityRPG]

I can see this, yes, but what law/eula line is based on?

Badspot owns Blockland. 100% of all Add-ons use code in Blockland. Therefore, Add-ons are a modification of Blockland and cannot be distributed for money.

Badspot owns the add-on, but you are liable for it. If it contains copyrighted material itself (such as music), then you get to deal with the legal drama.

[Böltster]

1. All Add-ons for Blockland are property of Eric Hartman.

i remember reading something a long time ago that said exactly this

[DontCare4Free]

Badspot owns Blockland. 100% of all Add-ons use code in Blockland. Therefore, Add-ons are a modification of Blockland and cannot be distributed for money.

Badspot owns the add-on, but you are liable for it. If it contains copyrighted material itself (such as music), then you get to deal with the legal drama.

Where is that clause?
Also, I'm doubting that could even apply if you only use the APIs that TGE itself provides.

[CityRPG]

Where is that clause?
Also, I'm doubting that could even apply if you only use the APIs that TGE itself provides.

Are you forgetting what an add-on is? It uses Blockland's add-on system.

[DontCare4Free]

Are you forgetting what an add-on is? It uses Blockland's add-on system.

Saying that that makes it ineligible for being a copyrighted work on it's own is like saying that Microsoft owns Flash because the runtime is ported to IE.

[Böltster]

How abouts we just find out from badspot

[CityRPG]

Saying that that makes it ineligible for being a copyrighted work on it's own is like saying that Microsoft owns Flash because the runtime is ported to IE.

Look, I have never heard of an add-on for Blockland that is not made to compliment Blockland. That is the definition of an add-on.

If you want to scrutinize minuscule potential loopholes in what is a de facto rule, go ahead. But if you brought up some add-on to a Judge that had no idea what the forget an "API" is and tried to pass your Blockland add-on as Intellectual Property, she'd laugh in your face.

[DontCare4Free]

Look, I have never heard of an add-on for Blockland that is not made to compliment Blockland. That is the definition of an add-on.

That still doesn't mean that it isn't a work on it's own merits in the copyright sense.

[CityRPG]

That still doesn't mean that it isn't a work on it's own merits in the copyright sense.

What do you want to hear from me?

If you're making some generic ass script that would work for any TGE product? Maybe you could copyright it, but at that point you're talking about something from GarageGames, not Blockland.

[Chrono]

Any derivative works become property of Step 1: Games.

[DontCare4Free]

Under the U.S. Copyright Act, a transfer of ownership in copyright must be memorialized in a writing signed by the transferor. For that purpose, ownership in copyright includes exclusive licenses of rights. Thus exclusive licenses, to be effective, must be granted in a written instrument signed by the grantor. No special form of transfer or grant is required. A simple document that identifies the work involved and the rights being granted is sufficient. Non-exclusive grants (often called non-exclusive licenses) need not be in writing under U.S. law. They can be oral or even implied by the behavior of the parties. Transfers of copyright ownership, including exclusive licenses, may and should be recorded in the U.S. Copyright Office. (Information on recording transfers is available on the Office's web site.) While recording is not required to make the grant effective, it offers important benefits, much like those obtained by recording a deed in a real estate transaction.