TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 44 of 44

Thread: (Yet another) Stock-derived resource legality discussion

  1. #26
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2009
    Location: WearyTaffer
    Quote Originally Posted by Purgator View Post
    Scenes from the Ttlg Forum retirement home...
    Good one!
    Copyright Commandos strike again!

  2. #27
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2001
    Location: the Sheeple Pen
    Why is Judith taking so much flak in here for answering what was actually asked? Yes, the copyright owners (whoever they may be) most likely don't care at this point, but that still doesn't make it legal. It's like crossing a quiet road in the middle of the night and walking through red lights when there's no traffic anywhere to be seen - most likely nothing will happen, and even if someone saw you, they probably wouldn't care, but it still wouldn't be legal.

  3. #28
    Let's assume, Judith is correct. Does anyone care after 20 years? LGS, EIDOS? Both are resting in peace.
    Some 70 years after copyright holder's death (not sure about dissolving of business entity). Eidos isn't dead though, it was bought out by Square Enix. Sure, they're probably a bunch of nice chaps there, who prefer to have their classic brand kept alive and being talked about decades after release, but then again, that wasn't what Marzec asked about. And while Poland is probably viewed as one of the lesser markets by any AAA publisher, there were cases here, when a movie distributor sued some amateur translators, who were doing their job faster than the company ones, translating some Korean or Japanese movies that were to be published officially.

    Oh my goodness, the meta-irony is just *too* delightful!
    Scenes from the Ttlg Forum retirement home...
    You're like that driver in a joke, who thinks that everyone but him is driving against the traffic, so the irony is delightful indeed.

  4. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomi View Post
    Why is Judith taking so much flak in here for answering what was actually asked? Yes, the copyright owners (whoever they may be) most likely don't care at this point, but that still doesn't make it legal. It's like crossing a quiet road in the middle of the night and walking through red lights when there's no traffic anywhere to be seen - most likely nothing will happen, and even if someone saw you, they probably wouldn't care, but it still wouldn't be legal.
    Thank you, that's basically it

  5. #30
    Member
    Registered: May 2005
    Location: Full on Kevel's mom
    Remember, April is autism awareness month. Only a few days to go!

  6. #31
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2011
    Location: Montpellier, France
    Look Judith, if your only purpose in life is to slide into threads and start acting like a holier-than-thou, annoying little contrarian you should seriously reconsider because you're certainly not making any friends. You know exactly what the world legal means in this specific context. Using this specific word in this specific context is not unheard of and you're the only one having a problem with it.

  7. #32
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2001
    Location: the Sheeple Pen
    At least I got the impression that Marzec was actually asking about legal stuff, not some contest rules or anything?

    My question is if Looking Glass Studios works are public domain or there is any license allowing it.
    I thought that Judith's reply to that was perfectly reasonable, and I wouldn't blame him for derailing this thread.

  8. #33
    You know exactly what the world legal means in this specific context.
    No I do not. This is the first time I've saw it used like that. I always saw it being used in these contexts exclusively https://www.thefreedictionary.com/legal

    But again, that's not the point, as Marzec actually asked about legal ramifications. And he got an answer. And then the whole bunch of people got offended, because their feelings about certain matters are not in line with the law. Great work with all the knee-jerk reactions though, I hope you're proud of yourself.

  9. #34
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2004
    Location: Ireland/Poland
    Legal does not always mean good or right, and illegal does not always mean bad or wrong. While the letter of law may indicate that derived resources are 'illegal', there is no actual harm being done to anyone. Years of this practice showed that this is a case, as there was no complaint from any game developer nor distributor. In fact, this community is making a big favor to the Thief and SS2 copyrights owners, as this helps selling the product still after 20 years (even if the income is not huge).

    That doesn't mean that clarifying the legal status is wrong or is a form of 'attack' on this community. Personally, I'm OK with the knowledge, that this may be an activity at the edge of legality, yet it's so innocent that I have no doubts, that there's nothing wrong with playing around with the original game resources, within the realm of fanmissions. It's a bit like all the fanmission authors are Robin Hoods of digital entertainment. Except that the sheriff of Nottingham doesn't even care about this activity. No, in fact - we've been given the bow and arrows by sheriff, so he must expect and accepts a bit of mess going around in the woods...
    So, unlike the real Robin Hood - we can feel safe.

  10. #35
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2008
    Location: Much-Grovelling-In-The-Maw
    Let's not forget SS2. Are shock-derived resources legal?

  11. #36
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2017
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-us...-wrap_licenses

    Well, I don't remember ever having to hit "I accept" when downloading off steam/GoG, though maybe perhaps there was one for straight installs off the CDs? Also a little dive into looking up court cases provides more examples of it being ruled against if you want to do some snooping.

    It seems just like with GDC talks, Judith takes another thing at face value without actually contemplating anything
    Last edited by Psych0sis; 28th Mar 2019 at 16:03.

  12. #37
    Member
    Registered: May 2008
    Location: Southern,California
    hands Judith a healing fruit scratch and sniff sticker you deserve it

  13. #38
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2016
    Location: The Mystic's Keep
    Quote Originally Posted by downwinder View Post
    hands Judith a healing fruit scratch and sniff sticker you deserve it
    For someone who's been arguing that they're grapes for the past several weeks, you've jumped onto the healing fruit bandwagon awfully quickly.

  14. #39
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    This was an amusing read, folks. Thanks!

  15. #40
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2008
    Location: Much-Grovelling-In-The-Maw
    I've never seen gravy in Thief. Are stock-derived sauces legal?

  16. #41
    Member
    Registered: May 2008
    Location: Southern,California
    Quote Originally Posted by McTaffer View Post
    For someone who's been arguing that they're grapes for the past several weeks, you've jumped onto the healing fruit bandwagon awfully quickly.
    i posted on other board i know dromed name is purpturd and in game its called healing fruit,but they are suppose to be grapes but in 1998 it was not a easy task to make them look like the real thing due to limitation to design,basically they not going to put so much time into making a texture for in those times for a game,alot of games did junk design on items in game during those times,that is what makes them so great

    and also mctaffer i joined "the order of the healing fruit" and left the downwinders,i took dewdrop with me and my intruder painting

  17. #42
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2006
    Location: France (Saint-Gobain)
    I think the best thing is not create anything, that way you are sure you're not committing any illegality.

  18. #43
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2009
    Location: Cracow, Poland
    Some people here take the topic too much philosophically.

    The copyright and licensing topic is a set of well defined rules and facts. I work close to those topics, together with their connection to distributing the intellectual property over the Internet, since my academic activities and till now, during my professional work and hobby initiatives. Violation of copyright wont make any penal or financial consequences for any of us, in this specific context (fan missions) and this specific intellectual property (256x256 textures). That's because the fact many of you write about, the copyright holder wont be interested in taking actions.

    My concern is I was thinking about making a resource pack of stock-derived resources. Making derivative works creates possibilities and would make the contest creations more interesting. Providing it to all contestants would make the gameplay more attractive - if we try hard enough, we could repeat the TMA first time playing feeling on this special occasion. It could be achieved by eliminating the "yawn factor" of seeing the same visuals and audio again.

    If you like the idea, please work on the resource pack. However, I'm afraid I can not participate in something that is questionable for me and is also related to something I earn my living for. That will be true until someone prooves the thing is legal. In the end, you can eventually expect from me a stock based fan mission

  19. #44
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2006
    Location: France (Saint-Gobain)
    Just kidding Marzec, i share also your opinion, i voted for authors to use new custom material in the contest mission to avoid seeing over and over again the same Thief 2 stuff.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •