Some Legal Questions About Daggerfall Unity

[Deepfighter]

Well, I am quite happy that this topic got necrophiled, as my finger already tingled in the other thread to get some things straight regarding legal opinions you, jayhova, give here and there. Please don't see it as bragging, more in a way of giving more details, which is important for people who may read that thread and take everything for granted.

First of all, the IP laws of the world are not entirely harmonised, which makes it difficult to give clear answers, as it also depends on the jurisdiction.

I also saw earlier when I was looking for a clearly stated answer to this (like this necro post) a comment making it sound like Bethesda owns all this. Surely you jest jayhova. I hope this is not the case, if so did this happen sometime after this necro post because above does not sound like that is the case. Is there some history that can be shared like what was done at OpenMW engine.

You could use the code used to create DFU if you used all original assets and substantially changed the play mechanics of the original game to be substantially different. That is to say you would need to make any new game you offered for sale to be as mechanically different from Daggerfall as Daggerfall is from Gurps or D&D.

Of course, only if you stay legit to the license of DFU.

File formats are not copyrightable. They might theoretically be patentable but this is likely untenable. Think of a file format as being like a book while you can copyright the content of the book you cannot copyright how the book is constructed.

No, you can't copyright a book. It is no register right like a trademark or patent, you acquire a copyright automatically by creating something which is copyrightable - a subtle difference but massively important!

-----

I use this thread - as it fits better here - to make an answer on a different thread, where I want things to be clarified:

Trademarks and copyrights are both intellectual property. However, they are not the same thing. All the code, artwork, lore, etc. are copyrighted works. As such they are protected. They are not however protected into perpetuity. Trademarks, on the other hand, are protected into perpetuity. They are also may not be subject to the same "fair use" criteria as copyrighted material.

It would be helpful if you would have added that "fair use" is a pure US doctrine, which does not apply in other countries. Furthermore, fair use is only applicable for copyrighted materials, not for trademarks in any form. More importantly, you can't really rely on that alone, even in the US. There were to much cases where people thought of getting around with fair use, but well...

It's difficult to claim anyone is committing trademark infringement if they are not trading anything. If someone paints a painting of a street scene with a mcdonalds sign in it can they be prevented from then selling that painting? No. Can they be prevented from selling prints of that painting? No. There is a certain leeway to be had in artistic representation. What you are not allowed to do is make representations for commercial purposes or to make false claims or inferences.

You contradict yourself with this paragraph. Seriously, on the one hand you write that commercial use is not allowed, on the other hand you write here that selling a painting with third party rights involved is no infringement. Of course, if someone sells a painting with a McDonalds logo in the background this is literally an infringement. You can even argue as far as that you sold the painting only because of the logo of a very well known burger franchise. It's hard to argue against that and this has been seriously argued before and is a valid statement. So yes, selling of these paintings can be prevented. Similiar problems in movies or video games. Just saying.

[communityus]

Thanks Deepfighter,

Good to clarify. So to state in a easy sentence:

Change all content - don't try for "fair use" do your own thing and remove all references to DF, change rpg game mechanics too and good to go.


Easier to list what you can use from the Engine: (basically no content from DF or IP)
Streaming World
Standalone Scenes
Classic Enemies
Classic Weapons
World Time
Climate & Season
Action Support
Working Doors & Transitions
Tilemap Shader
Billboard Shader
Performance Features
Audio Import
MIDI Player
Event System

[jayhova]

First of all, the IP laws of the world are not entirely harmonised, which makes it difficult to give clear answers, as it also depends on the jurisdiction.

Quite true. I really can only speak of copyright laws in the united states where Bethsoft resides. They are unlikely to sue based on laws outside the united states however the location you reside in may have other laws and protections not here. However, if you distribute a product in the US that violates US copyright law that may be a problem. I am pointing out in very general terms what you should be wary of doing. If you are going to do any of these things I advise you to speak to an actual attorney where you live.

That being said, Copyright laws are actually very similar due to the prevalence of English common law and governments that wish to promote international trade.

You could use the code used to create DFU if you used all original assets and substantially changed the play mechanics of the original game to be substantially different. That is to say you would need to make any new game you offered for sale to be as mechanically different from Daggerfall as Daggerfall is from Gurps or D&D.

Of course, only if you stay legit to the license of DFU.

Actually, I did not bring that up since the licence that Interkarma licenced his code under was what was being discussed. His licence is less restrictive than the Unity licence which you must also adhere to. The reality is you might be able to use code written for DFU in all sorts of applications however nothing in the way DFU is licenced in anyway removes the burden of complying with the Unity licence. If your application uses Unity

File formats are not copyrightable. They might theoretically be patentable but this is likely untenable. Think of a file format as being like a book while you can copyright the content of the book you cannot copyright how the book is constructed.

No, you can't copyright a book. It is no register right like a trademark or patent, you acquire a copyright automatically by creating something which is copyrightable - a subtle difference but massively important!

-----

I use this thread - as it fits better here - to make an answer on a different thread, where I want things to be clarified:

I can only really clarify what I was saying in regards to answering a question of whether or not file formats are copyrightable. In general terms no. Both libreoffice and openoffice read and write Microsoft Office file formats. You can create whole new documents that exchange freely between computers without any concern that Microsoft will sue. That being said, there are file formats that employ patented compression or encryption methods and depending on where you live you may get into trouble for employing those methods for creating a file.

Trademarks and copyrights are both intellectual property. However, they are not the same thing. All the code, artwork, lore, etc. are copyrighted works. As such they are protected. They are not however protected into perpetuity. Trademarks, on the other hand, are protected into perpetuity. They are also may not be subject to the same "fair use" criteria as copyrighted material.

It would be helpful if you would have added that "fair use" is a pure US doctrine, which does not apply in other countries. Furthermore, fair use is only applicable for copyrighted materials, not for trademarks in any form. More importantly, you can't really rely on that alone, even in the US. There were to much cases where people thought of getting around with fair use, but well...

I don't believe it would be useful or helpful because most of what you have said is IMHO simply untrue. Fair use is NOT purely US doctrine. The doctrine comes down, as far as I am aware, from English common law and may in fact predate the existence of the United States. What may constitute "fair use" will undoubtedly vary from place to place and the doctrine may have another name but nearly all places in the world have laws that define when it is fair to use others owned IP for your own use and even enrichment. A clear example of this is a person that reviews a book. Fair use doctrine allows one to quote pieces of copyrighted material for the purposes of criticism.

Second, the notion that fair use never applies to trademarks is IMHO untrue. I can go to just about anywhere in the world and teach a class on logo design. In that class I can use the trademarked logos of 100 different companies, publish handouts to distribute to students with the logos on them, and otherwise use those logos to teach my class. I can charge money to do this. Not one of those companies could successfully sue me, force me to stop, or force me to pay for the use of their logos.

Fair use is the doctrine that protects individuals, publishers etc. from companies that might otherwise use draconian IP laws to restrict free speech. I can say, for instance, Mcdonalds sucks. Their food is greasy, nasty, fattening and addictive. McDonalds cannot use the fact the name McDonalds is trademarked to stop me. They can in all likelihood stop me from opening any restestaurant in most places in the 1st world named McDonalds.

It's difficult to claim anyone is committing trademark infringement if they are not trading anything. If someone paints a painting of a street scene with a mcdonalds sign in it can they be prevented from then selling that painting? No. Can they be prevented from selling prints of that painting? No. There is a certain leeway to be had in artistic representation. What you are not allowed to do is make representations for commercial purposes or to make false claims or inferences.

You contradict yourself with this paragraph. Seriously, on the one hand you write that commercial use is not allowed, on the other hand you write here that selling a painting with third party rights involved is no infringement. Of course, if someone sells a painting with a McDonalds logo in the background this is literally an infringement. You can even argue as far as that you sold the painting only because of the logo of a very well known burger franchise. It's hard to argue against that and this has been seriously argued before and is a valid statement. So yes, selling of these paintings can be prevented. Similiar problems in movies or video games. Just saying.

What may seem like a contradiction is simply a demonstration of the intricacies of IP law. Again, this comes down to what does and does not constitute "fair use". Let's look at another example. Let us say I am a professional photographer and I photograph a person wearing clothing with a trademarked logo on it; say a Nike shirt. I am allowed to sell or licence that photo as I please. This is in fact common practice. If you pick up a magazine just about anywhere in the world you will see pictures of people with corporate logos on their clothes. That magazine has no obligation to ask the owner of that logo for permission to do so even if it puts that company in a poor light.

If Charles Manson is photographed in a Nike shirt there is nothing Nike can do about it. If I painted pictures of Nazis and replaced all the swastikas with Nike logos. I could likely do so, publish a book with the pictures in it, licenced the pictures to be published elsewhere, etc. If Adidas did that it would be infringement. Social commentary is generally considered fair use and in the US protected speech. Also as trademarks become more and more a part of the public sphere, the corporations have less power to restrict their representation in that sphere.

I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advise, your mileage may vary.

[communityus]

...

You contradict yourself with this paragraph. Seriously, on the one hand you write that commercial use is not allowed, on the other hand you write here that selling a painting with third party rights involved is no infringement. Of course, if someone sells a painting with a McDonalds logo in the background this is literally an infringement. You can even argue as far as that you sold the painting only because of the logo of a very well known burger franchise. It's hard to argue against that and this has been seriously argued before and is a valid statement. So yes, selling of these paintings can be prevented. Similiar problems in movies or video games. Just saying.

What may seem like a contradiction is simply a demonstration of the intricacies of IP law. Again, this comes down to what does and does not constitute "fair use". Let's look at another example. Let us say I am a professional photographer and I photograph a person wearing clothing with a trademarked logo on it; say a Nike shirt. I am allowed to sell or licence that photo as I please. This is in fact common practice. If you pick up a magazine just about anywhere in the world you will see pictures of people with corporate logos on their clothes. That magazine has no obligation to ask the owner of that logo for permission to do so even if it puts that company in a poor light.

If Charles Manson is photographed in a Nike shirt there is nothing Nike can do about it. If I painted pictures of Nazis and replaced all the swastikas with Nike logos. I could likely do so, publish a book with the pictures in it, licenced the pictures to be published elsewhere, etc. If Adidas did that it would be infringement. Social commentary is generally considered fair use and in the US protected speech. Also as trademarks become more and more a part of the public sphere, the corporations have less power to restrict their representation in that sphere.

I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advise, your mileage may vary.

My experience has been in the 2nd case "social commentary" this would be exactly "fair use." In above photography perhaps there is more leeway, however in TV and broadcast my understanding is different. I still see logos blurred there. It usually boils down to if the network has a good relationship with the brand. (For complete thought see [1] below)

All of the past few posts seem to still be about content copying no nos and what is the IP; answer - rpg mechanics, story, art, audio and video, map, names and places etc. The work here is greater than this, it is an engine. And I am trying to make a clear post for others est. what constitutes the engine for production and commercial use.

I am trying to have this forum post serve as the best yet had definitive answer to the question, "can I use this great project for my product and sell it?" (aside from legal counsel or inquiring directly from Bethesda and communicating directly as to avoid any infringement see [2].)

One thing I haven't discovered yet -> do the DF Unity Tools allow us to create/export those file types? I assume so, otherwise funny we are worried about being able to use the format in a "its the same as book binding not being IP, but the content in the book is."

Best tutorials to learn these tools to create/export these file formats are found where? Please.
- Bit of a practical question here for the more initiated. How long in hours est. if one person took on the task of just recreating these so the project was functional with boxy place holder art and lorem ipsum text? 8 hours a day, less than a month?

There is still the unanswered "clean room" question, was any care taken to not directly borrow from the Bethesda DF code base. I have never gotten the impression df was decompiled by @Interkarma...so one is safe to assume "clean room" was used or rules are in effect.

[1] I think it is important to say. Even if one is in the right. Bethesda can still try to sue, and risk negative rep by doing so for a long outdated free product but it is indeed important to their brand and are duty bound to protect their TM. In worst case...one must also be willing to get cease and desist notices, and be threatened - even if they are in the right, to be sued even if in the right and to show up to court to have the use deemed legal or perhaps even then get an unfair ruling and continue up the chain until it is done. Anyone can sue anyone, how much to fight for your freedom is up to you.

Does everyone with experience in these things tend to agree with the points made in this thread and where and how the code can be used with modifications stated in this thread.

[2] Lastly, @Interkarma and others on dev team. I am happy to champion this question with Bethesda. Or if any members who have been around longer want to do this and push for agreement let me know. I personally think it is time to answer this clearly and I plan to even create a doc, what is only fan and this forum usable and then what can be used in production. Who knows maybe Bethesda will just give blessing. I think we are ready to answer this for the community. The whole scope and almost a decade of work deserves to be lifted up and used by all. Lets get it sorted, for reals

[communityus]

...

...

Of course, only if you stay legit to the license of DFU.

Actually, I did not bring that up since the licence that Interkarma licenced his code under was what was being discussed. His licence is less restrictive than the Unity licence which you must also adhere to. The reality is you might be able to use code written for DFU in all sorts of applications however nothing in the way DFU is licenced in anyway removes the burden of complying with the Unity licence. If your application uses Unity

Long term plan port DFUnity Engine to Godot Engine almost as single entity and functioning as a open product upstream with Unity for game product releases specifically.

Though special licensing through Unity might also be a faster track at first esp. with their recent pivot to carrying a more open license.
https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/ou ... alos-game/

[jayhova]

Well as I say "Fair Use" exists just about everywhere. What changes is what constitutes fair use in any particular region of the world. For instance I get medications from India because India does not enforce patent laws on particular chemical compounds. In this case they have no law at all as opposed to an exception to the law.

[communityus]

One thing I haven't discovered yet -> do the DF Unity Tools allow us to create/export those file types? I assume so, otherwise funny we are worried about being able to use the format in a "its the same as book binding not being IP, but the content in the book is."

Best tutorials to learn these tools to create/export these file formats are found where? Please.
- Bit of a practical question here for the more initiated. How long in hours est. if one person took on the task of just recreating these so the project was functional with boxy place holder art and lorem ipsum text? 8 hours a day, less than a month?

There is still the unanswered "clean room" question, was any care taken to not directly borrow from the Bethesda DF code base. I have never gotten the impression df was decompiled by @Interkarma...so one is safe to assume "clean room" was used or rules are in effect.

Any info on these? Esp. nitty gritty info on tool use and export? I saw a new mulitplayer implementation here that used DaggerfallConnect in a multiplayer way, I wasn't sure if that meant somehow streaming the file like a sqllite setup. Interkarma said the DFConnect was being used in new ways. So I trying to demystify this.

More on Fair Use:
It is also handled different by sector. I had an audio engineer give an example of how the music biz handles copyright law. He said imagine you are in a court room, they pull random people off the street and play the clip of audio in question. If the random people say it sounds like say Mission Impossible, violated. If they say they don't recognize it, you are in clear. So in some ways public opinion matters in practice. Crazy right?

For my use case, and the clear path I am trying to plow ahead for others...I do not think "fair use" will come into play because rewriting and doing all new content in completely different way more looking to use the engine not rework DF (though that is also a worthy pursuit). Unless there is some circumstance in which you think the code use and engine use itself fall under fair use issues - It is good to clear up for those wondering, but the sure path I think avoids it. But to agree with you, there are ways to do it.

[jayhova]

More on Fair Use:
It is also handled different by sector. I had an audio engineer give an example of how the music biz handles copyright law. He said imagine you are in a court room, they pull random people off the street and play the clip of audio in question. If the random people say it sounds like say Mission Impossible, violated. If they say they don't recognize it, you are in clear. So in some ways public opinion matters in practice. Crazy right?

Bear in mind this is not law but case law. In the case of music sampling you can sample instruments, or even little riffs from sources. In reality they would not pull random people in outside of the jury. The case law is based on whether or not a piece of music is recognizable. If an average person can identify a piece of music then it is recognizable.