What are the license about these input files? I doubt that anyone would sue someone else for stealing his work by saying that they made the actual movie themself(even if this is a bit cheap)... so does it would be something around BSD, GPL or creative commons license?
Some people are still asking if they have the right to post on youtube or wathever... and there some submision where the author doesn't seem to be around, so what they should do?
Even if the input file is open-source his author may want add some restriction and I won't give example about this kind of tricky topic. Just adding something about this in FAQ and this may be clear some people mind.
since the site has moved there would be this to fill
Warp wrote:
IANAL, but claiming copyright on a playthrough of a copyrighted game seems rather shaky to me...
hm, I doubt that this is a big problem. It's very easy to avoid these complain, just like the emulator did.. thought yeah, if you want to be enought accurate to give a name on a product, you may want to add some kind of ™ or ®, if this should'nt be already done... Ok, anyway I suppose that this isn't very important for now.
On that matter, is it relevant that all emulators used to TASing are open-source?
My first language is not English, so please excuse myself if I write something wrong. I'll do my best do write as cleary as I can, so cope with me here =)
(ﾉಥ益ಥ）ﾉ
What are the license about these input files? I doubt that anyone would sue someone else for stealing his work by saying that they made the actual movie themself(even if this is a bit cheap)... so does it would be something around BSD, GPL or creative commons license?
Some people are still asking if they have the right to post on youtube or wathever... and there some submision where the author doesn't seem to be around, so what they should do?
Even if the input file is open-source his author may want add some restriction and I won't give example about this kind of tricky topic. Just adding something about this in FAQ and this may be clear some people mind.
Um, the big problem here isn't whether or not the information is copyrightable. (I'm going to talk in the context of the US Legal system, also, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice)
In the case of a civil lawsuit, which this would have to be, you would have to show how you were damaged. Most likely, your motion would be dismissed on a demurer, which is the legal term for "failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted."
In plain English, this equates to, we don't care if you are right or wrong, you haven't given any reason for us to believe you deserve compensation for these damages. Not getting your name next to a movie on 'some dumb gaming website' (quoth jimsfriend) is (most likely) not sufficient for a court to award you damages.
Thus, the copyright question is just silly. However, if adelikat and Nach start offering monetary rewards for certain achievements, then you'd have a claim for small claims court. (I doubt they will ever do that).
Additionally, you'd have an uphill battle to prove you created the initial movie. Anyone who works in a serious research industry keeps a lab notebook, that is signed and dated daily, so that things like this can even have a chance of being defendable in court. Otherwise, its your word versus the defendant's. [/url]
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
thought yeah, if you want to be enought accurate to give a name on a product, you may want to add some kind of ™ or ®, if this should'nt be already done...
I don't think it works like that. Unlike copyright, registered trademarks are not automatic, nor do you get them by simply claiming you do. Trademarks must be officially registered with the appropriate authority (and only after that can the owner claim trademark rights).
Copyright is automatic (and you don't even have to explicitly claim to own it), but what constitutes as copyrightable material and what doesn't can sometimes be rather fuzzy. (And simply claiming you own copyright on something non-copyrightable doesn't make it so.)
Not only do you have to register a trademark; you also have to defend it, or else you lose it. "Xerox" is a genericized trademark because, while it still is the name of the company, it also is the verb of "to make a copy of a paper document." They failed to defend it, so they lost the specific trademark rights.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Sorry, look like that I din't express me correctly.
Here is how I see this is working:
The actual input files are'nt simply playthought, but something related with art. These numerical information can be successfully rendred with an emulator(just like a JPEG or SVG, can be rendered with any image program that can support the image format).
The only problem that I could see, are simply about the title name of these file:
example : NES "best ending" Solomon's Key (USA) in 26:35.83 by Joel Yliluoma (aka. Bisqwit).
Solomon's Key might be Solomon's Key™ insthead, if there some trademark about it. If this is still a big problem, I suppose that we could remplace some word to be able to avoid some a trademark name.
There no means to start creating our own trademark.
Just grab a copyleft license, that fit correctly with the site like keeping the author name or wathever and there you go. What is wrong?
My point is that it might be difficult to enforce any license you choose (because licenses are always based on copyright, and it's not clear whether emulator movie files fall into copyright protection, especially since they are based on copyrighted material).
Joined: 11/30/2008
Posts: 650
Location: a little city in the middle of nowhere
I think although it may be hard to license a movie input file, for it's obscure medium, I do think that there can be a mutual understanding between parties on the internet which represent what you can do with the movie file, even if it can't be enforced.
My point is that it might be difficult to enforce any license you choose (because licenses are always based on copyright, and it's not clear whether emulator movie files fall into copyright protection, especially since they are based on copyrighted material).
Erm... no. If I was to make a parody of a song that song is still protected under copyright. IANAL but, an input file seems like it would be, at the very least, a derivative work under copyright law, which makes it copyrightable.
Therefore, I propose that we explicitly release all content on this site under CC non-commercial, Attrib, Derivative share alike. If we can get in touch with the authors to approve that. If nothing else, we can do so moving forward for all new submissions and publications if we have consensus.
Thanks to OP for bringing this up. This is important.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Joined: 11/30/2008
Posts: 650
Location: a little city in the middle of nowhere
Creative commons 3.0 wrote:
"Work" means the literary and/or artistic work offered under the terms of this License including without limitation any production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression including digital form ... a compilation of data to the extent it is protected as a copyrightable work.
I would say that as it stands, Input files hosted at TASvideos are able to be licensed under creative commons 3.0 at least by the definition of work provided here. Since their intention is to create entertainment, it could either be considered "art" or "a compilation of data".
I also think it should be the author's decision to license the work however they please (excluding copyright, since then distributing the files on site would be illegal) with no other restrictions. The default being Creative Commons 3.0: attribution-non-commercial-no-derivatives, as the author holds the most rights than any other license except copyright.
Then again, I'm not a lawyer, but licensing works should be a process facilitated by TASvideos in my opinion.
No-derivatives could cause problems since frequently new movies are made that pull input sequences from old movies.
Honestly I don't think this is worth worrying over. Right now we have a nice unofficial community understanding. I'm worried that trying to make that understanding into something official will create bad feelings all round and undermine the community.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Joined: 11/30/2008
Posts: 650
Location: a little city in the middle of nowhere
No-derivatives could cause problems since frequently new movies are made that pull input sequences from old movies.
Personally I think that is retarded sixofour type logic. It's like saying that piracy shouldn't be illegal because everyone does it, which is essentially what that is. The author holds the rights to the movie, whatever they may be, and it is our responsibility to respect those rights.
Honestly though I agree with the second part of your post even though I seemed a bit hypocritical.
Personally I think that is retarded sixofour type logic. It's like saying that piracy shouldn't be illegal because everyone does it, which is essentially what that is. The author holds the rights to the movie, whatever they may be, and it is our responsibility to respect those rights.
That's because reusing old input sequences in TASing is not piracy, but a normal way of getting around that was, mind you, respected and employed by TASers before they thought of licenses to use with their movies.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
The reason why I chose derivative share alike is because I kinda think of TAS movie files in the same terms as I think of free software. You release the file, and anyone who cares to is free to edit to make it better. Closed source TASing would be when people release avis only. Isn't that shady?
Plus, it guarantees that later on there isn't going to be a giant piss fit if someone else "stole" his or her work. And it makes things like the Sonic 3 movie explicitly ok.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
The only time someone is going to be unhappy about people 'stealing' portions of their work on this site is if they don't know what the site is about. Priderun etc
If someone takes someone else's movie and makes a very small change at the end which makes the movie a few frames faster, but otherwise completely identical to the previous, is it fair? He basically gets his name on a movie made by someone else. His only contribution was changing a few keystrokes at the end.
If you take that out of the context of previous contributions that "somebody else" was using in their run, that would probably make a workable case. But since every TAS builds up on a vast vault of somebody elses' work, you can't really claim ownership of the whole movie — at least not enough to force the new author to not use the same input sequences in their movie.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
If someone takes someone else's movie and makes a very small change at the end which makes the movie a few frames faster, but otherwise completely identical to the previous, is it fair? He basically gets his name on a movie made by someone else. His only contribution was changing a few keystrokes at the end.
This is an issue for the moderators of this website, not the government. Also, copyright is useless without a way to enforce it (as I said before). Look at the problems the RIAA is having enforcing copyrights on profitable, obviously copyrighted material.
This conversation on using the legal system to protect your movie files is just silly. In the case mentioned above, this is an internal site issue; not one for the US or other countries legal system.
Absurd that this discussion continues.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
I was not arguing pro using law to protect your movies. I was responding to this:
The only time someone is going to be unhappy about people 'stealing' portions of their work on this site is if they don't know what the site is about. Priderun etc
I was questioning that position in extreme cases, such as someone outright stealing someone else's movie in its entirety and making just minuscule changes at the end. I don't think it would be fair for such a person to get credit, at least not exclusive credit. That would be unfair towards the person who actually made the movie.
(Of course in practice it would be rare for such a movie to obsolete the previous one, because people would probably vote it down, but in theory it could happen.)
In the past the people who submit such movies have generally listed the person who made the bulk of the movie as a co-creator (e.g. in the current S3K run).
I think the community's doing a good job of self-regulating here and there's no need to make formal rules.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Show me where stolen input has ever been permitted in publication, ever.
In mmbossman's Turok TAS he used a few seconds of my input without my permission. I prefer to say that he used it instead of stole, because I don't think 'stealing' input is a big deal... actually, I'm honored if someone uses my input. But yeah, everyone's different.
Edit: This was originally posted in the Majora's Mask thread in reply to abeshi hexing in part of Grunz's WIPs into a full game TAS that he published on nicovideo. Got moved to here by the mods. Am also editing in quotes.
abeshi wrote:
Hi there, I will have to tell you some.
First of all, I'm really sorry for giving annoyance.
The video I made was very trifling rubbish, I think.
It was also foolish that I had made this without much thought.
I made it to upload to nicovideo for fun at all, and I referred to the greater part of existing video, it is fact.
As a result, however, this became just unskilled thing.
I was impolite to hurt every TASer's feelings and prides.
I didn't have right to make TAS, but I have done due to my foolishness.
Of course I have no intention to submit this, and I hope for forgetting me and my video.
Sorry for my poor writing but I am a novice English learner.
I think taking somebody else's input without asking them for permission, hexing part of it into a TAS, then publicly uploading that TAS to nicovideo/youtube goes very much against the rules of good behavior. So it's a good thing he has apologized, if you ask me.
adelikat wrote:
abeshi wrote:
I didn't have right to make TAS, but I have done due to my foolishness.
I hope the bullshit attitudes in this thread didn't cause you to think this. Of course you have a right to make the TAS!
I made it to upload to nicovideo for fun at all
EXACTLY. It is funny how bent out of shape people are getting over a video made for fun, on another site.
In Japanese culture being overly apologetic is a way of displaying respect to the opposite party. So you shouldn't take his words too literally in this case. "I had no right to create such a pathetic run" really just translates to something like "I'm awfully sorry, I didn't give much thought to it."
This may get slightly offtopic, but why is it an accepted standard to use routes, tricks, discoveries and everything from previous runs, but as soon as someone copies actual input it's a crime?
Remembering the discoveries of the ISG, then the SS with Nayru's Love, further refinements to ditch NL and use a variety of triggers, the forward SS and finally the extended SS, figuring all of that out took a large amount of time and skill, likely no less than the effort MrGrunz spent on the sequences that were copied (though it took a different skillset).
So why is it okay for MrGrunz (and everyone else) to use extended superslides without asking for permission, while input must not be touched?
(Sure, credit where credit is due, but then again I don't see any credit for discovering the IGS in all those zelda submissions, either. Not even on the game resources page, where those tricks are explained. Credits seem more of a courtesy option than a strict requirement.)
I actually didn't find anything in the rules forbidding the re-use of input, and I can only come up with one reason to treat input differently: "style". I can understand that copying the name input or personal stylistic choices may be considered disrespectful. But is that really the issue here? At least the point wasn't explicitely raised by anyone.
