Commander
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 407
# 91
08-30-2013, 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat140 View Post
After all, plenty of villains think they have a good reason for what they're doing.
Which essentially, on the topic of drugs, puts you in the position of having to give a pro-drug dealer argument in a mission that would be anti-drugs in order to "balance". This situation is common among the attitude of people who like to sit on the fence in order to avoid facing a situation. News outlets that try really hard to be impartial always fall into the trap of not realising that there are not always two equally legitimate sides to each argument. If a paper came out saying 1+1=2 they'd find the one nutter in the world who claimed that 1+1=3, give him equal air time then conclude that the answer must be somewhere between the two. To say you cannot take the side on any issue means that if you do an anti-slavery mission, you ought to put across the view, with equal time, that slavery is a good thing. Doesn't matter how far you remove it from the present day, slavery today, in the 24th century and in the 1600s is slavery and is wrong.

Conclusion: Do what the hell you like. If they ever do try to enforce it on something that would have made it into a Star Trek episode then I'm ready to start a picket line but I trust they have common sense not to.


Edit: News outlets trying to be impartial of course does not include the likes of Fox News who just say whatever comes out of their arse fastest.

Last edited by isthisscience; 08-30-2013 at 12:37 PM.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,852
# 92
08-30-2013, 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat140 View Post
Maybe they were actually trying to say, no real-life drugs or medication, rather than made-up ones? Otherwise a lot of missions, including their own, would be in difficulties. Heck, they're the ones who introduced the DOff missions trading in Ferasan funny tobacco.
That was my take on it. No REAL drugss are allowed to be mentioned. Ketracel White is another good example.

as for the pro-side.... The people who made Felicium did it for money. The Founders engineered the Ketracel "addiction" to keep the Jem'Hadar from revolting. In both cases you could play it off as them "needing" to make the stuff and give it to others in some way.
HAIL HYDRA!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I can haz joystick!
MMOs aren't charities. Corporations are supposed to make a profit. It's what they do.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,545
# 93
09-15-2013, 08:18 AM
@wombat140: Now that I think about, I think the "causes" clause just means, don't use a Foundry mission to tell your readers to vote Republican or whatever. I think veiled commentary on real-life issues is fine.

EDIT: I mean, hell, I named a starship USS Darfur in the mission I'm working on.
Vadm. Kanril Eleya, U.S.S. Andraste, Strike Team Alpha

Useful Links for Foundry Writers | "Bait and Switch" -- Fed Foundry project, Part 1 rewards-qualified!
Say no to Arc! STO standalone installer

Last edited by starswordc; 09-16-2013 at 07:22 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,261
# 94
09-20-2013, 10:12 PM
On the topic of things like made up drugs, Ketracel, and the like

in my experience with video games that include any addactive substances, they tend to come up against opposition from legislation, so the use of made up drugs, even when the drug is still clearly having the same effect

( Med-X is basically Morphine for example, i know it, anybody who plays fallout should know it, but they weren't alloud to publish the game in australia without changing the name of it )

so i would say yeah, they are just covering all the bases when it comes to the subject because some people with lawyers are far too touchy on the topic of What are in actual fact legitimate Medicines, let alone the illicit substances


These are the Voyages on the STO forum, the final frontier. Our continuing mission: to explore Pretentious Posts, to seek out new Overreactions and Misinformation , to boldly experience Cynicism like no man has before.......
Captain
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,746
# 95
11-14-2013, 10:49 AM
Prescription drug abuse is a serious and major problem. It would be a bad idea for an author to include real life drugs or even allude to their effects. I think Cryptic is being responsible by including that clause in their eula.
Play more STO Foundry! (You can thank me later.)

A TIME TO SEARCH: ENTER MY FOUNDRY MISSION at the RISA SYSTEM in the SIRIUS SECTOR
Commander
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 357
# 96
03-12-2014, 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archived Post View Post
There was some question about the exact meaning and limits of this portion of the EULA:
  • You may not use the first or last names, likenesses, or other depictions of any actors appearing in, or writers, directors, or producers of the Star Trek Properties.

StormShade clarified it here:

I have an issue with this and I think it needs further clarification as I can’t see how using a character from Star Trek in a Star Trek-based game solely for the purpose of creating playable Star Trek content that is owned entirely by Cryptic and Star Trek Online is a violation of any copyright infringement policy.

The concept that I can’t use Ambassador Worf with his likeness as that character for a STO mission involving Federation/Klingon issues or, for that matter, using Empress Sela in a Tal Shiar/Romulan mission is ridiculous. Am I to assume that any and all player character names with O’Brien, Kirk, Sulu, etc. are to be mandated to change their names as to avoid these ‘copyright issues’? I think not.

We players can not sell and do not own the foundry missions we create. 100% ownership goes back to Paramount via Cryptic. Therefore there is no possible threat of copyright infringement. Not to mention that the massive grey area in online content vs not-for-profit copyrighted material would blow this out of the water anyway.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,497
# 97
03-13-2014, 01:17 AM
It's only making a character look like someone else.

Check out my Foundry missions:
Standalone - The Great Escape - The Galaxy's Fair - Purity I: Of Denial - Return to Oblivion
The Defenders - Duritanium Man - The Improbable Bulk - [WIP] Commander Rihan
Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,630
# 98
03-13-2014, 05:29 AM
The issue isn't characters, it is the actors who played them. The actors all retain ownership of their likenesses and it is illegal to use their likeness without their permission. Not even Cryptic can do it. What Cryptic is empowered to do is negotiate with an actor like Denise Crosby or Tim Russ to use their likeness in the game. We are not empowered to do that.
The Foundry Roundtable live Wednesdays at 7:30PM EST/4:30PM PST on twitch.tv/thefoundryroundtable
"I would rather take a chance on getting a change made to the game through positive engagement than know for sure that I got a change made by complaining" -drogyn1701, May 14, 2014.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 209
# 99
03-13-2014, 12:20 PM
You can use the names of characters. That's Paramount or whoever's copyright, and Cryptic have a deal with them. What you can't use is the names of actors, because those are the individual actors' "copyright" and Cryptic have not got a deal with them. So you can name James T. Kirk in a mission, you just can't name William Shatner, and I don't see that that's likely to arise unless large-scale fourth wall silliness is going on.

The awkward part is the likenesses, because obviously - except for the most heavily made-up aliens - you can't normally use the likeness of a character without using the likeness of the actor. As Drogyn1701 points out, on the few occasions where Cryptic does that, they've had to ask the actor's permission specially beforehand. There are, of course, sometimes possible workarounds... if you could arrange for a character to be in disguise throughout the mission, for instance, then you're away.
Commander
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 357
# 100
03-13-2014, 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat140 View Post
You can use the names of characters. That's Paramount or whoever's copyright, and Cryptic have a deal with them. What you can't use is the names of actors, because those are the individual actors' "copyright" and Cryptic have not got a deal with them. So you can name James T. Kirk in a mission, you just can't name William Shatner, and I don't see that that's likely to arise unless large-scale fourth wall silliness is going on.

The awkward part is the likenesses, because obviously - except for the most heavily made-up aliens - you can't normally use the likeness of a character without using the likeness of the actor. As Drogyn1701 points out, on the few occasions where Cryptic does that, they've had to ask the actor's permission specially beforehand. There are, of course, sometimes possible workarounds... if you could arrange for a character to be in disguise throughout the mission, for instance, then you're away.

Hmmm.... that makes sense except.... my understanding is unless it is specifically written in the contract that the actor will retain all rights to the character he/she plays, including name, likeness, etc. that ownership reverts to the parent company under the Intellectual Property Rights – in this case, Paramount. This would mean that such character likenesses would be useable by Paramount and their subsidiaries for use in projects related to that character… i.e. Patrick Stewart’s likeness as Jean-Luc Picard for Star Trek titled games involving that character. Mr Stewart would have to give permission (and be contracted) for use of his voice and acting talents to bring life to that character, but the likeness is owned not by the actor but by the company.

With that logic in mind there should be no concerns about using said character likenesses in licensed Star Trek content where no contract is required to create content, such as the Foundry. The same applies to fans dressing up as characters from Star Trek, including well-known and named characters (Picard, Data, Worf, etc.) for licensed conventions. If what you suggest in your above statement is accurate, each of these people would be in violation of copyright laws and the practice would be banned.

I am not attempting to be argumentative about this and, no matter what it comes down to Cryptic’s final say… but it seems silly to me that we are allowed to create game client playable content but not able to use the characters associated with the game or its universe.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:50 AM.