Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
06-06-2011, 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by syberghost View Post
Nope, pictures are copyrighted as well as writing.

Here's the form you fill out to register them in the US:

http://www.copyright.gov/forms/formva.pdf
Please explain to me the difference between using the klothos and ds9?

why is the klothos not ok, but ds9 is?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
06-06-2011, 10:14 AM
Well just got a response from Wishstone and was told that we can't use canonical ships.


I personally wish Cryptic would make an official EULA listing of DOs and DO NOTs.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
06-06-2011, 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
Well just got a response from Wishstone:



So it looks like anyone that is using any canonical ships are involation of the EULA.



I personally wish Cryptic would make an official EULA listing of DOs and DO NOTs.
well thats that then. it still sounds like wishstone is giving a guideline rather than a legal rule with the 'less you take line', as not using it still does not seem to make much sense, otherwise as i said before, how can we use ds9 in our missions if the klothos is not ok?

but if thats what they want then fair enough, its their game and so be it. they do need a more accurate EULA because a lot of this is down to interpretation and people will end up making mistakes.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
06-06-2011, 11:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Revo
well thats that then. it still sounds like wishstone is giving a guideline rather than a legal rule with the 'less you take line', as not using it still does not seem to make much sense, otherwise as i said before, how can we use ds9 in our missions if the klothos is not ok?

but if thats what they want then fair enough, its their game and so be it. they do need a more accurate EULA because a lot of this is down to interpretation and people will end up making mistakes.
Thats exactly why I would like the Devs to put up a EULA DOs and DON'Ts. Like you said, its too easy to misintreprit the EULA.

But if what Wishstone really was "guidance" than a legal ruling, then I would like the actual legal ruling. We need to know where that fine line is, so we don't cross it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
Seriously.

Every time anyone asks, Cryptic employees contradicts themselves and the EULA and make the restrictions tighter and tighter.

I understand not showing actors. I understand being limited to referencing ST 1-10 and the live action shows.

But I SWEAR that NOT ONCE has a EULA clarification led to an expansion of Foundry author rights. EVERY SINGLE TIME has taken something that would have been permissible that was once stated as permissible and taken it back, to a point where it's increasingly difficult to position our original stories as an expansion and expression of the Star Trek IP.

There is no good reason that we can't use an established ship name based on the EULA. None. But because Wishstone is not a lawyer, every request for a clarification will err on the side of "don't do it."

If I wanted to tell original sci-fi stories, I'd be doing it for a paycheck. The appeal of the Foundry is that I can tell STAR TREK stories.

We can't use established characters, established ships... Technically Klingonese is a EULA violation on multiple levels (although I haven't seen this pointed out by Cryptic yet). And if we can't use the ships, how long before we get told we can't use the DS9 interior AS DS9 and not some generic Nor? Or that we can't show Klingons?

My advice: stop asking for clarifications. Ticket anything you think is a violation, make what you want to make as you read the EULA, and let the ticketing system sort it out. Because asking will always result in a "No" unless Cryptic hires an intellectual property lawyer as a community rep, who is actually qualified to interpret the EULA and make rulings.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
06-06-2011, 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
Thats exactly why I would like the Devs to put up a EULA DOs and DON'Ts. Like you said, its too easy to misintreprit the EULA.

But if what Wishstone really was "guidance" than a legal ruling, then I would like the actual legal ruling. We need to know where that fine line is, so we don't cross it.
It will be all DON'Ts aside from "make original content." And it will be nothing but an expanding list of DON'Ts.

They aren't Intellectual Property Lawyers. They don't know how to read their own EULA. They will err on the side of caution.

If you ask if you can use DS9 as a mission location? The answer will be no. If you ask if you can use a Cryptic NPC in the Foundry like Stellys the Wise, who already exists as an NPC? The answer will be no.

And I'm going to come right out and say what I've been thinking forever: use of Klingonese or foreign language missions is also technically a no. Foreign language will be shot down because Cryptic can't police it, like the forums, and Klingonese words will be shot down because they're a foreign language and because most originate in books, which we're expressly prohibited from using as reference.

Which brings up the next point: technobabble.

If you're using the ship blueprints as reference? Don't. If you're using any supplementary technical resources? Don't. If you're using something not decipherable as plain English? Don't.

The EULA itself is becoming a paltry defense because the devs aren't fighting FOR the fullest and broadest range of rights ascribed to Foundry authors in it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
06-06-2011, 01:28 PM
Also, it occurs to me that the confirmation we got from Wishstone comes from a private correspondence, which we aren't allowed to post. This whole topic is a mess.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 38
06-06-2011, 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
So it looks like anyone that is using any canonical ships are involation of the EULA.
Not quite. The ships can still be referenced. Which I presume makes seeing the Defiant docked at DS9 acceptable, just as long as it's no more than background fluff.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 39
06-06-2011, 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Revo
Please explain to me the difference between using the klothos and ds9?

why is the klothos not ok, but ds9 is?
Because CBS gave Cryptic explicit permission to put that asset in the game for your use.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 40
06-06-2011, 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan99
Also, it occurs to me that the confirmation we got from Wishstone comes from a private correspondence, which we aren't allowed to post. This whole topic is a mess.
Well I edited just in case, but I always took it as talking about in factions and policy than something like this, which is more of a public need to know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan99
It will be all DON'Ts aside from "make original content." And it will be nothing but an expanding list of DON'Ts.

They aren't Intellectual Property Lawyers. They don't know how to read their own EULA. They will err on the side of caution.

If you ask if you can use DS9 as a mission location? The answer will be no. If you ask if you can use a Cryptic NPC in the Foundry like Stellys the Wise, who already exists as an NPC? The answer will be no.

And I'm going to come right out and say what I've been thinking forever: use of Klingonese or foreign language missions is also technically a no. Foreign language will be shot down because Cryptic can't police it, like the forums, and Klingonese words will be shot down because they're a foreign language and because most originate in books, which we're expressly prohibited from using as reference.

Which brings up the next point: technobabble.

If you're using the ship blueprints as reference? Don't. If you're using any supplementary technical resources? Don't. If you're using something not decipherable as plain English? Don't.

The EULA itself is becoming a paltry defense because the devs aren't fighting FOR the fullest and broadest range of rights ascribed to Foundry authors in it.
True, Wishstone and the Dev Team aren't IP Lawyers, but they do converse with the Cryptic legal department in situations like this to guide us.

Like I said before, hopefully we can have a sticky or editing Falcon's sticky to reflect these EULA questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeathenStorm View Post
Not quite. The ships can still be referenced. Which I presume makes seeing the Defiant docked at DS9 acceptable, just as long as it's no more than background fluff.
From what I'm told we can mention ships, people, and situations. But anything behind that "may" violate the TOS. So in that situation seeing the Defiant docked, would violate the agreement. But if you renamed the "Defiant", then it would be acceptable.


Anyhow, I asked Wishstone to make an official post here to make things ironclad.

So basically the Foundry users should live by the credo, "Don't show, but Reference".
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 11:16 PM.