Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 41
06-06-2011, 05:29 PM
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.
This is pretty much it.

But maybe something from Trek canon will help explain things.
I hope you guys know the TOS episode "The Naked Time". Quick overview:
Quote:
"The Enterprise orbits the planet Psi 2000, a world that was much like Earth in its distant past, tasked to observe the planet's impending disintegration. Commander Spock and Lieutenant Junior Grade Joe Tormolen beam down in environmental suits to a frozen surface laboratory and investigate the horrific deaths of the lab's scientists. "
Nothing for a few decades. Then along gomes TNG and with it the episode "The Naked Now".
And here is where things is very interesting for Foundry Authors. If you know both of these episodes, you know how you can reference one thing and drawing parallels... without having to copy anything AND still being able to tell your own story!
Quote:
On the bridge, Riker steps out from the turbolift towards Data at the science station. Riker wants some information and enlists the help of Data. He has a vague memory of reading something about a person fully clothed in a shower, relating to La Forge's find on the Tsiolkovsky. Data agrees to help Riker and commences an extensive library computer inquiry for Riker(...)
It is not impossible to have your own story. I trust in all of your being creative individuals who can make your own stories come to life.

We can also not give specific "Go Ahead's" in these matters.
We do however ask you to respect the intellectual property of others and we're very much repeating ourselves in this.

Make it your own. Mention something, if you feel your story cannot possibly stand without reference. But tell your own story. That really is what it comes down to.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 42
06-06-2011, 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan99
Technically Klingonese is a EULA violation on multiple levels (although I haven't seen this pointed out by Cryptic yet).
Nope. Paramount didn't hire Okrand to invent the Klingon language; they hired him to make actors sound Klingon. The language is his own invention, and he allows anybody to use it. Basically they hired him as a translator, not a writer.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 43
06-06-2011, 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WishStone View Post
We can also not give specific "Go Ahead's" in these matters.
We do however ask you to respect the intellectual property of others and we're very much repeating ourselves in this.
No we're not repeating ourselves. A ship is not a character. This question has not been answered before.

Someone earlier in this thread asked a very valid question: "Why can we have Deep Space 9 in our Foundry missions, but not the IKS Klothos?"

Please do not make the ruling on this yourself WishStone. Please talk with someone higher up about this. Because if we can't use the IKS Klothos then we also can't use DS9 or even Vulcan.

How can we tell Star Trek stories if we can't mention anything in the Star Trek universe that's copyrighted?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 44
06-06-2011, 06:43 PM
I appricate you taking time from your schedule to respond, Wishstone.


Indeed, great moments as those can make an episode with nothing but pure reference. But people do have a point regarding DS9 and the Klothos, is it because DS9 is a location, while the Klothos is a ship? Especially since the Klothos was only mentioned in name (since TAS isn't among the properties).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 45
06-06-2011, 06:45 PM
Yeah, Okrand made it a real language. But it was James Doohan (Scotty) who originated the Klingon language.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 46
06-06-2011, 09:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrine_Falcon View Post
No we're not repeating ourselves. A ship is not a character. This question has not been answered before.
I'm pretty sure you'd be hard pressed to find anyone with a vague interest in Star Trek that wouldn't consider the Enterprise (any of them, really) a character in its own right.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 47
06-06-2011, 10:02 PM
Go to agree with Leviathan99. Heck, we're even getting orders to not contact authors - quite possibly the most fan unfriendly request any franchise has ever issued.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 48
06-06-2011, 11:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Direphoenix View Post
I'm pretty sure you'd be hard pressed to find anyone with a vague interest in Star Trek that wouldn't consider the Enterprise (any of them, really) a character in its own right.
I think you'd be hard pressed to justify that statement without putting Vulcan or DS9 in the same boat.

And then you get into Klingons, in general, as being a character or force of about the same level of magnitude.

And the bizarre thing is... It's not the name we're prohibited from using: We can reference the Enterprise all day long.

It's also not the likeness we're prohibited from using. Unlike with actors (who have separate rights to protect), the various classes of ship used for Enterprise (save the Ambassador) are in the Foundry.

So we can talk about the Enterprise, including inventing new backstory. And we can show an NX, a Connie, an Excelsior, a Galaxy or a Sovereign. So it isn't the look we're barred from using.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 49
06-07-2011, 01:15 AM
The fact is the EULA is a joke to begin with. Read what it actually says. You can't use the first or last names of any actors, directors or producers of Star Trek. Any mission with the name Jonathan, Patrick, William, Rick, Brannon, etc. is in violation. Actually, considering the number of people involved in Star Trek over the years, almost every single mission that's been made is in violation unless they used purely nonsense names because someone with just about every common name has worked on ST in some capacity by this point.

Cryptic needs to get a lawyer to address these issues, or sit down with CBS/Paramount and clarify what is actually allowed. Just saying "err on the side of caution" isn't cutting it. How about rewriting the Foundry terms of use so it actually makes sense and actually says what it prohibits, rather than current method of adding ad hoc amendments whenever a dev responds? The terms of use is getting stupider and more convoluted as time goes on.

Leviathan99 is right, no matter what you ask, Cryptic will say no. They'll never answer in the affirmative, and their answers are often not even supported by the EULA. By saying no they protect themselves. They only open themselves up to trouble by saying yes.

What I take away from this is people need to stop asking what's allowed. Just do your thing based on your good faith reading of the Terms of Use. Worst case scenario, your reading is wrong and your mission is taken down. But the truth is, the enforcement mechanism is such that unless something truly egregious is done, you're not going to end up on the radar screen. Few would have had a clue what the IKS Klothos was if Azurian hadn't made the mistake of asking, and I guarantee no one would have reported it. The mission could have been up for years no problem, but he made the mistake of drawing attention to the issue.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 50
06-07-2011, 01:34 AM
Yes, please stop asking. Just make your own call. The responses we get are often not even backed up by what is stated in the Terms of Use. Read the terms of use yourself, and come to your own good faith conclusions. Then just do your thing and don't worry about it unless it becomes a problem. If your mission is flagged or something, you can change it accordingly. Asking questions has just resulted in a jumbled mess that goes well beyond what the Terms of Use states.

We've pretty much reached the point now where the whole list of allowed properties has been rendered moot because we're not allowed to use anything from it.

Frankly at this point, I am losing interest in bothering to make anything for the Foundry at all. That's even though I'm not using any of the ships in my mission, or any of the characters. When it gets to the point where you're just worrying whether anything is even allowed, it defeats the whole purpose.

My suggestion to Cryptic: Stop responding one way or another to requests to clarify the Terms of Use. If you're not qualified to actually judge what the Terms of Use states, then simply don't go on record with a response at all. Just state that the user should read and abide by the Terms of Use and leave it at that.
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 07:23 PM.