Resource legality.

[bazzoka]

Don't really think they'll bother hunting down sprite users on an ancient game that won't be stealing market from their titles.

Ok. let's get started... No seriously, "snag" stuff from copyrighted game is a suicidal run, BUT sense zandronum or any other Doom based community is really small and "fair use" thing, so yea. Doom communities are small, tiny and almost invisible in big industry of game's, if this community were found by copyright holders they still couldn't do any thing because no one makes money of copyrighted content. Yet again it boils down to, if this entire deal is legal, it all depends on opinions and what we(us,me) chose to do.

[Zap610]

So if you take a wad (like who dun it), modify it, you'll have the same thing as you get a texture and modify it, you can't say you did who dun it, but you can say that you modify who dun it and give the original authors credits

From the text file:

"Authors may NOT use the contents of this file as a base for modification or
reuse. Permissions have been obtained from original authors for any of
their resources modified or included in this file.

Authors MAY use the content of the included source files in the /src
directory of the pk3 for their own project, so long as proper credit is
given."

People can do what the text file says, it's as simple as that. I really don't see how this is hard to grasp.

[scroton]

Pretty much anything from a commercial game can be used in a non-commercial zandronum/zdoom mod and it would fall under fair use. You could recreate the entirety of some modern game (Half Life 2, lets say) in zdoom and it would fall under fair use. The only time that wouldn't hold is if the zdoom game was indistinguishable (or nearly so) from the original; so an earlier game might pose a problem.

Etiquette in the zandronum/zdoom community is you follow permissions given in the text file or if there are no such permissions ask the author, but unless the author's resources were made entirely from scratch without any other assets as a base there is no actual legal requirement to do so, and even in that case it would only apply to the from-scratch assets and those could possibly still be used under fair use. This is because you cannot claim copyright for works based upon the copyrighted work of another without permission from the original copyright owner; doom's resources are allowed for use in noncommercial pwads by id software but permission to claim copyright on derivative works hasn't been given so you would have to ask for permission from them before doing so. This includes map node info. Additionally zandronum, zdoom and gzdoom do not allow for mod authors to claim copyright for code written within the engine.

This means that if someone had a mod with all new edits of existant doom resources I could put up a website and start selling it without fear of legal action from the mod author (though legal action from id software and the owners of g/zdoom and zandronum would be a different story.)

Generally it's a good idea to follow community etiquette, if only so your mod/map is well received, though notable figures have in the past disregarded such etiquette and still had successful mods/maps.

Personally I don't see the point of restricting usage of assets past a mod/map's final release and think less of people who do so; in a small community like this all you're doing is hurting the community and yourself by limiting the pool of resources available for future works and in the case of obfuscated code preventing others from learning from your work. You have to remember that even if you make a mod with entirely from-scratch assets you're still only able to do so because of the thousands of hours of work that have gone into the free engine you're using. Though I can understand if you're planning on using those from-scratch assets in a later commercial game. If you're restricting the use of resource edits that's completely baffling to me.

On the flip side there's absolutely no reason not to credit people fully, even if you're stealing their work against their wishes, and if you don't you're a total dick. It also makes it harder for people wishing to use assets from your mod/map in their own work to be able to properly credit the original author.

[Torr Samaho]

Pretty much anything from a commercial game can be used in a non-commercial zandronum/zdoom mod and it would fall under fair use. You could recreate the entirety of some modern game (Half Life 2, lets say) in zdoom and it would fall under fair use. The only time that wouldn't hold is if the zdoom game was indistinguishable (or nearly so) from the original; so an earlier game might pose a problem.

That's a rather bold statement. Do you have any resources to back this? I have seen fan games being shut down by the rights holders.

[scroton]

Pretty much anything from a commercial game can be used in a non-commercial zandronum/zdoom mod and it would fall under fair use. You could recreate the entirety of some modern game (Half Life 2, lets say) in zdoom and it would fall under fair use. The only time that wouldn't hold is if the zdoom game was indistinguishable (or nearly so) from the original; so an earlier game might pose a problem.

That's a rather bold statement. Do you have any resources to back this? I have seen fan games being shut down by the rights holders.

I'll look and see if I can find something more comprehensive, but in a quick google search I got this, which is relevant even though it's for a library:
http://www.umuc.edu/library/libhow/copy ... definition
Here's a smaller outline:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

All of the instances of fan games getting shut down that I have heard of involved either the creators selling or intending to sell the product commercially, accepting donations or other revenue in a way that didn't legally distance that revenue from the game itself, or "shut down" meant they stopped work when they got a letter from a lawyer or ignored a takedown request (even though they were in the right) rather than the matter going to court and the copyright holder winning. One of the companies most notorious for this is games workshop, but they take legal action at the drop of a hat, even when they know they're in the wrong (like claiming trademark on "Space Marine.")

[Cruduxy]

I don't think using all resources from something counts as fair use.. If they want to hammer your project their lawyers will find a way.

[infurnus]

Even if you use NO resources from a game and re-create them yourself a fan game can still get shut down.
Just look at the Chrono Resurrection project, after its first cease and desist they turned it into a 2-3 level demo, and STILL got a second cease and desist letter.

[ibm5155]

Also another cas was about the doom 3 on gzdoom project, the Idea was to really make a total conversion (3D monsters, 3D guns, all doom 3 elements, textures,hub,...)...
It was being made by 2008 but a id software guy emailed the creator to not continue the project...

Too bad, the project was really good =/

phpBB [video]

The [video] tag is deprecated, please use the [media] tag

[Torr Samaho]

I'll look and see if I can find something more comprehensive, but in a quick google search I got this, which is relevant even though it's for a library:
http://www.umuc.edu/library/libhow/copy ... definition
Here's a smaller outline:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

From your source:

Does the amount you use exceed a reasonable expectation? If it approaches 50 percent of the entire work, it is not likely to be considered a fair use of the copyrighted work.

I'd say total conversions may cross that threshold (see ibm5155's example above). Also picking up your argumentation, there is nothing that restricts this to resources from games. You can apply it to any kind of commercial resource. Like a single, commercial song as mp3 for example. So you would be allowed to use it as soundtrack for your map? Taking this further, you'd just have to wrap a level around a song and are suddenly allowed to legally distribute copies of a commercial song? Fair use covers the use of commercial resources to a certain degree, but I'm still certain that your statement is much too broad.

"shut down" meant they stopped work when they got a letter from a lawyer or ignored a takedown request (even though they were in the right) rather than the matter going to court and the copyright holder winning.

IIRC in the cases I have in mind, the development was stopped after the team received cease and desist letters. Nevertheless, if the legal situation would be as easy as you imply, why should they care about apparently baseless c&d letters?

[scroton]

I don't think using all resources from something counts as fair use.. If they want to hammer your project their lawyers will find a way.

I didn't say using all resources, I said recreating. If you use 100% of unmodified assets from a particular game to recreate that game then this wouldn't qualify as fair use.

Unfortunately that second part is true, and most cases of fan projects getting shut down are a variation of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP

Even if you use NO resources from a game and re-create them yourself a fan game can still get shut down.
Just look at the Chrono Resurrection project, after its first cease and desist they turned it into a 2-3 level demo, and STILL got a second cease and desist letter.

That is a different matter than a zandronum/zdoom mod because one of the considerations for fair use is how it affects economic gains the copyright holder might receive from the work. In that case they were planning on releasing it for a then-current gaming platform (albeit an emulated version.)

They still could have taken it to court and possibly won.

Also another cas was about the doom 3 on gzdoom project, the Idea was to really make a total conversion (3D monsters, 3D guns, all doom 3 elements, textures,hub,...)...
It was being made by 2008 but a id software guy emailed the creator to not continue the project...

Too bad, the project was really good =/

With it aiming to be an exact copy, and using all the original assets in doing so that would probably fall under the "The only time that wouldn't hold is if the zdoom game was indistinguishable (or nearly so) from the original" I said in my first post. I probably should have clarified my statement better.

They still might have taken it to court and won, but they more than likely would have lost. If they were using modified assets (hard to tell from the video) then they would have had a much better chance of winning.

I'll look and see if I can find something more comprehensive, but in a quick google search I got this, which is relevant even though it's for a library:
http://www.umuc.edu/library/libhow/copy ... definition
Here's a smaller outline:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

From your source:

Does the amount you use exceed a reasonable expectation? If it approaches 50 percent of the entire work, it is not likely to be considered a fair use of the copyrighted work.

I'd say total conversions may cross that threshold (see ibm5155's example above).

I should have been clearer in my original statement; I do not mean completely unmodified assets. To clarify I was thinking of things done in "Doom Style" or using the commercial assets as a base for even a simple modification (though you could use unmodified assets too, but not as extensively.) Think of the doom3 weapons mod that has the doom 3 weapons in doom/doom2 style rather than simple rips of the weapon animations. Those obviously use the doom3 weapons as a base, but are not exact copies or unmodified portions of the work, which is what is meant when it discusses percentages of work used (since in written work, something is either copied or it isn't, there isn't middle ground.) "Heavily Inspired By" or "Based On" are not the same thing as using the original work. This is why there can exist multiple commercial Harry Potter parodies and I, if so inclined, could without issue release my original noncommercial work about Harry Potter going to Hogwarts and doing all the things he did in the first book with all the same characters so long as none of the original work is exactly copied in my work.

Also picking up your argumentation, there is nothing that restricts this to resources from games. You can apply it to any kind of commercial resource. Like a single, commercial song as mp3 for example. So you would be allowed to use it as soundtrack for your map? Taking this further, you'd just have to wrap a level around a song and are suddenly allowed to legally distribute copies of a commercial song? Fair use covers the use of commercial resources to a certain degree, but I'm still certain that your statement is much too broad.

The difference between assets from a game and a single commercial song is how much of the total unmodified work you are using. A song being in a map is not the same as a TC; a more fitting analogy would be a doom map in which you could go to a computer in-game and play the entirety of Serious Sam on. A written work example would be if I reviewed a short story or poem (not one in the public domain) and my review contained the entirety of the short story or poem.

"shut down" meant they stopped work when they got a letter from a lawyer or ignored a takedown request (even though they were in the right) rather than the matter going to court and the copyright holder winning.

IIRC in the cases I have in mind, the development was stopped after the team received cease and desist letters. Nevertheless, if the legal situation would be as easy as you imply, why should they care about apparently baseless c&d letters?

Because even baseless legal accusations need to be defended in court, and in most cases that costs money.

Whether or not a rights holder will send a C&D to someone is an entirely different matter from whether something counts as fair use. It's a lot harder to predict whether there will be an issue, because it almost entirely depends upon the whims of the rights holder and their lawyers, how far they believe their copyrights/trademarks extend (or how far they can get others to believe their copyrights/trademarks extend) and how likely they think the C&D recipient is to cave to their threats. Sometimes companies will even send legal threats without really caring about it at all; in those cases they're just finding some poor resourceless schmo to target so that if they ever have to defend their trademark against an actual competitor they have a history of defending their trademark, which is required to maintain a trademark.

You might make a Half-Life 1 TC in zdoom, a Serious Sam TC, or an Aliens universe TC and never hear a word from any of the respective copyright holders.

Then again you might get a C&D from Games Workshop for your "Space Marine" project based upon Heinlein's Starship Troopers because of the title "Space Marine" and the fact that it involves soldiers in mechanical combat suits, or because the colonial marines in your Aliens TC too closely resemble the WH40K Imperial Guard.

Also, a disclaimer I failed to add earlier: all of what I've stated is based in US law.