This can't be legal...can it?

[HappyDays]

Note: I'm not a copyright expert. Feel free to skewer me alive if I've made an incorrect statement with my knowledge. Thank you.

I was downloading some of Pegasus' incredible works, specifically "Eternal Rewards," real cool looking replacements for the ingame churches. I'm read the read me, making sure I installed it right and such, when I read his terms of use. The entirety:

"This product is distributed as "freeware" and as such contains no warranty, either expressed or implied, as to its functionality or suitability to a specific application. The author, Pegasus Productions, and SimPeg.Com assume no liability for any consequences resulting from use of this product. Users of this product do so at their own risk.

This product is the exclusive property of Pegasus Productions and SimPeg.Com. This product is provided for the sole recreational use of the individual who obtained it from the authorized download site. This product may not be modified, reused or redistributed in any manner. Licenses to modify and Commercial-use licenses can be purchased via email request to licenses@simpeg.com

© Pegasus Productions, SimPeg.Com 2009"

The first paragraph is typical legalese. The second paragraph is the one that makes me raise a brow. While it's a jerk move to steal someone's work, there's no innate legal protections (As I am aware of) for user generated content for a video game; any and all rights for custom content is granted by the company who made the base game. Thus his claim that you can't modify or re-distribute his works is simply misleading. Which is fine, really, because if I had his talent I'd be very tempted to strongly word my terms of use as well.

What's deeply concerning here is that he's claiming you need to purchase a license to alter or re-distribute his works. Which is a blatant violation of the EA Tools EULA, quoted here:

"Your right to use Tools & Materials is limited to the license grant above, and you may not otherwise copy, display, distribute, perform, publish, modify, create works from, or use any of the Tools & Materials. Without limiting the preceding sentence, you may not modify, reverse engineer, disassemble, license, transfer, distribute, create works from, or sell the Tool, or use the Tools & Materials to further any commercial or unlawful purpose."

Licensing is a very commercial act, and unless he's custom made all the tools he uses to make his lots he's violating the EULA. Even if he did, he's still breaking underlying copyright laws by attempting to license items for a product that's been licensed for him (You license, not technically own, games and operating systems and etc when you purchase them).

He's claiming copyright, as well, which simply is impossible; he's not the copyright owner of the product he's making content for and the content itself can't be copyrighted since it's existence is tied into the copyrighted product. It's similar to fanfiction; you don't own the rights to it, and in fact it's currently illegal to make related works of a copyrighted one without the copyright owner's explicit permission (The fact no one cares if you make fanfiction is another matter entirely...). The fact EA has allowed and in fact encouraged the creation of custom content is a moot point; you still can't claim copyright for your created works (Unless EA at some point said you can), and you also can't license your creations out.

There's a few more violations of the EULA he's commiting, namely:

"You may include materials created with the Tools & Materials on your personal noncommercial website for the noncommercial benefit of the fan community for EA's products, provided this is beneficial to the product(s) in EA's judgment, and provided that if you do so, you must also post the following notice on your site on the same web page(s) where those materials are located: "This site is not endorsed by or affiliated with Electronic Arts, or its licensors. Trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Game content and materials copyright Electronic Arts Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved." You will not represent that your site is endorsed or approved by or affiliated with EA or our licensors or that any other content on your site is endorsed or approved by or affiliated with EA or our licensors."

I've not seen anywhere on his site where he mentions it's a fansite and all copyrights are held by EA. By suggesting he has the legal right to license his custom content, he's suggesting he's a licensor of EA. Fraud, at the least.

I'm not suggesting he faces legal repercussions, of course. But since this is a highly self-regulating community, I thought it would behoove us all to bring this to light. Mainly to fortify my own knowledge, as I'm not entirely sure Pegasus hasn't been given the rights he's claiming he has in his terms of use. If anyone could enlighten me, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise...his actions are rather disturbing and could threaten custom content for the game as a whole if EA gets wind of it and sends their lawyers forth.

[Jonathan]

Should this even be discussed here as it's nothing to do with SC4D?

but btw, I'm not sure but I think he's claiming copyright to the models that he's made. Even though only pictures of his models are put into the dat files and into the game.

Jonathan

[dedgren]

I wouldn't get all bent out of shape about this.  John (Pegasus) has always had a strongly-worded intellectual property license packaged with his various STEX and PLEX releases.  Perhaps some of it does cross the line as far as EA would be concerned- that's really, as this site doesn't host any of his work, neither here nor there, and I don't think further discussion of the point is warranted at SC4D.

The thing that should be noted once again for everyone is something our friend HappyDays pointed out

...it's a jerk move to steal someone's work...

Most everyone in the custom content creation community plays by an unwritten but broadly agreed upon code- you give credit where credit is due.  You don't incorporate someone else's work into your own (say, when you use that great prop you found on a lot you create), rather, you note it as a dependency.  And the larger community has always been agreed that, outside of exchanges where custom content creators make a conscious decision to (or to not) upload their stuff, such as the LEX here and the others already noted, custom content isn't redistributed without the creator's permission.  Folks who have chosen not to play by those rules in the past have quickly found themselves with few friends, regardless of which fansite they might call home.

So, that said, there's really no point in further discussion about some individual custom content creator's practices, especially when he, as John does, plays by the rules.


David

[Andreas]

I am not familiar with the US law, or the copyright in this case, but in German law, there's something called "Urheberrecht" (right of the creator), which basically means that you as the creator of intellectual property retain all rights on your creation, and you can decide what to do with it. It is not possible to give up that right by submitting something into the "public domain".

But as David pointed out, the strong point of this community is respect for each creator and his creation, which means that you're encouraged to ask in the first place if you'd like to reuse or republish something. It's really something dictated by common sense, as you'd like to be treated the same most likely if you were the creator of an item.

[callagrafx]

As David said, Pegasus's work does not feature on this site so any discussion of his EULA is not really relevant, whether it's legal or not.  That said, as David said the distribution of other people's work is frowned upon in this community, as is trying to profit from custom content, as this goes 100% against the whole spirit of community.  We share our creations for free for many reasons...but not for profit.  As a matter of fact, the vast majority of the community encourage others to re-use their work freely, as creativity has many different levels.  Lastly, it's 100% unenforceable, especially considering the global nature and the somewhat anonymous nature of the community.

As for the copyright issue, any custom content creator holds the copyright to the model and any textures he/she has created...BUT they do not own the copyright to the gamefiles (.sc4model, .sc4desc etc etc) as they are proprietary file formats owned by EA.  As these are the files that are covered by EA's license, they cannot be relicensed without permission from EA, which I very very much doubt Pegasus has.....

[HappyDays]

<Sweat>

I do believe I set off a bit of a misunderstanding, which I apologize for. I do not wish to suggest that Pegasus is violating the unofficial laws of the community, only that he might be violating actual laws. There IS a difference, and I want to make that clear.

When I made the topic, I didn't think it might be inappropriate for discussion at SC4D, though it's quite apparent many people think otherwise...my rationalization was that if he draws legal action towards him it may damage the community as a whole if EA cracks down on custom content and programs and hacks and the such that are in the 'grey' zone. Indeed, it appears I made a mistake mentioning the topic at all here.

Callagrafx,

Thank you for enlightening me! Yes, that would be logical...the models and textures themselves would belong to him, but the proprietary file types that tie them into the game are not. The end is the same, but the means are different.

Edit:

Andreas,

Good point! I'm not sure if international copyright law (Which I based my opening post off of) goes above the copyright laws of an individual nation. Perhaps it does with products that are international in nature, such a program distributed all over the world. Perhaps not, as each nation is constantly struggling with figuring out what to do with all those software pirates...

[callagrafx]

I shouldn't worry too much about it harming the community...as far as EA is concerned anyway.  Whether he's violating actual laws or the gentlemens agreement of the SC4 community should really only be a concern to him....it would not affect the rest of us, as we haven't violated the game EULA or tried to charge someone for taking our work and doing something different or even improving it.

[JBSimio]

Happy Days,

I can see where your concerns are coming from, and I understand why you've raised the questions you have, but I would venture to say that these concerns are quite honestly unnecessary for several reasons.

First the question of Peg charging a licensing fee:  I would be extremely surprised if he has ever been asked to grant a licensing agreement in the first place.  Because of the way the game works, there is no need to modify anyone else's work even if using the models as a dependency.  Let's say I want to use Peg's mountain fire station building, but I thought it would make a good commercial lot instead.  I would first create an entirely new desc file with all the properties needed to make a commercial building.  I would then make a new lot for the building.  I would package everything and then, following the community standards already mentioned here, point to his file as a dependancy for the model file.  Nowhere in this process have I "modified, reused, or redistributed" anyone else's work.  I haven't modified any of his files... I haven't reused them as I'm pointing back to the original for use... and I'm only distributing my own new work.  So quite frankly, asking for a "license to modify" would be completely pointless to anyone with the knowledge to properly create custom content anyway.

As for EA suddenly cracking down or beginning legal action:  The community as a whole has spent years policing itself very well.  EA would really only begin to take notice if something happened which started to take profits away from them.  In fact, quite the opposite is true... SimCity4 has enjoyed a very long shelf life and continues to have strong sales largely because of custom content creators in the community.  Why would EA want to change anything about that?  Further, as Callagrafx just said, even if EA were concerned about their copyrights, it wouldn't impact the community as a whole, but only those individuals in violation of said rights.

JB