Tremulous human playermodels use animations from Quake 3

[Nux]

The morality of this issue is secondary, in my mind, to the possibility that this- or something like it -will come up if/when tremulous gets bigger. You might think such attention to detail is unlikely at the moment but how likely will it be a couple of years down the line? Some clarification on what repercussions could ensue would be appreciated.

[Bissig]

All of you license gestapo seem to overlook the fact that the only people that should care about this are the creators of Quake III Arena and the creators of Tremulous. What I can see from over here, none of them care.

So, if there is no problem, why create one?

There is a huge problem because a.) we don't want to personally redistribute files illegally and b.) there are people here like myself affiliated with GNU/Linux distributions where we just cannot distribute files of this nature.

So really what this comes down to is a userbase issue.  If tremulous as a project wishes to reduce its userbase then certainly the quickest way of this happening is to start including files that cannot and will not be distributed by mainstream linux distros.

I don't want to see that happen to tremulous

1. Who is "we"?
2. I don't fucking care what debian does. It is useful for server systems and that is it. (In my opinion regarding desktop systems it is outdated crap)
3. Give prove or !mute yourself
@Nux

Seeing how playerbase is decreasing I don't think popularity is anything Tremulous has to be concerned about at the moment. Or do you think Tremulous 1.2 will win a moddb award again?

[David]

He's already strongly implied he's affiliated with debian.
Your opinion means jack shit.  Do the research, if you use the ultra stable version of course its out of date.  99% of ubuntu packages are straight from debain, are they out of date too?

[khalsa]

I have seen no compelling evidence of infringement, however I'll try and look into it further when I get some time, as well as question those more 'in-the-know' about these things than myself.


Khalsa

[Veda]

It would look like those animations were from the Paul Steed bip files, I can't say for sure.

What I do know is this:

*Paul Steed released the MAX animated skeletons for several Q3 characters so people in the community could bake them into their own characters. The reason he did this was to foster the community and promote people to release models because it would have been unreasonable to expect people to come up with a few dozen or so animations for each model.

*Several hundred Q3 models have been released by community members using those baked animations.

What I don't know :

*What preconditions Paul Steed released the files under

*What percentage per animation do some of the Tremulous models use. I know there are percentage laws around modifying images, I'm not sure how this applies to animations. For example, if you ran a noise modifier on the animation stack, it would in essence alter ever frame of animation and therefore no longer be a direct copy.

Finally, what I assume from my knowledge of Paul Steed, the Quake community and copyright issues (ie my opinion) :

*Tremulous is an open source, free project that promotes the power of the Q3 engine if not providing a fun experience.

*I know people at id and other game companies have had plenty of exposure to it's existence and the animations used. In the same way Paul Steed released the animation files to foster the player model community, I feel he and id software would have no problem with these fragments of the Q3 content existing in Tremulous based on the company's previous encounters with ip misuse - again, Tremulous is a free, open source project, if this was a commercial project trying to make money off the files, I feel the situation would be drastically different.

*From a technical standpoint the models might use the same animated skeleton but NOT the same geometry. Because of this, the animation will never be the same as the files released, different sections of the model were weighted to different sections of the skeleton, not in the same quantity as the original animations.

FOR EXAMPLE - the popular online MMO, World of Warcraft has characters that can recreate popular dances from copyrighted movies, tv and music programs. Yes, these could be under parody and they didn't use the skeletons from which those dances were created, but like I said above, even if you use the same skeleton, the model will be applied to the skeleton in different proportions rendering the result unique if not similar to the source.

Again, this is my opinion, I'm not a lawyer. I think realistically animation in this case is treated a little different than code or texture theft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=066_q4DIeqk
 

[temple]

Copyright issues are not black and white.

A judge would have to ask

• Why are you using the material
• What is the material
• How much is used
• What is the market impact

Since Tremulous is a free game and iD is not currently selling the Q3 code (and have developed/sold more advanced code), this is a non issue.   

[Kaleo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=066_q4DIeqk

Haha that made my day.

[Lava Croft]

iD is not currently selling the Q3 code

http://www.idsoftware.com/business/idtech3/

[Veda]

Copyright issues are not black and white.

A judge would have to ask

• Why are you using the material
• What is the material
• How much is used
• What is the market impact

Since Tremulous is a free game and iD is not currently selling the Q3 code (and have developed/sold more advanced code), this is a non issue.   

I hate to disagree but copyright laws do not take into consideration any of the points you listed, they are only valid to evaluate damages if infringement did happen.

For example, there is no legal difference between selling teeshirts with Daffy Duck on them or giving them out for free. In both cases the infringement is equal while the damages might be different.

[silverbak]

What I don't know :

*What preconditions Paul Steed released the files under

This is possibly the most pertinent part of the situation.  Aside from anything else, is there anyway to contact Paul Steed to request that he re-licences the files under GPL or another free licence that he deems appropriate?

This would then be problem solved.

[Nux]

I hate to disagree but copyright laws do not take into consideration any of the points you listed...

From what I've read about copyright law (IANAL) what you said is true up until the assessment of 'fair use' which is an important step in assessing whether the copyright has been infringed. The definition of fair use is the same or similar to what temple mentioned, for most countries concerned.

...they are only valid to evaluate damages if infringement did happen. For example, there is no legal difference between selling teeshirts with Daffy Duck on them or giving them out for free. In both cases the infringement is equal while the damages might be different.

AFAIK the infringements aren't equal. By selling rather than giving away, you aren't convincing anyone you're attempting to use it 'fairly'. If it weren't for 'fair use' then it would all be considered infringement and we'd move on to the little matter of damages. As it is, 'fair use' is the exception which gives copyright law subjectivity.

In the case of your example it would be considered that by offering the shirts for a price you're likely to have given away less (if stats aren't available to go by) whereas if you give them away for free you will have likely lost the copyright holder many more customers. Any profit the infringing party might have made from this would not directly contribute toward the copyright holders 'lost profits'. That said, the intent is very much relevant here.

[fingered banana]

there is no licensing issue.
It is just that some assets are not CC-SA( but they are incorrectly flagged as CC-SA ).
It is not a big deal.

[David]

So its OK to pirate something if you correctly label it as pirated?
Nobody knows what the licence for that stuff is, so it defaults to "All rights reserved"

[gareth]

i didnt read this thread but by now if they cared im sure someone would have done something.

[Lava Croft]

i didnt read this thread but by now if they cared im sure someone would have done something.

You don't understand, it's the philosophy that matters.

Hahahahahahahaha.

[David]

You don't understand, its the fact that timbo / whoever could get sued for a lot of money and lose that matters.

Hahahahahahahaha.

[Lava Croft]

You don't understand, its the fact that timbo / whoever could get sued for a lot of money and lose that matters.

You live in a land of fairytales.

Timbo? Sued?

Hahahahahahahaha, if that happens I will laugh so hard I'll never post on these forums again.

[Kaine]

You live in a land of fairytales.

Timbo? Sued?

Hahahahahahahaha, if that happens I will laugh so hard I'll never post on these forums again.

Well damn, in that case...

*Fumbles for ID's number*

[fingered banana]

So its OK to pirate something if you correctly label it as pirated?
Nobody knows what the licence for that stuff is, so it defaults to "All rights reserved"

You are over generalizing. Tremulous doesn't contain pirated media.

They are not "all rights reserved". They are "free for non commercial use" but not cc-sa.
Of course, It is not right but not a big issue for Tremulous.
You can have them for free. But, You can also have Tremulous for free.

Problem can occur when someone gets them from Tremulous, uses in a commercial project.
He/she would think "they are CC-SA, so I can use it in my commercial project" however they are not.

[David]

Where is it said they are "free for non commercial use"?

What I don't know :

*What preconditions Paul Steed released the files under

[Bowzer]

You license zealots are amusing. 

1 - *If* tremulous even used Paul Steeds biped animations, those bipeds are NOT copyrighted, and not distributed with Quake 3.

2 - If you go by your Euro rules, then if anyone owns the copyright it's Paul Steed, since he uploaded them(according to you guys).  He put them up there as public domain.

3 - You talk about 500 or so Debian installations?  Good lord, you must realize that there are probably more than 10x that many new Tremulous installations every week, right?  I'm pretty sure Tremulous will continue to thrive regardless of whether Linux distros carry it. 

[David]

1 - *If* tremulous even used Paul Steeds biped animations, those bipeds are NOT copyrighted, and not distributed with Quake 3.

Wrong.  As per international law, everything that is copyrightable is copyrighted to whoever made it, by default.  Copyright is automatic and instant.  There is no need to say "Copyright <name> <year>" although doing so is common.  It is not needed though.  If Paul Steed made them then he owns copyright unless he transferred ownership or made them public domain (Not valid in some places)

2 - If you go by your Euro rules, then if anyone owns the copyright it's Paul Steed, since he uploaded them(according to you guys).  He put them up there as public domain.

Again wrong.  Copyright is hard to get rid of, unless he provides a legally binding licence granting you permission and you agree to it, you can't use it.  Public domain is a special case handled differently in different places, but can be assumed to be licence for anyone to do anything with it.  Would still require him to give a legally binding statement saying it is public domain though.

[gareth]

1 - *If* tremulous even used Paul Steeds biped animations, those bipeds are NOT copyrighted, and not distributed with Quake 3.

Wrong.  As per international law, everything that is copyrightable is copyrighted to whoever made it, by default.  Copyright is automatic and instant.  There is no need to say "Copyright <name> <year>" although doing so is common.  It is not needed though.  If Paul Steed made them then he owns copyright unless he transferred ownership or made them public domain (Not valid in some places)

2 - If you go by your Euro rules, then if anyone owns the copyright it's Paul Steed, since he uploaded them(according to you guys).  He put them up there as public domain.

Again wrong.  Copyright is hard to get rid of, unless he provides a legally binding licence granting you permission and you agree to it, you can't use it.  Public domain is a special case handled differently in different places, but can be assumed to be licence for anyone to do anything with it.  Would still require him to give a legally binding statement saying it is public domain though.

wrong

[Lava Croft]

Let's just return to the old mode of not caring, since these people are just fanatics.

[David]

wrong

Wonderful argument there.

And lava_croft is a paedophile!  lets all shun him now!

Oh look, I can make baseless accusations too...

[fingered banana]

This discussion is pointless.
Why did it take two years for someone to come up with this licensing issue?
...

Where is it said they are "free for non commercial use"?

What I don't know :

*What preconditions Paul Steed released the files under

IIRC there wasn't any restrictions for non commercial use.
You can just ask Paul Steed, id, or whoever the  copyright holder is.

If they were downloaded from a warezz site /their license restricts their usage in a free game.
THEN you must remove Tremulous 1.1.0 from the internet.

[Nux]

wrong

Wonderful argument there.

And lava_croft is a paedophile!  lets all shun him now!

Oh look, I can make baseless accusations too...

Firstly: Don't feed the troll. Whether a post is informative or not should be self-evident. No need to even spare a thought for those who don't see it already.

I'll point out that your claims- though more numerous and detailed -are still largely unsubstantiated.

Cited from wiki: "In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights."

"In 1989, the U.S. enacted the Berne Convention Implementation Act, amending the 1976 Copyright Act to conform to most of the provisions of the Berne Convention."

[Lava Croft]

The thing is, as long as the copyright on the bipeds is not determined, the chances of it being favorable to you fanatics are as large as the chances that Timbo, thanks to you fanatics, might have to sell his kidneys to keep him out of a Scottish correctional facility.

In other words, let's all be positive and stop caring!
Nobody else has cared for all these years, neither id, nor the Tremulous developers!

[techhead]

Let's just return to the old mode of not caring, since these people are just fanatics.

I decided to sit most of this argument out, and I finally find a post in it that I can wholeheartedly agree with.

[your face]

Let's just return to the old mode of not caring, since these people are just fanatics.

I decided to sit most of this argument out, and I finally find a post in it that I can wholeheartedly agree with.

Absolutely true.  +1