About acquiring resources Options

[udivision]

EDIT: Original post resotred, sorry Rob Riv.

Sprites = Program? I don't think so.
If you were making your own program, you might rip icons from others to start off. But if you were going to really push the program as your new fantastic wonder software, maybe even sell it as one point, using those ripped icons and sounds wouldn't fly.

You are doing a very bad thing with cross comparison. I am not comparing sprites to programming directly. I am comparing the importance factor. As in the sprites of Final Fantasy 6 are as important to the entire game as Microsoft Word and Powerpoint are to excel as a program.

The sprites of Final Fantasy 6 are as important to the entire game as Microsoft Word and Powerpoint are to excel as a program?

This post has been edited by udivision: May 11 2011, 07:00 PM

[Vanit]

Its simply that you're not in it for taking credit for anything, aside from maybe the compilation or your design. Its a learning experience, and for educational purposes a lot of things are exempt from copyright so long as you're not passing it off as your own work.

Read my first post. Whether you take credit for someone's work or not, it's still theft to use it without their express permission. It is NOT exempt from copyright for "educational purposes" unless the original artist explicitly says so. You clearly have no idea how copyright law works. I'm not sure if you're misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation, but what you said is simply untrue.

I don't know how it is in your country, but here in Australia there are provisions in the copyright law that allow anyone to ignore copyright for educational purposes.

[Sailerius]

Its simply that you're not in it for taking credit for anything, aside from maybe the compilation or your design. Its a learning experience, and for educational purposes a lot of things are exempt from copyright so long as you're not passing it off as your own work.

Read my first post. Whether you take credit for someone's work or not, it's still theft to use it without their express permission. It is NOT exempt from copyright for "educational purposes" unless the original artist explicitly says so. You clearly have no idea how copyright law works. I'm not sure if you're misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation, but what you said is simply untrue.

I don't know how it is in your country, but here in Australia there are provisions in the copyright law that allow anyone to ignore copyright for educational purposes.

What matters isn't the law in your country or the law in my country, but the law that RRR adheres to. RRR is owned by iEntry, which is subject to US copyright law. Therefore, it is illegal to use stolen resources even for educational purposes in works posted here.

Furthermore, what part of a fangame is educational?

This post has been edited by Sailerius: May 11 2011, 06:57 PM

[Vanit]

No I think you'd find if someone were to take action against me its the law in my country that decides it (if I'm doing it while in Australia). =/

This post has been edited by Vanit: May 11 2011, 06:56 PM

[Rob_Riv]

udivision, try to refrain from editing out content of your posts.

I don't know how it is in your country, but here in Australia there are provisions in the copyright law that allow anyone to ignore copyright for educational purposes.

That is very vague. Please be specific when referencing the law. I've had a quick scan of the Copyright Act 1968 and Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 and "educational" isn't stated as one of the five reasons for fair dealing.

[Twilight]

@Vanit
Out of curiosity, of the hundreds of ripped graphics and resources from other games used regularly, how many of them are used for educational purposes?

[udivision]

The people who run this site should really debate whether to continue allowing such activities to continue on these forums during their next meeting. It'd be really bold move for an RM community to finally reject the ripping of resources and such practices.

Sorry, Rob Riv, I fixed it. Zortik had edited his post since then, though.

This post has been edited by udivision: May 11 2011, 07:01 PM

[Rob_Riv]

EDIT: Now we have a mod here, I want to ask. Why are blatantly ripped sprites/resourced allowed?

I don't know. It's not considered a big deal, I guess.

[udivision]

Oh...
A little anti-climatic.

[Resource Dragon]

EDIT: Now we have a mod here, I want to ask. Why are blatantly ripped sprites/resourced allowed?

I don't know. It's not considered a big deal, I guess.

In my opinion, it's not considered a big deal, because if the creators really cared about people ripping or using the graphics, they'd be shutting places down or placing law suits against people who host them and such.

But that's just my point of view.

[Sailerius]

EDIT: Now we have a mod here, I want to ask. Why are blatantly ripped sprites/resourced allowed?

I don't know. It's not considered a big deal, I guess.

In my opinion, it's not considered a big deal, because if the creators really cared about people ripping or using the graphics, they'd be shutting places down or placing law suits against people who host them and such.

But that's just my point of view.

That's just a pleasant way of saying that it's okay to do illegal/unethical things as long as you aren't caught.

[udivision]

Just to make sure, I think Resource Dragon was stating his opinion on why it's not a big deal, not his opinion on the matter itself.

This post has been edited by udivision: May 11 2011, 09:01 PM

[Tohsaka]

Its simply that you're not in it for taking credit for anything, aside from maybe the compilation or your design. Its a learning experience, and for educational purposes a lot of things are exempt from copyright so long as you're not passing it off as your own work.

Read my first post. Whether you take credit for someone's work or not, it's still theft to use it without their express permission. It is NOT exempt from copyright for "educational purposes" unless the original artist explicitly says so. You clearly have no idea how copyright law works. I'm not sure if you're misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation, but what you said is simply untrue.

I don't know how it is in your country, but here in Australia there are provisions in the copyright law that allow anyone to ignore copyright for educational purposes.

I think I'll work on my next degree in Australia, where I can take other people's games and sell them for educational purposes in a indie game market simulation for research. It's completely kosher, since I can ignore copyright and sell other people's stuff as well as bootleg games as part of my educational research into the gaming market, right?

I honestly think that, even if it's illegal, it's a free/capitalist system. Do whatever you can to grab power and success- Lie, cheat, steal, it's all inherent with the system of freedom and capitalism. Someone else owning assets that you want to use is stifling your innovation? Kill them and take those for yourself! I mean, it's for educational purposes, right?

What I really think is, if you ever start making something with clean and custom assets, and successfully sell it (lol), you'll be all fine and happy with your experience using rips and other people's assets. However, once someone rips or obtains your assets, and uses them for "educational purposes" or on an obscure community, you'll rage over them. BUT WAIT- You can't do anything to them because that would be hypocritical, and you wouldn't want to seem like a hypocritical capitalist that changes his opinion based on what's the most convenient and beneficial for him, right?

This post has been edited by Cocoa: May 11 2011, 09:32 PM

[Vanit]

@Vanit
Out of curiosity, of the hundreds of ripped graphics and resources from other games used regularly, how many of them are used for educational purposes?

Uh, all of them? They may not identify it to themselves as a formally educational activity, but as I said earlier, its first and foremost an exercise in game design as a hobby, and by designing and implementing a game they are refining their skills through practicing, and in essence are teaching themselves problem solving skills. This is really a whole other debate as to whether something can be counted as educational if its not intentionally so; but as being educational is an attribute that is an emergent property of overcoming new challenges, I'd say this is the case.

I don't know how it is in your country, but here in Australia there are provisions in the copyright law that allow anyone to ignore copyright for educational purposes.

That is very vague. Please be specific when referencing the law. I've had a quick scan of the Copyright Act 1968 and Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 and "educational" isn't stated as one of the five reasons for fair dealing.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/con...968133/s40.html I don't think any of us are lawyers (or if we are, any intepretation may be a conflict of interest), but I think the following statement may be construed as it not being copyright infringement:

A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, for the purpose of research or study does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work.

Its a little grey because it does not address "works within a work", as game resources may be defined as, and there is a subsection that goes on to clarify that copying literary work is not an infringement only when an institution is involved, but otherwise theres no reference to the education having to be formally recognised. Arguably you could also debate how interchangeable "education" is with "research and study", as the latter is a documentation process and the former is a result of the latter.

But I invite those reading this thread to not get childishly hung up on semantics by attempting to disarm my statement with a strawman attack and keep on topic to the point of my statement. The OP by Oceans_Dream was not about legality, but ethics - and I don't think its unethical to use resources from commercial games as placeholders when your main goal is to share an approximation of what you intended your game to be presented as. A lot of the artists in here are projecting their personal feelings onto the game companies about how they should feel about other people using their stuff, but you're forgetting that most of them actually love it when people make homages to their IPs - many have openly stated this, Valve for example. Which leads me to...

The point is as a hobbyist you're not really worried about where you pull the resources from that you use to supplement your own work. Its not an ethical dilema. Its simply that you're not in it for taking credit for anything, aside from maybe the compilation or your design. Its a learning experience, and for educational purposes a lot of things are exempt from copyright so long as you're not passing it off as your own work.

So applying this, can a hobbyist take resources from other games on RPG Maker websites ethically (as it doesn't seem to be a dilemma to you)?

This is taking my comment out of context. You KNOW I was talking about commercial games. I stated from the start, as others did, that indie games are offlimits because then you run the risk of causing confusion if someone sees their art in your game first and, even if you did credit them, you could still wind up getting the praise, or worse, mainstream attention that leads even more people to think its your work as they enevitably won't read the credits. Personally, I think taking custom resources from another person's game without permission is unethical, but from a hobbyist's perspective it may not be. For a hobbyist the point of the exercise is implenting their concept. Its like telling a story and using anime figurines to act it out. They're not your characters, but its a close enough approximation that you can convey the concept. I'm not saying they're unethical, I'm saying its not a dilema in the first place because its so far removed from the purpose of what they're doing.

Also I'd like to clarify what I'm not advocating is plagiarism, that is never acceptable.

*words*

Before I reply to this can you clarify if this is a personal attack on me? Because you got so many things wrong about me I don't know where to begin. I'm defending a position here, but its not my position. I don't count myself as a hobbyist and I certainly don't use anyones resources as I said earlier. You only have to check out the link in my sig to see I'm working on something using completely my own resources (IP aside, haha).

This post has been edited by Vanit: May 11 2011, 09:46 PM

[Tohsaka]

What's the difference between and indie game and a commercial game, really? You're assuming that no one will get confused because everyone will obviously know all the commercial games out there that one could steal content from. Isn't that a far-fetched assumption? Let's say that someone's game (I'll use Sailerius) gains great fame and a lot of people know about it. Does it make it more ethical or more permissible to steal his content? (I'd do it anyway, just because it's Sailerius, and I'd make a parody. That's fair-use)

@Vanit: Am I attacking you? No. I'm using words that make it easier for the reader to imagine himself as the one partaking in the actions.

This post has been edited by Cocoa: May 11 2011, 09:48 PM

[Sailerius]

Its a little grey because it does not address "works within a work", as game resources may be defined as, and there is a subsection that goes on to clarify that copying literary work is not an infringement only when an institution is involved, but otherwise theres no reference to the education having to be formally recognised. Arguably you could also debate how interchangeable "education" is with "research and study", as the latter is a documentation process and the former is a result of the latter.

All right, I accept that theft is legal as long as you claim you were doing it for research.

The rest of your post is just regurgitating what you've already said and isn't really coherent.

and I don't think its unethical to use resources from commercial games as placeholders when your main goal is to share an approximation of what you intended your game to be presented as.

This is taking my comment out of context. You KNOW I was talking about commercial games. I stated from the start, as others did, that indie games are offlimits

Now you're dancing on the hilarious double standard that thieves in the RM community love to flaunt. This flagrant hypocrisy makes your entire argument fall flat on its face. There is no difference in stealing resources from commercial games and stealing resources from RM games. It's IP theft, plain and simple. Any attempt to justify it is just making excuses in order to justify blatant and unapologetic theft.

[Vanit]

Its a little grey because it does not address "works within a work", as game resources may be defined as, and there is a subsection that goes on to clarify that copying literary work is not an infringement only when an institution is involved, but otherwise theres no reference to the education having to be formally recognised. Arguably you could also debate how interchangeable "education" is with "research and study", as the latter is a documentation process and the former is a result of the latter.

All right, I accept that theft is legal as long as you claim you were doing it for research.

The rest of your post is just regurgitating what you've already said and isn't really coherent.

and I don't think its unethical to use resources from commercial games as placeholders when your main goal is to share an approximation of what you intended your game to be presented as.

This is taking my comment out of context. You KNOW I was talking about commercial games. I stated from the start, as others did, that indie games are offlimits

Now you're dancing on the hilarious double standard that thieves in the RM community love to flaunt. This flagrant hypocrisy makes your entire argument fall flat on its face. There is no difference in stealing resources from commercial games and stealing resources from RM games. It's IP theft, plain and simple. Any attempt to justify it is just making excuses in order to justify blatant and unapologetic theft.

Legally? Yes they're the same thing. This topic isn't about the legal side. Its about ethics.

This post has been edited by Vanit: May 11 2011, 09:54 PM

[Sailerius]

I'm talking about ethics.

[Vanit]

You mentioned IP theft? Pretty sure that front is legal. We're talking about how the hobbyist feels about this. Its different in that regard.

This post has been edited by Vanit: May 11 2011, 09:55 PM

[Zortik]

Business Ethics can be defined as the critical, structured examination of how people & institutions should behave in the world of commerce. In particular, it involves examining appropriate constraints on the pursuit of self-interest, or (for firms) profits, when the actions of individuals or firms affects others.

Ethics are above what is legal and what is not. If it's illegal, it's unethical. How are you getting to the conclusion that one has nothing to do with the other?

This post has been edited by Zortik: May 11 2011, 09:56 PM