"Ripping Off Someone Else's Rules" Topic

I was recently contacted by a visitor to my site that one set of the rules I was linking to called Armageddon Rise of the Undead (ARutU) was a copy and past of another set of rules called Dead Walk Again (DWA).

ARutU : PDF link
DWA: link

I began to investigate and found that ARuTU was, apart from the introuduction fluff, was a direct copy and paste of DWA. I immediately removed the link from my site and contacted the DWA Yahoo Group and the author Eric Laurent-Nauguet.

I know people derive rules from other systems but to make an exact copy and then to have the balls to put their own copyright notice on them and not only that but have a tagline on their website ":it is better to fail at originality than to succeed in imitation".

Eric has written to the site owners (a gaming club) requesting they remove the rules.

Hopefully they will see common sense.

but to make an exact copy and then to have the balls to put their own copyright notice on them and not only that but have a tagline on their website.

It's also illegal.

And worst of all, bad manners.

This has come up before about Eric's rules i think.
Not sure why peeps need to do this.
Hopefully Eric will get this sorted out for good.

Grimm

just a bit of a thread hi-jack but very related to something I have always wondered about…
If there were a "free rules" but someone really did a major rewrite incorporting a lot of house rules, to hit tables etc they found that worked, tho keeping the original game core….would that be something allowable on the freewargames rules site?
(I have reworked a couple of rulesets originally on the site or linked from it. I wouldnt think of copyrighting them, or doing as stated above--no rewrite but a change of title…. but I may want to share them with others via the site. Would that be allowable? how much credit to the originator of the core idea would be expected?

thanks for any thoughts on this.

If there were a "free rules" but someone really did a major rewrite incorporating a lot of house rules, to hit tables etc they found that worked, tho keeping the original game core….would that be something allowable on the freewargames rules site?

I would think, yes. It's the actual words that are copyright, not the ideas and game mechanics behind them.

In all decency, and possibly legally, you would be best to,

A) contact the original author and request their permission
B) acknowledge clearly on the 'amended' set that they were derived from the original author and that the purpose of your production is to advance/ improve/adapt etc. Also letting the original author have a view of your work (although they may say no and then use your work to further theirs)

In both cases this has not been done and is compounded by the fact that the copying party were passing off the original person's rules as their own.

In terms of legality I don't know how far it could be taken. if no earning were list, and the 'new' authors received no financial reward then it would be hard to sue or whatever. I would maintain that the original copyright is retained by the original author, even if they had put it on a free website, although they must realise that their rules will likely be 'borrowed' or whatever thus creating the opportunity for this sort of situation to occur.

Still, bleeding rude if nothing else to do what they did!!!!

If you rewrite the rules and charts then yes, you are clear of copyright. For example, loads and loads fo rules use a "roll a D6 and you hit on a 4+." So long as you write this in your own words, you can use that same mechanism.

If some parts of the old rules remain unchanged, that's where you have an issue. But if they're free, making clear the original source and making reasonable effort to contatc the original author is plenty.

thanks for the thoughts and advice. On two sets of rules I had contacted the authors and sent them what I had done. One did incorporate some of my table changes into their rules, via an updating. The other replied basically with a thanks but nothing further.
I havent posted my various house rules and just continue to tweak and adjust and play them. I was just wondering what I could do with them,in the form of sharing them on some public forum. If I ever do, I think I would acknowledge the original source, esp. in the part of the rules of why I designed things the way I did.

BB

I havent posted my various house rules and just continue to tweak and adjust and play them. I was just wondering what I could do with them,in the form of sharing them on some public forum.

If they are purely additional house rules as opposed to a complete rewrite then just post them as "House Rules for use ith "X"".

Actually I hate to say this but I am fairly certain that if you distribute more than 20 copies for free, or put them on a list which offers "free rules" you forfeit ANY copyright protection whatsoever, monetary or otherwise. Actually then the simple fact is that anyone can take anything marked as "free" which is the same to the courts as "no monetary value" which means there is no basis for the evauation of damages.

On the other hand as a lawyer once told me when I was investigating this, if YOU put out a set of rules and give it away for free, and the other guy takes your rules, slaps a few introductory remarks on it and copyrights it, then he can if you continue to distribute your rules free, sue YOU for infringement of copyright.

@OSchmidt

I don't believe you are correct. However, I believe in the US you need to register your copyright to be able to claim damages. Though, with an unregistered copyright you would still be able to have the courts compel someone to cease infringing your copyright.

These days it is actually very hard to "lose" a copyright, and there is no way that giving away copies for free is the same as giving a license for copying (otherwise "copy-left" licensing for program code wouldn't work).

OSchmidt – where in the world did you get that idea? Especially since you are "fairly certain"?

I also hope you weren't actually being charged by that lawyer.

OSchmidt, I have to agree with the others. Do you make this stuff up?

It's all about proof, so if you can show that you emailed the rules to that person BEFORE 'their' version of the rules came out, then it would be proof that you were the original author (thus retaining copyright) I would expect that the next stage would be the legal side to determine if the 'new' rules were sufficiently different enough to NOT be classed as a copy and thus infringement of the original. If the difference is not deemed to be great enough then the copying person will be considered to have infringed on the original's copyright.

If you've seen the film 'Facebook' the Facebook founder was sued by the guys who had the original idea, even though he had taken the concept in a new direction to the original, the core idea was deemed to be almost identical. He didn't care at that point however as he had made so much money, and would make more, that he paid them in the end.

I am an architect so copyright I infringement is part of our job, although I haven't been involved in anything other than studying the main concepts of copyright law, so I may be wrong. Cheers,

Ark3n

I often get contacted by people asking if they can copy parts of my rules or re-write them for another period. If asked I always give permission provided they make reference to me. Likewise I will do the same if I use other people's ideas.

Some authors have taken a set of rules and adapted them for a completely different period and I think this is a great adaptation. I;m thinking of Blitzkrieg Commander from Warmaster (where Pete did get permission), A Sky Full of Ships from General Quarters. In both cases the new authors spent alot of time developing new ideas to bolt onto existing rules. In neither case would you be able to use the new version of rules to play the original game, so the original author does not lose out.

If an author contacts me stating there is a breach of copyright of their rules (and it is obvious) and want the rules removed. I will remove them without quibble

It's OK to carry out derivatives of commercial rules provided you make that clear, don't copy the rules so others don't need to buy the original. For example there are derivatives of crossfire for Vietnam and Spanish Civil War but without the core commercial rules you can't use the derivatives.

Buckeye Bob: My answer to your question is if they are free rules that you are rewriting sure they would be allowable, but others have stated if you can contact the original author ask permission (most will say yes) and if after despite best efforts you can't contact the original author at least reference the core rules they are derived from.

A significant portion of the content on freewargamesrules are derived from other sets in any case and they generally clearly state so.

It is more the rudeness in not attributing which drives me nuts.

I haven't got an original bone in my body, all my rules are mashups or derivatives but I do try to attribute them correctly even if this is in the descriptive text rather than the body of the rules. Not much space on one side of A4.

What OSchmidt is talking about is the reality of the courtroom. If you attempted a legal remedy of this situation and sought damages, the fact that you gave the product away for free and never actually sold it means there can be no lost revenue. So with no lost revenue, what court gets jurisdiction for the case? Small claims? State, county or provincial courts? Try to make it a federal case? Courts are concerned about damages in civil matters. Try to convince a prosecutor that this a criminal matter? Good luck with that.

And even if you did sell it alongside giving it away for free, then your own distribution for free shows that lost sales of the paid-version are just as likely be attributable to your own free distribution as the violator's. The best you can hope for is an injunction (a court order telling the violator to stop doing what they are doing) and maybe some punitive damages, but that is highly, highly unlikely.

You don't legally forfeit any rights, but you do make it really difficult to prove damages actually occurred.

People sue each other too much as it is, so I'm totally okay with the idea of people suing each other over free wargames rules going pretty much nowhere in court. What would likely happen is that in the pre-trial, the judge/magistrate would go "Hey, you do see that this is a direct copy, don't you? You willing to pull that from your site and stop passing it off as your own? Good. Now you're ordered by this court to do what you agreed to do. Let's say, in the next 48 hours. You there, you happy with this? Good. No damages awarded. Now both of you get out of my office."

Now, if they were to make a movie or reality show using your free rules, then you could sue for something.

LOL. If there's ever a reality show or movie about playing free zombie apocalypse miniature wargaming rules from the internet, I will watch it.

Thank you Nathanial, you understand, there's little point in pursuing theoretical rights if it's going to cost you far more than you can recover. Oh sure it might be nice for testicle inflation to pursue someone and get them to take it down, but they'll only be back with another better-rewritten but still plagarized copy in a month.

That's why I make my money in indudstrial planning as my day job, and real-estate rentals as my private thing and give away the rules I design for free. Besides there's ways to preserve your rights with the rules themselves rather than through legal means.

Besides there's ways to preserve your rights with the rules themselves rather than through legal means.

Um … I hope you don't mean there's ways to preserve your rights with the rules themselves by illegal means?

Honestly, I don't think he knows what he's talking about. His first post was completely wrong and when Nathaniel chimed in with some common sense, he says, "oh yeah, that's what I meant" even thought that's not what he said at all.

The limit of my legal expertise is as an accountant assisting in the analysis of a company's disclosed financials to try to come up with a reasonable amount for damages that the judge would accept as part of the mutually entered arbitration process. It was super hard, even being part of a team with some awesome forensic accountants that taught me a lot, to isolate revenue that could be shown to be the result of the defendant's misbehavior so the client could claim damages on it. Oh, I also prepared some financial statements as an exhibit in another case. Both of those projects were the cause of some of many 100+ hour work weeks that made me eventually leave accounting.

When people get all litigious and talk about rights and court and stuff, I often get the sense that they barely know how much of a pain they are setting themselves up for. "The principle of the thing" dies a quick death when you start getting into the reality of enforcement and adjudication. It's funny when talk of damages come around and the court orders the defendant to disclose their books and then suddenly the plaintiff is going to have to pay hundreds or thousands to an accountant to figure out what they mean and then hundreds or thousands more for the lawyers to argue based off of that analysis.

In the case of Armageddon Rise of the Undead, it sounds like a guy in a gaming club decided to adapt another set of rules for their club's use, but then didn't really adapt them and probably thought changing the name and adding some fiction was enough. People often hear (correctly) that you can't copyright rules, but they perhaps misunderstand and don't realize that the specific expression of the rules is definitely protected.

I think this is a case of Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

Wot Nathaniel said. No, you can't copyright a rules mechanism, or a collection of them. Yes, you can copyright a specific rulebook. In the UK, copyright over a publication is automatic. The fact you make no money from your publication does not mean that other people can do what they like with it. But whether you can afford to stop them is another issue entirely…

A few years ago I published a set of spaceship rules, online and for free. It was influenced heavily by the core mechanisms of Crossfire and Wings of War and specifically re-uses some close combat rules published in Wargames Illustrated decades ago. However, every sentence of the writing is entirely original, so I have not ripped off anybody, and the copyright for this particular expression of the rules (my rulebook) resides with me. I couldn't stop anybody from doing the same as me and creating a new game based on my rules (and nor would I want to!) but if people started recycling my sentences, I would have grounds for legal action. But, as there are probably only two people in the entire world that actually play my game, I'm not too worried about the possibility of the theft of my intellectual property!

While I didn't need to under UK law, In my rulebook I asserted my copyright over my publication and set out the conditions under which I allowed people to use it for free. In an ideal world, I would like to see more writers of 'homegrown rulebooks' do this, then everybody would have a clearer idea of where they stand.

It's the actual words that are copyright, not the ideas and game mechanics behind them.

Curious.

Publishers don't own the words, they own the formatting of the text on the page, which is why there are no standard margins among commercially published works. Similarly, this is why things like the Project Gutenberg are legal.

Yet in wargaming we are generally more concerned with the author not the publisher and the author is normally far more connected to the community consuming their work. I am unfamiliar with when something is merely plagiarism (a big deal but likely with minor consequences) vs also illegal (a big deal with potentially big consequences).

Wargamers and wargame rule authors I think are generally more impacted in the area of concepts and mechanics, i.e. ideas and implementations. But in this I believe that all such things are shared. In ~1991 Matt DeLamatter publishes Legacy of Glory, he uses the Grand Tactical Formation (GTF) as a sort of huge composite unit representing a brigade or division. Is this concept new? Hard to say, the mechanic differed some from Scott Bowden's use of a Maneuver Element (ME) in Empire (I-V) but the concept seems the same. Has it been used since? Certainly many rules have used some form of a larger formation of troops that may move somewhat independently but depend on each other for certain stats. Johnny Reb was not the first rules to use something akin to Brigade Integrity for instance.

All of this is to say that, yeah copying and pasting someone's text is really crap, but the borrowing of concepts and adaption of mechanics is an inherent act that can, will and must happen for the universe of rule sets to continue evolving.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Once we get past the bad form…

First, you are not required to register a copyright in order to gain protection. Your claim will be stronger if you do, but it is not a requirement.

Now, for the US Copyright Office's interpretation of the law (it's an easy read, so do it):

copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

I can't find it at the moment, but it's either in the USC itself or in copyright.gov site that has one other "gotcha." You'll notice in the writings that it says your literary implementation MAY be available for protection. What they're saying is that if your way of presenting it is the best way, and any other way is obtuse, your way is NOT protected. (E.g., "turn right" is the same as "turn left, now turn left again, now turn left again". "Turn right" would not be protected)

and a great read:

link

Have fun.

I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Even if I were lawyer, I would not be your lawyer.

Nothing I wrote should be taken as legal advice, nor as offering an opinion on the original question. It is merely an attempt to point people towards helpful information.

One other thing: Don't focus on whether the original, derivative, or copied rules are given away freely, bartered or charged for.

It is entirely irrelevant.

Copyright is about controlling the means of distribution.

Somewhat off the OP:

I seem to recall Jeffrey Bernard, a writer of humorous pieces for various English papers and magazines, saying that he was once accused of plagiarism and/or breach of copyright because he told the same autobiographical anecdote, in the identical way, in two articles for different publishers.

His retort – 'It's MY lifestory, for God's sake!' (or words to that effect)

That was the end of the matter – a victory for common sense.

Personally, as long as no-one is selling unauthorised copies of my work without giving me a share, or giving away copies of my work that I'm trying to sell, like Rhett Butler, 'I don't give a damn!'

Hawkeye88: One other thing: Don't focus on whether the original, derivative, or copied rules are given away freely, bartered or charged for.

It is entirely irrelevant.

Well, unless you want to sue for damages or something. Then it becomes very, very relevant.

If you want something simply to no longer be distributed, you're far better off approaching the web host or making a formal DMCA takedown request if it is hosted within the US. Or contacting the person directly and asking them to take it down. Or, like the OP, doing the right thing as the site host as soon as the issue is noticed.

People have a very academic and idealist view of what the laws actually are that is usually entirely divorced from the actual process of enforcement and litigation. Copyright is indeed about the exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution, but those rights exist, not in a vacuum, but in the larger context of the courts, web hosting policies, and a huge variety of other factors.

As an aside, if someone is looking to release something for free and wants to do something non-standard when it comes to licensing, distribution or derivations, I'd recommend checking out the various Creative Commons licenses.

link

With respect, I believe you've misunderstood. I'm not talking about the rights holder giving stuff away for free, but the violator. Whether the violator charges for it or gives it away freely is irrelevant. If you distribute something without permission you can be sued for an awful lot of money. See the Jami Thomas case.

What you've recommended… Contacting the offending party is always the first step. DMCA notifications are the next. Law suits are the final, though some entities seem to get that backwards.

I hope the rest of your commentary wasn't directed at me, because it would be a gross mis-characterization of what I said.

Yes, I see what you're saying. If someone sells your work, even if you give it away for free, you certainly have a claim on all that money as well as some punitive damages.

And no, it was a general paragraph about people's general view of the law. I should have been more clear. My apologies.