2941 AD (A LotR mod at ModBD)

[wackyserious]

Ain't this illegal? http://www.moddb.com/mods/2941-ad-fall-of-middle-earth

Surely those contents are based on the film series. Plus they openly used book lore.

[Stan`]

I believe it's kind of a gray area. As long as they do not sell it they should be fine. 

[Imarok]

1 hour ago, stanislas69 said:

I believe it's kind of a gray area. As long as they do not sell it they should be fine. 

I don't think so. I think as long they do not sell it they might be lucky.

[Stan`]

@feneur What happened to our own LOTR Mod ?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

40 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:

@feneur What happened to our own LOTR Mod ?

Abandoned due to copyright concerns. 

 

EDIT: I am not feneur. 

Edited April 9, 2018 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Stan`]

1 minute ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

EDIT: I am not feneur. 

Haha

[feneur]

It's definitely illegal, and Hyrule Conquest is illegal as well. I guess they've just not noticed it, I was of the impression that Nintendo is about as aggressive as the people owning the rights to LotR. Maybe they just pretend like they don't see things if they are not popular/well-known enough.

[Stan`]

@feneur If someone was to make a mod featuring let's say dwarfs only with no references (except the look of the characters cause they are kinda unique) to such universes would it be okay ?

[av93]

I think that most IP holders have changed their ways about dealing that kind of stuff. Nowadays you find a lot of people doing mods, and lately I didn't see any major company suing nobody. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[feneur]

Dwarves are generic enough, but when it comes to the look it depends on how unique they are, and that would most likely be too complicated to just say "this is legal" or "this dwarf is too similar to the LotR dwarves", so it would have to be decided in a court. Or settled before that if you don't have the money to pay lawyers  So yeah if one wants to be certain to avoid trouble one should make sure that what one is creating is not close to what is already existing.

2 minutes ago, av93 said:

I think that most IP holders have changed their ways about dealing that kind of stuff. Nowadays you find a lot of people doing mods, and lately I didn't see any major company suing nobody. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I guess it mostly comes down to whether or not they deem it worthwhile. With trademarks, I believe it's a bit more strict because (if I recall correctly) there is some rule stating that if you don't make enough effort defending your trademark you might lose it, so companies are going to be harder against that. Also, I believe companies are less likely to interfere if all the content is newly created (though if it's using their characters, stories, etc, it's still illegal), rather than just, for example, copying/modifying game assets from one game to work in another.

[Stan`]

I guess I'll just leave that here then... And continue working on it

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, feneur said:

It's definitely illegal, and Hyrule Conquest is illegal as well. I guess they've just not noticed it, I was of the impression that Nintendo is about as aggressive as the people owning the rights to LotR. Maybe they just pretend like they don't see things if they are not popular/well-known enough.

The Japanese are very aggressive with their franchises. 

[Nescio]

It depends what they include and what they do with it. Not everything is copyrightable. Nor is it always clear what can be licensed and what isn't covered.

28 minutes ago, feneur said:

Dwarves are generic enough, but when it comes to the look it depends on how unique they are, and that would most likely be too complicated to just say "this is legal" or "this dwarf is too similar to the LotR dwarves", so it would have to be decided in a court.

Be careful with your spelling! Let's quote the philologist J. R. R. Tolkien himself:

In English the only correct correct plural of dwarf is dwarfs, and the adjective is dwarfish. In this story dwarves and dwarvish are used, but only when speaking of the ancient people to whom Thorin Oakenshield and his companions belonged.

[feneur]

8 hours ago, Nescio said:

It depends what they include and what they do with it. Not everything is copyrightable. Nor is it always clear what can be licensed and what isn't covered.

Be careful with your spelling! Let's quote the philologist J. R. R. Tolkien himself:

In English the only correct correct plural of dwarf is dwarfs, and the adjective is dwarfish. In this story dwarves and dwarvish are used, but only when speaking of the ancient people to whom Thorin Oakenshield and his companions belonged.

It is indeed an area with a lot of uncertainty, but that's really more of a reason to err on the side of cautiousness

In the dictionary I have on my shelf they are certainly both included, so any distinction he used is more of a curiosity I'd say =)

[Nescio]

2 hours ago, feneur said:

It is indeed an area with a lot of uncertainty, but that's really more of a reason to err on the side of cautiousness

In the dictionary I have on my shelf they are certainly both included, so any distinction he used is more of a curiosity I'd say =)

No, it's not merely a curiosity, it's an example of the profound influence Tolkien has had on our popular culture and language. Many fantasy games and books started using "dwarves" instead of "dwarfs", after Tolkien. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, therefore "dwarves" is nowadays included as an alternative plural. (Also, the folklore and fantasy meaning of dwarf is now commonly listed before the "an abnormally small person" entry.) Likewise "hobbit" and "orc" have entered the dictionary. By writing "dwarves" you showed you yourself are influenced by the works of J. R. R. Tolkien, without realizing it.

However, words are not copyrightable, nor are concepts or ideas. Tolkien's "mithril" has been included in possibly hundreds of games, including Age of Mythology, and there is a Noldor ship in 0 A.D. Erring on the safe side is often sound advice, but one can err too much, and limit oneself unnecessarily. A lot more is legal than many people assume or claim.

[Imarok]

15 minutes ago, Nescio said:

No, it's not merely a curiosity, it's an example of the profound influence Tolkien has had on our popular culture and language. Many fantasy games and books started using "dwarves" instead of "dwarfs", after Tolkien. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, therefore "dwarves" is nowadays included as an alternative plural. (Also, the folklore and fantasy meaning of dwarf is now commonly listed before the "an abnormally small person" entry.) Likewise "hobbit" and "orc" have entered the dictionary. By writing "dwarves" you showed you yourself are influenced by the works of J. R. R. Tolkien, without realizing it.

However, words are not copyrightable, nor are concepts or ideas. Tolkien's "mithril" has been included in possibly hundreds of games, including Age of Mythology, and there is a Noldor ship in 0 A.D. Erring on the safe side is often sound advice, but one can err too much, and limit oneself unnecessarily. A lot more is legal than many people assume or claim.

Uh, that definitely dependa in your country...

[Nescio]

35 minutes ago, Imarok said:

Uh, that definitely dependa in your country...

Yes, copyright, intellectual property, and fair use laws vary from country to country.

And no, only the form how you express something, if original, is protected by copyright, not the ideas themselves.

[Stan`]

I wonder if the rights of LOTR will come in the public domain at some point ? In France I believe it's something like 70 or 100 years.

Dwarves was definitely created by Tolkien. There are a lot of sources on the web that says so. 

[Nescio]

14 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:

I wonder if the rights of LOTR will come in the public domain at some point ? In France I believe it's something like 70 or 100 years.

In the EU and the USA it's 70 years after the year the artist died; in some other countries it's up to 100 years. J. R. R. Tolkien died in 1973, therefore his works will enter the public domain in most of the world on January 1, 2044.

However, many of his books were published posthumously and edited by his son Christopher Tolkien, who's still alive. Also, translations typically belong to translators, illustrations to illustrators, films to film directors. Alan Lee and John Howe are two artists responsible for the majority of "authorised" Tolkien art, and they're both alive as well. Etc.

[Stan`]

0adwill be done till then hopefully