User:Stardust~enwiki

Hello world. My contribution to Wikipedia is and will be confined to documentation of the Settlers of Catan game suite. My experience at Wikipedia has proven to me beyond doubt that true democracy is the weakest, most anarchical, and unmanagable form of government. That is to say, the stupidity of the masses is dangerous when empowered.

The document generated a storm of controversy over possible copyright infringement. Of course that has been settled, but not before I had to suck it up and write a treatise on copyright protections, as they apply to the components of a board game (see below). I strongly suggest to members of Wikipedia, who traipse about making frequent deletions in the name of copyright protection, both to research the subject themselves, and to read the following sections at a minimum.

~ stardust 22:30, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What is and isn't protected by a game's copyright?

The source of the following quotations is the United States Copyright Office Games Page.

What copyright doesn't restrict:
- "The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the method or methods for playing it."
- "Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game."
- "Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles."
What copyright does protect:
- "Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form."
- "Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable."
- In order to register the copyrightable portions of a game, you must send the Library of Congress, Copyright Office, 101 Independence Avenue S.E., Washington, D.C. 20559-6000, the following elements in the same envelope or package: a completed application form, a nonrefundable filing fee, and one complete copy of the work.

Thus the copyrightable portions of Settlers of Catan are:

"the text matter describing the rules of the game," i.e. the precise wording of the Settlers Almanac
"the pictoral matter appearing on the gameboard or container," i.e. the images on all game components

However, the copyrightable portions are not under copyright protection unless the registration process has been completed. A search of US Copyright Office records reveals that no such registration has been completed for the Settlers of Catan game suite.

NOTE: The author of the above (Stardust) is incorrect in the first sentence of the above paragraph. Since the Geneva Convention on copyright in 1976 and the enabling legislation in '76 or '77, registration is no longer necessary for copyright protection in the United States. Copyright is in force from the moment that something is expressed in a fixed form (see the relevant US Copyright Office Circular). That means that the registration is unnecessary for copyright protection. There are, as the same circular notes, advantages to the registration process, but copyright protection is automatic. --AustinZiegler

In other words, the only protection that the game suite is under is "the particular manner of the author's expression of artistic form."

While the images in the Settlers of Catan article are recognizable representations of the components of the game, they are several dozen degrees of image processing away from the game pieces themselves. The images are display- or thumbnail-sized and informative in nature, not life-sized and suitable for putting into game play. Thus it is doubtful that the courts would rule them to be artwork "in the particular manner of the author's original expression."

Some Wikipedia users have tossed around the concept of derivative work, as referenced by the Copyright Act, which brings us to the next question.

What is considered derivative work under the Copyright Act?

Regarding whether third-party documentation of a copyrighted game might be considered derivative work in violation of copyright protection, the legal precedent set by Allen V. Academic Games indicates otherwise. Among the notable quotes from the case were the following:

"While each of the subject games contains a game manual, AGLOA tournament rulebooks do not repeat the rules found in the game manuals, but refer to the rules and elaborate on how each game is to be played in a tournament setting."
"Although the district court found that some of the rules discussed in the AGLOA rulebooks were also found in Allen's game manuals, this court is not convinced that it is even necessary to consider whether the AGLOA rulebooks in fact constituted 'derivative works' under the Copyright Act."

The Wikipedia documentation covers the same facts about the game (more, actually) as does the Settlers Almanac, but all of that factual information lies in the public domain. The Wikipedia entry contains, with few expections, my wording and not that of anyone else or of the Settlers Almanac in particular. Thus it describes the mechanics of the game in a perfectly legal manner and would not be considered a "derivative work" by the courts.

Want ignore all the evidence above? Fine. But the fair use provision of US copyright laws allows for the reproduction of parts of copyrighted Settlers of Catan materials without the permission of Mayfair Games and Klaus Teuber, the copyright owners. If you're not convinced that the article falls under fair use, see the next section.

What constitutes fair use?

Well start by reading the detailed explanation of fair use provided by UMaine Farmington.

Then use the UMN Duluth Fair Use Worksheet to apply the four factors determining the bounds of fair use. All of the following factors indicate fair use:

The purpose of Wikipedia as a whole is not to generate profit or revenue.
The purpose of the document is educational and commentary in nature.
The nature of the document is fact-based (i.e. the mechanics of the game).
The amount of included artwork is not such that the documentation could not stand without it.
The amount of included artwork is not such that it could be used to replace sale of the game, particularly its 3-dimensional components.
The text of the document is neither derived nor based on the Settlers Almanac.
No negative effect on the market for the game is intended or likely.
I personally own a lawfully acquired (purchased) copy of the game.

Another outline of fair use, in the specific context of third-party documentation of commercial games, may be found at GameFAQs, and at Far Future Enterprises Fair Use FAQ, where the most notable quote states the bounds of fair use as follows, "You cannot scan entire sections of art in an attempt to reproduce a book, but if you want to display a map on your web page to annotate an adventure you are writing, or you need to display a tank for an article that you have composed about it, then it's OK to use it."

Displaying a Standard (III-IV) Settlers map, or a boat next to its section in the article, are entirely analogous to the instances given above. While Mayfair Games has not issued a similar fair use statement, remember that fair use is permitted with or without explicit permission from the copyright owner.

Lastly, although I am not legally bound to do so, I have contacted Mayfair Games regarding fair use of illustrative representations of their games on Wikipedia. When I receive their reply, I will post it.

What about open gaming?

Since many comments have referenced the legality of S3D, I took a look into open gaming, too. A good place to start might be reading these Notes on Open Gaming. Notable quotes include:

"Software has seen the rise of 'Open Source' as a concept, but role-playing and boardgames are very different than software games. In a sense, all RPG's and boardgames are "open source" in that anyone can see exactly how they work and use those ideas in other games."
"...game supplements are legal even for closed-copyright games... The threat of lawsuit for a similar game or compatible supplement is presumably lessened... if you can point to the open license."

Since S3D in no way duplicates the physical form of Settlers, the legal precedent of Allen V. Academic Games points to there being little grounds for charges to begin with: "...although Allen may be entitled to copyright protection for the physical form of his games, he is not afforded protection for the premises or ideas underlying those games."

More recently, Software Engineering, Inc. clashed with Milton & Bradley over SEI's commercial offering of Dogs of War, a software implemention openly based on the Milton Bradley game Axis & Allies. M&B threatened to sue unless SEI took the software off the net and stopped selling the game. The game was orphaned by its creators as a commercial product, and became shareware that is available to date. Now S3D is freeware and not a commercial product to begin with. It is not unique in being an electronic implementation of settlers, and it handles a tenth of the volume that Java does. Thus the continued availability of Dogs of War shareware today points to the continued availability of S3D freeware in the future.

Finally, though wancatan alone has been approached by Mayfair and Teuber's legal team about trademark issues in the past, it continues to host a contingent of (mostly dutch) players. The disclaimer at S3D simply shows preemptory and voluntary compliance by S3D with the list of legal demands made of wancatan.