June 2008 Entry: Stormlit Cloister (Groam)

[Gidde]

Ha! This challenge was before my time with the guild, so I'm not sure I ever saw this. It does indeed look fantastic

[ravells]

Thanks Gidde, this will be one of the maps heading off to the exhibition in New York.

[tilt]

cool - congrats on that ... very nice map indeed (also before my time)

[Midgardsormr]

Thanks Gidde, this will be one of the maps heading off to the exhibition in New York.

How is the licensing problem being addressed? All of the CWBP maps are licensed CC BY-SA-NC, which prevents prints from being sold.

And congratulations, of course! This is one of my favorite maps to come out of the CWBP.

[ravells]

Shouldn't be a problem..... As I'm the copyright holder, I can do what I like with it. It's others who have to abide by the license.

[Midgardsormr]

Not quite. The entirety of the CWBP is bound by the CC license applied to the original Fractal Terrains map. That Share Alike clause forces Torq's Groam map to also be BY-NC-SA, and since your map is based on his (if only the title and one label), it binds yours as well. This is what I was trying to point out a few months ago: we can't sell prints of our own work unless the project is relicensed with more permissions or we get permission from everyone in the chain above our own map. In the case of the Stormlit Cloister, that means at least NeonKnight and Torq must relicense their work, or you need to change the title and the reference to Small Coping.

Personally, I'm all in favor of constructing a new license to permit artists to profit from their own work, provided that the derivative works are sufficiently original, and to sidestep the problem with the CGTextures license that's been discussed elsewhere. In the meantime, NeonKnight and torq need to authorize your use of their property for commercial gain.

Not that I think anyone here is likely to sue, NK and torq especially, but it would be good if we could make sure that it couldn't happen, not just that it wouldn't.

[Redrobes]

Aside from the name, theres nothing in this map which has been inherited from previous CWBP work. Now I don't know whether using the name alone to make a map would be bound by it. Maybe... but if Ravs had called it something else and donated it to the CWBP as CC then he would certainly be able to license it in another way as well. In terms of Groam then it used NKs terrain so it cant be sold and there would be no option to re-license it in another format.

As for the argument whether use of the name alone is or is not part of the Groam map I don't know. I think that's where you need specialist advice. If it were trademarked as a map by someone else then certainly not. For example if a map in the CWBP was called "The Northern Peaks" and you made a map of it then no way could you claim that CWBP was uniquely instrumental in creating that name. Stormlit Cloister ??? I dunno - its in that gray area. IANAL -> duck.

How difficult to change name to SternLit Cloister and bypass any issue ?

[ravells]

Not quite. The entirety of the CWBP is bound by the CC license applied to the original Fractal Terrains map. That Share Alike clause forces Torq's Groam map to also be BY-NC-SA, and since your map is based on his (if only the title and one label), it binds yours as well. This is what I was trying to point out a few months ago: we can't sell prints of our own work unless the project is relicensed with more permissions or we get permission from everyone in the chain above our own map. In the case of the Stormlit Cloister, that means at least NeonKnight and Torq must relicense their work, or you need to change the title and the reference to Small Coping.

Personally, I'm all in favor of constructing a new license to permit artists to profit from their own work, provided that the derivative works are sufficiently original, and to sidestep the problem with the CGTextures license that's been discussed elsewhere. In the meantime, NeonKnight and torq need to authorize your use of their property for commercial gain.


Not that I think anyone here is likely to sue, NK and torq especially, but it would be good if we could make sure that it couldn't happen, not just that it wouldn't.

This is Interesting! I had no idea that one couldn't sell FT generated maps, but that doesn't apply here since the Stormlit Cloister map has no FT elements in it. I think it's a step too far to say that the entirety of the CWBP is bound by the original CC licence. Similarly the fact that in this imaginary world an entirely new work which is 'set in Groam invented by Torq' would somehow be subject to his permission also doesn't really ring right (although yes, perhaps the names could and should be changed). That would capture, for example the character art of 12 rounds. I do agree though, there needs to be better clarification.

best

Ravs

[Redrobes]

Nothing to do with FT. Its about the original world created by NK is released under a CC license which is BY-NC-SA. Its the SA bit. Thats share alike and requires all people who use CC licensed material to release all subsequent works using it as a similar CC license. This also includes the NC - i.e. Non Commercial and thus no selling of the maps. You cant create terrain based on NK's CC licensed terrain and then sell maps based on it. That applied to Torqs Groam and down the chain to you. Now your map is slightly different in that not a pixel of any of the CC maps gone before it is used - just the name of it. Thats too close a call for me to make but if you had used parts of Torqs Groam map then any image you make using that must be CC licensed with the BY-NC-SA and therefore cannot be sold.

Before NK pops in and says sure go ahead without the CC licensing of it then see my other posts on that subject. That would be BAD news.

I would like Torq to pop in and say... anything ! Hope he is ok.

[Midgardsormr]

Special permission from NK and torq in this isolated case wouldn't create the problem you're concerned with, RR. Permission could be given specifically for ravells to use the IP for this purpose alone, and it would introduce no weakness to the non-commercial clause in the existing license.

And I definitely agree about torq—I hope all is well with him.

That would capture, for example the character art of 12 rounds.

And that is exactly what I'm talking about. We did not fully think through the ramifications of the license when we started this. And we sure as heck didn't clearly explain the limitations to everyone who's been contributing. 12Rounds is probably safe so long as he doesn't include the character description with any portrait he decides to sell. And again, I don't anticipate legal action of any kind, but "strong fences make good neighbors."