Please get the rights to this map!

[Spazm]

Maybe I'm a super geek, but I think it would be fun to play on this map:

http://xkcd.com/802/

 

[Incandenza]

Ha, I saw that this morning. The problem isn't necessarily licensing the map from Randall, it's the fact that the map itself uses so many copyrighted names. But it's something we'll discuss.

 

[ghost]

that is a truly ugly looking map..lol.

 

[Shepherd]

Wow, I looked at the link and before I even opened it I knew what it was going to be! Somebody attempted to make a gaming map out of this elsewhere and failed. It's funny, but that's about it... gameplay is a mess, visually it's not up to our standards, and there's no way we'd get all of those private entities to give up the rights to their names. The makers of this map can get away with it because, as a non-commercial piece of satire, it is fair use. That would not be the case for a MajCom map.

 

[ORBOTRON]

haha troll bay, obviously one of you guys would have to spruce up the visuals, but maybe you could do the whole similar name thing to avoid copyright stuff, like myplace and facelook instead of the real names

 

[Badorties]

I'm pretty sure there are no copyright issues here. XKCD is not non-commercial and this isn't satire.

There are no violations to simply uttering, or writing a brand name. You think newspapers and magazine get permission to use a brands name in it's headlines?

Artwork is another story though, if there were logos all over this thing, then yeah, might be an issue, but as i understand the law, (IANAL) this is okiedoke.

 

[Shepherd]

Fair use doctrine allows for use of copyrighted material for such purposes as commentary, criticism, news reporting, teaching or research. XKCD may not be non-commercial, but this use could well be considered commentary.

If we were to use this image (or something better looking that we created ourselves with similar subject matter, since this image belongs to XKCD) we could certainly try to make the same case. But while the makers of Farmville might be flattered that they rated high enough to make it onto a comic, they may not be so happy about seeing another gaming site profit from their name. At this stage in our development if we're going to be so bold as to laugh in the face of a Cease and Desist letter from the Facebook legal team, it better be over something far more cool than this.

Another criticism about using this image as a MajCom map: by the time an artist completes their work and gets the map up and running, there will be something to replace Twitter and it will be obsolete. I think the original version of this map included Second Life, MySpace, and Friendster.

But it's good that we're starting the kick around this conversation of copyright, because as we roll out the Map Studio we're certain to have further conversations about what we can and can't do. We also have to consider what we can do vs. what we should do - just because we think we can mock Facebook doesn't mean we should!:neo:

 

[ghost]

Fair use doctrine allows for use of copyrighted material for such purposes as commentary, criticism, news reporting, teaching or research. XKCD may not be non-commercial, but this use could well be considered commentary.

If we were to use this image (or something better looking that we created ourselves with similar subject matter, since this image belongs to XKCD) we could certainly try to make the same case. But while the makers of Farmville might be flattered that they rated high enough to make it onto a comic, they may not be so happy about seeing another gaming site profit from their name. At this stage in our development if we're going to be so bold as to laugh in the face of a Cease and Desist letter from the Facebook legal team, it better be over something far more cool than this.

Another criticism about using this image as a MajCom map: by the time an artist completes their work and gets the map up and running, there will be something to replace Twitter and it will be obsolete. I think the original version of this map included Second Life, MySpace, and Friendster.

But it's good that we're starting the kick around this conversation of copyright, because as we roll out the Map Studio we're certain to have further conversations about what we can and can't do. We also have to consider what we can do vs. what we should do - just because we think we can mock Facebook doesn't mean we should!:neo:

i totally agree with you Shep. getting into the legalities of copyright over something as lame as a map that depicts the many social networks and means for one to click around the internet and play games, stay connected.. seems awfully trite in terms of map making...what MC has over other risk-related sites, is a team of experienced and talented map makers that can concoct and come up with incredible material on their own without resorting to mimicking a shitty map idea someone else created. even if ya'll could bring on the kitsch and badassery of design and artistic edge to this map.. it would still suck because of its content.

not to mention, can you even imagine playing a game that is THAT confusing and over-extended in terms of text/territories/et c? ugh.

i seriously think we should create a community poll that allows our faithful following to choose a 'genre' of map that they would like to see in play. afterall it's the community that is going to make this site what it is destined to be. the best of the best.

 

[mapguy]

Great job on the site guys and girls. I have recently come over from CC. to see what you have got going on. First impressions are very, very positive. I will soon be offering some suggs about this and that, but on this topic, I have a couple of questions, that precedes a suggestion.

Question- At CC, I understand that a contract must be signed, that allows them to use the mapmakers copyrighted work, for as long as they wish. Correct ?

Question- This contract does NOT give them any copyrights, but only "permission" to use. Correct ?

Suggestion- Is there any legality, that would prevent the use of some of the same maps here ?

It seems to me that the reason CC set up their contract with this wording, is because they wanted to make it so that they could not be sued by a third party, for infringement of copyrighted material.

I am sure that they thought themselves pretty slick. But in my opinion, they should have just went ahead and assumed them copyrights for themselves. Then they would be the ONLY ones that could use the map. In my mind, there is nothing to stop the mapmaker of a CC map(s), from granting permission, or even transferring the ownership of said map(s), to this site, or any other entity.

I see that some of the best mapmakers from CC are currently working here. I would love to see them do a revamp of there top maps from CC, and bring them over here (where they belong).

The number of maps that CC has, and along with the number of members that they have, are the only TWO things that make them better than this site. I absolutely LOVE they way this site is put together. Far, far superior to CC, in so many ways. -(I can not wait for the Foundry to open).

 

[Badorties]

I made several maps for CC, never signed a contract. THe main thing that would prevent people form CC using maps here is us. We aim to have the highest standards in maps and are not looking to reach a level of cartographic dilution that they have over there. CC reached the point of diminishing returns about 71 maps ago. He favor quality over quantity and we have measures in place to ensure that.

 

[ghost]

Great job on the site guys and girls. I have recently come over from CC. to see what you have got going on. First impressions are very, very positive. I will soon be offering some suggs about this and that, but on this topic, I have a couple of questions, that precedes a suggestion.

Question- At CC, I understand that a contract must be signed, that allows them to use the mapmakers copyrighted work, for as long as they wish. Correct ?

Question- This contract does NOT give them any copyrights, but only "permission" to use. Correct ?

Suggestion- Is there any legality, that would prevent the use of some of the same maps here ?

It seems to me that the reason CC set up their contract with this wording, is because they wanted to make it so that they could not be sued by a third party, for infringement of copyrighted material.

I am sure that they thought themselves pretty slick. But in my opinion, they should have just went ahead and assumed them copyrights for themselves. Then they would be the ONLY ones that could use the map. In my mind, there is nothing to stop the mapmaker of a CC map(s), from granting permission, or even transferring the ownership of said map(s), to this site, or any other entity.

I see that some of the best mapmakers from CC are currently working here. I would love to see them do a revamp of there top maps from CC, and bring them over here (where they belong).

The number of maps that CC has, and along with the number of members that they have, are the only TWO things that make them better than this site. I absolutely LOVE they way this site is put together. Far, far superior to CC, in so many ways. -(I can not wait for the Foundry to open).

i can't answer a lot of your questions, they're geared more towards Shep or Bado.. but i do have a comment. CC, indeed has a lot of maps.. but it's the quality of that mass amount of maps that makes the few maps MC has thus far, imo, ten times better. how many ugly maps has CC deemed worthy of gameplay that soo many people have taken one look at and said "seriously, wtf?".. far too many.

i think over time, the number of maps MC has will (of course) increase, but the quality of the maps we offer for play.. it's no argument which site will offer more visually appealing, unique, and artistic creations. and indeed they (CC) have a large number of users.. but how many of those users are even active anymore? the site.. as much as it's still 'loved' is a faltering pile of an idea, that never quite flew to it's full potential. bigger, is not necessarily better.. and in time, i think, MC will have a much larger/broader/more active set of players then CC has now.. not to toot MC's horn too loudly, but good things happen in steps - and over the past year every member of MC staff has been working together to create 'the best of the best'.. if what they have now, is only beta.. i can't wait for version 1.0.

 

[mapguy]

I made several maps for CC, never signed a contract. THe main thing that would prevent people form CC using maps here is us. We aim to have the highest standards in maps and are not looking to reach a level of cartographic dilution that they have over there. CC reached the point of diminishing returns about 71 maps ago. He favor quality over quantity and we have measures in place to ensure that.

I could not agree with you more. My thought was take a few of the best maps that you yourself, and others here, have made. And, then use them as a base for revamps. So in the end, you would have better versions of CC best maps. Also, would not it be ironic if in the end MC had the copyrights for some of CC's maps ? I do not really care one way or the other about that, but what I would really love to see, is a map like Siege for example, being played on YOUR site. But as a souped-up better (revamped) version.

 

[mapguy]

i can't answer a lot of your questions, they're geared more towards Shep or Bado.. but i do have a comment. CC, indeed has a lot of maps.. but it's the quality of that mass amount of maps that makes the few maps MC has thus far, imo, ten times better. how many ugly maps has CC deemed worthy of gameplay that soo many people have taken one look at and said "seriously, wtf?".. far too many.

i think over time, the number of maps MC has will (of course) increase, but the quality of the maps we offer for play.. it's no argument which site will offer more visually appealing, unique, and artistic creations. and indeed they (CC) have a large number of users.. but how many of those users are even active anymore? the site.. as much as it's still 'loved' is a faltering pile of an idea, that never quite flew to it's full potential. bigger, is not necessarily better.. and in time, i think, MC will have a much larger/broader/more active set of players then CC has now.. not to toot MC's horn too loudly, but good things happen in steps - and over the past year every member of MC staff has been working together to create 'the best of the best'.. if what they have now, is only beta.. i can't wait for version 1.0.

I'm there with ya. And I agree with everything that you said. Especially the part about CC's standards going down-hill. "Turds", would be a kind word for what their Foundry is producing lately. But, some of the maps there that are authored by mibi, Beals, oak, and others, are very good. (and can be made even better). Quality over quantity, that is the most important thing here. A larger "quantity" of "quality" maps is the only thing that this site is lacking.

I am not advocating that you just take and throw up a bunch of CC's maps. But that you take some of the ideas, from a few of the best maps, and create new maps, with newer and better GP and GFX. It's kinda like a movie sequel. The only really successful ones, are the ones that go a step further, to an improvement over the first.

 

[ghost]

I'm there with ya. And I agree with everything that you said. Especially the part about CC's standards going down-hill. "Turds", would be a kind word for what their Foundry is producing lately. But, some of the maps there that are authored by mibi, Beals, oak, and others, are very good. (and can be made even better). Quality over quantity, that is the most important thing here. A larger "quantity" of "quality" maps is the only thing that this site is lacking.

I am not advocating that you just take and throw up a bunch of CC's maps. But that you take some of the ideas, from a few of the best maps, and create new maps, with newer and better GP and GFX. It's kinda like a movie sequel. The only really successful ones, are the ones that go a step further, to an improvement over the first.

i am not a mapmaker (just yet) lol.. but i can say, you can definitely expect to see amazing things from MajCom Studios. i think the idea of taking 'great maps' made for CC and re-vamping them and bringing them over here is a general expectation from people who have played on our teams maps before.

but i do know that MC will eventually offer a lot more in a map, than any site currently does. (to say anymore would be to let the proverbial 'cat' out of the 'bag)... i can understand a desire to see those awesome works playable here.. but i can also understand a desire to create something 'new' and totally different.

in the end, when MC does reach it's pinnacle of site-dom.. what we offer will by far surpass anyone else at present.

good things comes to those, that wait.. so just wait... and see, what MajCom does. ;P

 

[mapguy]

i am not a mapmaker (just yet) lol.. but i can say, you can definitely expect to see amazing things from MajCom Studios. i think the idea of taking 'great maps' made for CC and re-vamping them and bringing them over here is a general expectation from people who have played on our teams maps before.

but i do know that MC will eventually offer a lot more in a map, than any site currently does. (to say anymore would be to let the proverbial 'cat' out of the 'bag)... i can understand a desire to see those awesome works playable here.. but i can also understand a desire to create something 'new' and totally different.

in the end, when MC does reach it's pinnacle of site-dom.. what we offer will by far surpass anyone else at present.

good things comes to those, that wait.. so just wait... and see, what MajCom does. ;P

I will be waiting and watching.

FTR, I DO understand the desire to be different from CC. But please to whom it may concern- Remember that CC itself is a ripoff from RISK. So not too much admiration, or unfounded respect, should be given them. IMHO. And one more thing on this subject, CC would NOT be where they are today, if it were not for mibi and friends.

 

[ghost]

do you know how creepy it is to read "i will be waiting & watching"?? lol.

 

[mapguy]

do you know how creepy it is to read "i will be waiting & watching"?? lol.

Maybe it's just my creepy avi, that is influencing you. LOL.

 

[Shepherd]

Hi mapguy... welcome and thanks for the feedback.

There's not much I have to add to this discussion beyond what badorties already said. CC has their own system of map making and copyright protection, and it's a system that works very well for them given the history of the site and the size of their community. We've got our own systems for developing site- and user-generated maps, and it's a system that will work well for us considering our beginnings. We won't have 140 maps overnight, but neither did CC.

As for creating CC map "sequels" - while it would certainly be easy to just port over a bunch of CC maps, we would only do so for a map that (1) we created in the first place (there are 30 or so CC maps that are the creative property of the current MajorCommand team, and more which we co-authored), and (2) we thought was such a unique and kick-ass idea that it deserved to be reincarnated here. When and if we do this it will be, like you suggested, to rethink and improve upon the graphics and gameplay, not as a copy. But ultimately we'd like MajCom to stand on it's own with original high quality maps; we don't just want to be a clone of some other gaming site.

 

[ORBOTRON]

do you know how creepy it is to read "i will be waiting & watching"?? lol.

<------------------------ mOOm

 

[ghost]

<------------------------ mOOm

haha.