ORIGINAL: Hellen_slith
You don't know what you're talking about. COPYRIGHT and FAIR USE (while related) are two separate legal issues.
Taking a COPYRIGHTED scenario (such as those INCLUDED with the sale of TOAW), and then repackaging it and reselling it without proper licensing is a COPYRIGHT issue and is, of course, not a legitimate USE of those scenarios.
Taking an UNCOPYRIGHTED scenario that a person created for THEIR use and OTHERS uses (which is obvious that they do by posting them to be used FREELY), and then RESELLING those is problematic, but COULD be a copyright issue.
MODIFYING a scenario that a person created for THEIR use and OTHERS uses (which is obviously done when those authors POST their creations FOR FREE USE) falls squarely under the umbrella of FAIR USE and those authors do not have a leg to stand on if they cry foul when ANOTHER user MODIFIES their creation for their own and for others' FREE USE .... WITH or WITHOUT the original author's consent. If those MODIFICATIONS were then USED to SELL the modification, THAT would be problematic.
The modification of scenarios for the FREE USE by others falls squarely under FAIR USE.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about.
ORIGINAL: Hellen_slith
It is "news" to you because you do not understand copyright versus fair use (or perhaps you are being deliberately obtuse AGAIN.
Authors DO have rights over their creations. They can not control the LEGITIMATE and FAIR USE of those creations, whatever they may be.
Stop creating these "issues" that you dream up and DELIBERATELY spread to knock this game and its FAIR USE.
You don't know what you're talking about.
You don't know what you're talking about. COPYRIGHT and FAIR USE (while related) are two separate legal issues.
Taking a COPYRIGHTED scenario (such as those INCLUDED with the sale of TOAW), and then repackaging it and reselling it without proper licensing is a COPYRIGHT issue and is, of course, not a legitimate USE of those scenarios.
Taking an UNCOPYRIGHTED scenario that a person created for THEIR use and OTHERS uses (which is obvious that they do by posting them to be used FREELY), and then RESELLING those is problematic, but COULD be a copyright issue.
MODIFYING a scenario that a person created for THEIR use and OTHERS uses (which is obviously done when those authors POST their creations FOR FREE USE) falls squarely under the umbrella of FAIR USE and those authors do not have a leg to stand on if they cry foul when ANOTHER user MODIFIES their creation for their own and for others' FREE USE .... WITH or WITHOUT the original author's consent. If those MODIFICATIONS were then USED to SELL the modification, THAT would be problematic.
The modification of scenarios for the FREE USE by others falls squarely under FAIR USE.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about.
Considering how definitively you frame your response, I think that it would be appropriate to post some citations backing up your interpretation of copyright law, which frankly is rather different from mine.
In my understanding, a production is copyrighted as soon as it is put down in tangible form, no matter whether it was created for commercial use or created for personal use. Posting something on the internet does not mean that copyright is forfeited. Please post citations if you are contending otherwise, as you seem to be.
While it is true that it is more difficult to sue someone for copyright if that copyright has not been registered, that goes to the question of remedies rather than infringement, which is what we're discussing here. I think that everyone agrees that whether or not there is an infringement, it is highly unlikely that you'd end up in court, much less owe damages, for unauthorized use of someone's TOAW scenario, so at the end of the day remedies are not really relevant...
There are of course, exceptions. Creators can specifically waive copyright by explicitly putting their production into the public domain, etc.
Anyway, here are sources backing up my interpretation of all of this:
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/what-is-a ... on-3514945
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/creative- ... ght-397822
https://www.newmediarights.org/business ... ce_my_work
So it seems to me that TOAW scenarios would in fact be subject to copyright, even if remedies might be limited. What about the Fair Use issue?
Fair Use is interesting, but to me it does not seem completely clear that this kind of use would necessarily constitute Fair Use. A Wikipedia article on Fair Use states that:
"...the noncommercial purpose of a use makes it more likely to be found a fair use, but it does not make it a fair use automatically.[16] For instance, in L.A. Times v. Free Republic, the court found that the noncommercial use of Los Angeles Times content by the Free Republic website was not fair use, since it allowed the public to obtain material at no cost that they would otherwise pay for. Richard Story similarly ruled in Code Revision Commission and State of Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. that despite the fact that it is a non-profit and didn't sell the work, the service profited from its unauthorized publication of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated because of "the attention, recognition, and contributions" it received in association with the work."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
So while it seems that non-commercial use of a non-commercial product would have a good chance of being considered Fair Use, can you point to a source which states definitively that any non-commercial use of a non-commercial work would constitute Fair Use under all circumstances, as you seem to be suggesting? Honestly I doubt that there will be much case law on this, since as discussed on this thread, such cases are highly unlikely to end up in court...
