Why can't you use assets in non-commercial standalone games exactly?

[Dusty]

So I don't quite understand this part...

 

Why can't you use assets from JA/JO in a standalone game? I mean, if you're not creating a professional game or something that you're trying to sell, why is that bad? Seems a little odd to me... I mean is Raven worried you won't credit them for their stuff, or that someone else will take what you have and sell the assets in the mod?

[afi]

It's bad because you don't have the right/license to do so... it's that simple

In the end no one would care (as long as you don't sell it) but that doesn't make it legal.

[Dusty]

It's bad because you don't have the right/license to do so... it's that simple

In the end no one would care (as long as you don't sell it) but that doesn't make it legal.

 

But we have the license to do whatever the heck else we want with all of Raven's code, even sell games made off it, except re-use their assets in any way?

[Psyk0Sith]

You do not own the assets from Raven or any intellectual property from Lucas Arts / Disney, distributing them freely would require an agreement of some kind from both companies.

[Dusty]

I'm probably annoying the living daylights out of everyone, but isn't that what every single mod has done before the source code release?

 

I mean, I'm thinking along the lines of OpenJK. Is the reason that's considered a standalone game in the first-place because you don't need to CD to play or whatever? Then that makes more sense to me... 

[minilogoguy18]

^Mods normally don't include assets and even if they do they're being used on people who own the game and engine. With a stand alone you're distributing your OWN engine technically and trying to use assets from another game to create a new one, it's porting.

[eezstreet]

Don't be a pirate. Don't distribute game assets.

Thanks.

[Inyri]

I'm probably annoying the living daylights out of everyone, but isn't that what every single mod has done before the source code release?

 

I mean, I'm thinking along the lines of OpenJK. Is the reason that's considered a standalone game in the first-place because you don't need to CD to play or whatever? Then that makes more sense to me... 

Happy reading.

[Dusty]

So using game assets is mainly illegal/not good with anything that either

a )  mods the engine

b )  enables you to play the game without buying it

 

 

Don't be a pirate. Don't distribute game assets.

Thanks.

 

I don't want to distribute game assets or be a pirate... I like making mods though.

[eezstreet]

Mostly b. But yes.

[mrwonko]

You can't give the assets to other people for free for the same reason you can't upload that cool new Bioshock game for everybody to enjoy. It's not your property.

 

Raven/Activision/Disney basically forfeited ownership of the source code, and only the source code. (And maybe the menu files and the stuff in ext_data.)

 

There's always been a clause about mods somewhere - I can't find it right now - that states they may only run on the original game, which is why it was kinda okay-ish to upload modded game assets. If anything, this release makes all existing mods illegal.

[Setlec]

mods clause is in the EULA that comes with the game when you buy it, iirc. the game assets can be modified or even replace for a mods but that doesn't make a entirely new asset, meaning that you still require parts of the original asset to be distribute, making a standalone using modified asset(s) is strictly forbidden. EULA remains valid for the game and its assets while the source code of the game use GPLv2 license.

 

Hope that makes sense.

[afi]

(3)     New Levels must not contain any illegal, scandalous, illicit, defamatory,

libelous, or objectionable material (as may be determined by LucasArts in its sole

discretion), or any material that infringes any trademarks, copyrights, protected works,

publicity, proprietary, or other rights of any third party or of LucasArts.  

(4)     New Levels may not include any LucasArts sound effects or music files or

portions thereof.

 

 

etc

[Raz0r]

EULA remains valid for the game and its assets while the source code of the game use GPLv2 license.

Just to clarify, the original MP source code as part of the SDK is still under the SDK's licence. Only works derived from this new source release is considered GPLv2.

This means that existing code mods do not have to abide by GPLv2, but you can convert your project to GPLv2 by doing a diff+merge on the new source.

[Delta_135]

(4)     New Levels may not include any LucasArts sound effects or music files or

portions thereof.

 

i'm a bit confused about this one

does it say we an't allowed to use sounds and music from other star wars games and movies a new level

or does it say we an't allowed to use sounds and music from the game in new levels?

[eezstreet]

LucasArts has since lifted that ban I believe, but the qualifications for "New levels" is invalid when you're making a new game. Basically if you're making a new game, it's treated like that -- a new game. Doesn't matter if it's commercial or not. If you're porting from another game, you're essentially copying the assets from another game and making them part of your IP, which is illegal under copyright laws.

However if you're making a version of JK which is also compatible with those assets, you can't legally distribute those assets with the game. That's pirating, which is illegal. While we can distribute an OpenJK asset pack, all that has to be distributed COMPLETELY SEPARATE from the game, unless we replace all assets. And due to Disney copyrights, you can't make a new game which has lightsabers or droids in it (as these are original LucasFilms copyrights, and even the Motorolla Company has to pay for the use of Droid in their cell phone products).

[afi]

In case you want to read everything you can find the license.txt in your install folder...

[minilogoguy18]

So what if someone made something that uses the assets but doesn't release any of them with their game in turn requiring them to own JA to play it would that be ok? I guess it would be more like a mod than a stand alone though.

[eezstreet]

That's perfectly fine and acceptable. And no, I believe some other mods did that and went standalone that way. But I can't think of any off the top of my head.

[minilogoguy18]

I can live with that, if someone isn't willing to buy the assets (game discs) then they're one tight m-f'er with their money.

[Mog]

That's even assuming people will follow those laws. Unless they sell their product on the open market, I highy doubt this will be enforced.

[eezstreet]

You can sell something perfectly fine, as long as it uses no Star Wars references or original game assets, and source code is provided.

 

Raven might get a bit mad if you use GHOUL2 though. I dunno.

 

And yeah it tends to be pretty lenient on free releases, especially with derived .menus and sounds.

[Mog]

Also, it's hard to define what exactly IS allowed. Copyright laws are an international pass-time these days. It's hard to not find some place on the net that has a rebellious belief about them. However, many of those beliefs are mis-interpretations on what the law actually states.

 

I would think that, yes, it IS illegal to use assets that don't belong to you...so long as you don't literally copy and paste the game files, rename it as something else, claim it as your own and make money off of it. If you're talking about taking the assets, modifying the code to change certain elements, but then citing that code as belonging to a third party and only taking credit in editing that code...then no one is going to go after you. The only issue with that is if you decide to claim everything as being your own, and not of the third party.

 

It's one of the reason why modders are not dragged off to Federal Prisons; they modify the code, but still cite the original makers of the code, and only claim responsibility for the modification.

 

As for the OpenJK project, it is totally legal. All that's being done is using the resources that RavenSoft released and using it to modify and fix the current issues that are presents. As long as those working on the project take credit on the modification itself and not the entirety of the assets, then no legal issues will pop up. 

[eezstreet]

Copyright infringement is pretty cut and dry these days. With more knowledgeable lawyers, everyone loses.

 

Let me provide you with two examples: the Starcraft project for Command and Conquer and the LOTR project for Skyrim. Both of those were C&D'd for copyright infringement on the original owners. There is also a Half Life 2 mod which restored cut content from leaked releases that was also C&D'd, and the original leaker (and one of the mods too) was sued a pretty hefty amount.

 

There's also the workarounds for Blizzard's Warden software, and Diablo II private servers. Sued and Blizzard won. Even the mere discussion of Diablo II private servers were banned outright, despite them being a fantastic tool to build communities for mods.

[afi]

Ye, it's about what you do/own, not about what you "claim". Copyright is copyright even if you don't sell it.