NationStates Jolt Archive

Is any of the content on Nationstates copywritten?

For example, if one was to write an article that was to published, and quoted, say, a world factbook entry, is that copywritten?

I'm thinking you'll need permission:

"The portion of the content of this web site that has not been submitted by users is copyright under international law Max Barry..."

That brings to mind a question. What about the part that is submitted by users?

I'd assume that can be used by anyone, the WFE is written by users therefore surely that is submitted by users of the game and does not come under said copyright laws?

I'd assume that [user submited content] can be used by anyone, the WFE is written by users therefore surely that is submitted by users of the game and does not come under said copyright laws?


"When you submit content to NationStates.net, you grant the site and its administrator(s) a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual license to reproduce, distribute, transmit, and publicly display such content."
-- http://www.nationstates.net/pages/legal.html

I would assume that in order for a user to be able to "grant the site and its administrator(s) a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual license" on content he/she submits, the user must be the copyright owner of said content. Thus, in order to use user submited content, one needs the permission of the user who submitted said content.

"When you submit content to NationStates.net, you grant the site and its administrator(s) a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual license to reproduce, distribute, transmit, and publicly display such content."
-- http://www.nationstates.net/pages/legal.html

I would assume that in order for a user to be able to "grant the site and its administrator(s) a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual license" on content he/she submits, the user must be the copyright owner of said content. Thus, in order to use user submited content, one needs the permission of the user who submitted said content.

This is my unofficial opinion as well.

Talk to the person who wrote the text. If it was a player, talk to the player. If it is part of the game (written by Max Barry, myself, or is in an issue) you need to contact Max Barry.

A moderator could not speak on behalf of Max Barry?

This gives me a thought...everytime you quote someone on NS with something they say on the game, if they do it without asking you, you could sue them for breach of Copyright :D

A moderator could not speak on behalf of Max Barry?

This gives me a thought...everytime you quote someone on NS with something they say on the game, if they do it without asking you, you could sue them for breach of Copyright :D

sue me!

Did I give you permission to quote me? :D

no im a brit i dont need permission! :P

You bigot :(

A moderator could not speak on behalf of Max Barry?

No. Regarding Copywrite (and my non-expertise, mind you), I'm certain a Moderator's word wont cut it. If you want to copy anything listed under as covered by copywrite, you need Max's written permission.

Staggering back on-topic ... I believe Australian copyright law has a section allowing "fair dealing" for purposes of review, research, etc. Otherwise it would be difficult to write, say, a history essay, if you were a broke student and had to contact every author you wanted to quote, no matter how far away they lived.

Standard disclaimer, though: I'M NOT A LAWYER.

On the question of whether you'd be likely to get sued (as opposed to legally possible for you to get sued), I suspect your intentions have a lot to do with it.

If I were writing a balanced article about NationStates and quoted some of the funny, the stupid and the blindingly intelligent bits, I wouldn't expect to get sued by the posters or by Max because it wouldn't be in his or their interests to stop fair comment.

If, on the other hand, I was determined to prove that NationStates is part of a plan to lead the kiddies into the arms of the devil, and I supported this by quoting very, very selectively, I would expect to get sued hell, west and crooked.

The big catch, though, is that so would my publisher.

So if you've been asked to write an article for publication, tell the people who asked you what you're unsure about and why, and let their lawyers give an opinion. Or ask your union's lawyers, if you're in one. Or, if you're all amateurs together, find a lawyer who'll advise pro bono. (High school publications can often get a lawyer's advice free just by having the chutzpah to ask.)

Staggering back on-topic ... I believe Australian copyright law has a section allowing "fair dealing" for purposes of review, research, etc. Otherwise it would be difficult to write, say, a history essay, if you were a broke student and had to contact every author you wanted to quote, no matter how far away they lived.

Standard disclaimer, though: I'M NOT A LAWYER.

On the question of whether you'd be likely to get sued (as opposed to legally possible for you to get sued), I suspect your intentions have a lot to do with it.

If I were writing a balanced article about NationStates and quoted some of the funny, the stupid and the blindingly intelligent bits, I wouldn't expect to get sued by the posters or by Max because it wouldn't be in his or their interests to stop fair comment.

If, on the other hand, I was determined to prove that NationStates is part of a plan to lead the kiddies into the arms of the devil, and I supported this by quoting very, very selectively, I would expect to get sued hell, west and crooked.

The big catch, though, is that so would my publisher.

So if you've been asked to write an article for publication, tell the people who asked you what you're unsure about and why, and let their lawyers give an opinion. Or ask your union's lawyers, if you're in one. Or, if you're all amateurs together, find a lawyer who'll advise pro bono. (High school publications can often get a lawyer's advice free just by having the chutzpah to ask.)


Not a lawyer but you are right. Fair dealing isn't just Australia, its every nation that has it. The reason being that if you had to pay royalties or get special permission for everything, there would be no social or economic progress. There would be no news. Education would be nothing more than rote memorizations cause to do essays for homework you have to be to do research which often times means qouting passages from other people's books or lyrics.

On your second to last paragraph that's not true in the US. As long as you give proper credit to who authored the words, you can pretty much make them mean what ever you want them to mean.

I'm most interested in the intellectual property rules as they relate to "technology" that RPers often create. Some definitive answer on that matter would be welcome in my book.

I'm most interested in the intellectual property rules as they relate to "technology" that RPers often create. Some definitive answer on that matter would be welcome in my book.
Robert Heinlein invented the waterbed. Arthur C Clarke invented the communications satellite. I don't believe either received royalties for them. If you want a patent, go get a patent.

I'm most interested in the intellectual property rules as they relate to "technology" that RPers often create. Some definitive answer on that matter would be welcome in my book.

Ok, here's how it works: users of Nationstates own the copyright to everything they post here under international law, assuming it's copyrightable material in the first place and belongs to them.

The legal section only grants us the licenses we need to store your material and make it viewable on someone else's computer. 'Royalty-free' means you cannot charge us for doing so.

Were you to find someone had, for example, stolen your Nationstates weapon designs and used them in a movie or a line of toys, you as the copyright holder would still be fully entitled to take action against them. Putting something up in our forum does not remove your right of copyright ownership. It's doubtful you could file action if someone went so far as to actually build, say, an NS-designed tank, because the description the user provides is not exhaustive enough for 'industrial application' and would require massive additional work on behalf of the tank-builder.

On the other hand, if another user steals your designs [and that would be either using images without your permission or reproducing large portions of text unaltered], that is simple trolling and bad RP. If you point us at the thread, we'll tell them to knock it off.

Quoting posts in replies does not require copyright permission, since the 'fair use' part of copyright law allows reproduction of copyrighted works for purposes of criticism or commentary.

There used to be a thread a while back that listed who had a copyright to what tech etc. But it seems to have died. I tried to start one but there was no interest.

Edit: To legitly claim a copyright.
It has to be something that is not publicly available. It has to be almost entirely made up in your own head. Designs based on something someone else has is ok as long is it is not an exact copy. (If everything on your battleship is the same as another guy's except for one radar or one gun, that might be enough to count as being an exact copy).
To claim the copyright, you have to publish the tech or weapon design. A good idea is to include the term "Copyright" with the day and or year you are copyrighting it and the person doing the copyrighting. On NS it people tend to use their nations to claim copyright over whatever it is they came up with.

To claim the copyright, you have to publish the tech or weapon design.

It is published as soon as it is posted. You can also claim copyright on a design scribbled on the back of a cigarette packet; it doesn't have to be published:

Copyright comes into effect immediately, as soon as something that can be protected is created and "fixed" in some way, eg on paper, on film, via sound recording, as an electronic record on the internet, etc.

A good idea is to include the term "Copyright" with the day and or year you are copyrighting it and the person doing the copyrighting.

No, that's not necessary. You automatically own copyright as soon as the copyrighted work is created and 'fixed' in some way. This includes posting it; copyright threads are therefore utterly pointless.

It is published as soon as it is posted. You can also claim copright on a design scribbled on the back of a cigarette packet; it doesn't have to be published:





No, that's not necessary. You automatically own copyright as soon as the copyrighted work is created and 'fixed' in some way. This includes posting it; copyright threads are therefore utterly pointless.
That is all very very true. Though I think if scribble a design on the back of a cigarette packet, it's the same as publishing it in a way. The only thing for publishing, being that only one other person has to see it. Or you could mail it to yourself and that counts as publication also.

While you don't have to mark it as copyrighted, including the term tells other people not to copy it without your permission or that you are reserving your right. All it is is just a public notice. You don't have to put it up. But its all up to you.

Though I think personally, copying from someone else shows a lack of imagination on the part of the person doing the copying. And some people get offended when you copy their stuff.

A question I have is regarding characters that posters make up.

A question I have is regarding characters that posters make up.

I believe they'd be covered by the same rules as technology; copying one directly and entirely is trolling. This does not, however, mean any of the four million people with characters called 'Riddick' could have any action taken on that basis alone; it's only if someone reproduces a whole character and adds nothing or very, very little of their own, and that character is actually theirs to begin with. We wouldn't take action, for example, if two people had Darth Vader because they both nicked it from Star Wars to begin with.

I'd like another mod to second that part, since it could potentially become complicated.

Ok, here's how it works... (rest snipped as a courtesy).

That's EXACTLY what I was looking for. Thank you GMC.

I concur with my associate on both points made, on the copyright of technology and of characters. If you decide to develop your own character from nothing, an example would be Rave Shentavo, that character is her copyright, and no one else has the right to use that character in their own RP's.

The same goes with technology. If you develop a tank by yourself, rather than using a tank from real life, that becomes your copyright, and if someone blatantly takes that design and uses it for their own (without your permission) and claims that they developed it, it would be illegal (trolling and bad RP).

To muddy the waters a little, in the US it is a good idea to register a copywrite. The so called "poor man's" copywrite of mailing yourself something and keeping it unopened is no admissable in court (though it MIGHT be in the UK).

If you really need to file a copywrite protection, better hope that Jolt and Max keeps the server logs and will testify on your behalf.

To muddy the waters a little, in the US it is a good idea to register a copywrite. The so called "poor man's" copywrite of mailing yourself something and keeping it unopened is no admissable in court (though it MIGHT be in the UK).

If you really need to file a copywrite protection, better hope that Jolt and Max keeps the server logs and will testify on your behalf.
The mailing yourself a copy is current US law as passed by the US Congress. You do not need to register it.

To muddy the waters a little, in the US it is a good idea to register a copywrite. The so called "poor man's" copywrite of mailing yourself something and keeping it unopened is no admissable in court (though it MIGHT be in the UK).

No, you still own the copyright regardless of whether or not you register it. Plus registering costs $30, and you only need it if you're planning to take someone to court.

http://www.benedict.com/info/Law/LawWhy.aspx

UK copyright law has no such requirement, and protection is automatic.

This is a good statement of US copyright laws:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.html

"Under current law, works are covered whether or not a copyright notice is attached and whether or not the work is registered."

Under British law:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/c/co/copyright_law_of_the_united_kingdom.htm

British law is much more restrictive than US law.

The mailing yourself a copy is current US law as passed by the US Congress. You do not need to register it.

I'm 'fraid not, this is from the US Copyright office:
I’ve heard about a “poor man’s copyright.” What is it?
The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a “poor man’s copyright.” There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration.
(snopes.com did a write up on this, http://www.snopes.com/legal/postmark.asp )

You're correct that copyright is automatically established, but if you plan to take someone to court for it, it is nicer to have the registration, if it is that important, to establish date of authorship.

Otherwise, Jolts server logs might be good enough.

I'm 'fraid not, this is from the US Copyright office:

(snopes.com did a write up on this, http://www.snopes.com/legal/postmark.asp )

You're correct that copyright is automatically established, but if you plan to take someone to court for it, it is nicer to have the registration, if it is that important, to establish date of authorship.

Otherwise, Jolts server logs might be good enough.
The Jolt server is still a form of poor man's copyright. The point is that you don't have to register. You just need proof that you are indeed the author. That is where publication comes into play. And only one person need see it in order for it to be considered having been published. Reason I know this is becuase I had some songs copyrighted.