Proposed Map Vault Rules Update & Additions

[RedX]

As far as I’m aware two people own the “right” to the concept of astro maps, same situation as dual gap. Other similar maps are derivations of the original works and only exist at the discretion of the original authors. This is to prevent massive continuous spam of astro/dual gap copies.

I disagree with this idea that a map creator owns the right to the "idea" of the map and nobody can make anything similar. Just imagine the state of basically every other art if incremental improvement was frowned upon. Nobody complains that IRC didn't have the right the create a chat program because MUT and BBSes owned the idea. Nobody (most people...) don't complain that Discord had no right to create Discord because IRC owned the right to the idea. Or that FAF didn't have the right to copy the idea of GPGNet.

It also leads to this current state where the map author/owner has full authority to the decide the fate of an entire genre of maps for the entire community, indefinitely. I hate Crater maps with a passion, but it should not be up to one person to remove that entire genre and bar anyone from making a similar replacement.

[nine2]

There are laws that differentiate how artworks can be considered different to each other or copying.

I'm not suggesting we get super serious about the law here - I am just saying we dont need to invent rules to manage similar-but-different content, such rules already exist.

[RedX]

There are laws that differentiate how artworks can be considered different to each other or copying.

I'm not suggesting we get super serious about the law here - I am just saying we dont need to invent rules to manage similar-but-different content, such rules already exist.

If we're going by the law here then FAF need not enforce any copyright on maps unless formally requested by the creator.

I think in generally you'd find that derivative works don't generally apply to works which are inspired by another work but were created separately. For example, if I draw a picture of a person sitting at a bar, I can't claim copyright when somebody else draws a picture of a person at a bar in a similar pose but they drew it in their own style, and the bar looks different.

[biass]

don't complain that Discord had no right to create Discord because IRC owned the right to the idea.

We're not (hypothetically) dealing with developing a completely new discord clone with a sdifferent syle and feature list.
We're dealing with (hypothetically) taking the existing discord codebase and then making the menu text a brighter shade of grey.

Also, it's not just about map author's rights; but also how the vault is presented to users attempting to find more content. Trash, broken maps, and mutiple copies of the same map are all hiccups in the user experience and the rules serve to prevent that. It's why content doesnt need to be on the vault and unhidden for you to play it - because the vault is for presenting things for our average users and thus should be of a certain quality.

[JaggedAppliance]

I have a question which was prompted by BRS_Astro's post and the situation he was in.

Should mappers have the right to make their map unrated after the initial upload? For example, if the maker of Loki were to say they want that map unrated, why should that be allowed? What is the purpose of this feature? I don't understand where this right comes from or what its intended goal is.

I don't have an issue with disallowing rating at during the initial upload although this could also be questionable.

[RedX]

don't complain that Discord had no right to create Discord because IRC owned the right to the idea.

We're not (hypothetically) dealing with developing a completely new discord clone with a sdifferent syle and feature list.
We're dealing with (hypothetically) taking the existing discord codebase and then making the menu text a brighter shade of grey.

Also, it's not just about map author's rights; but also how the vault is presented to users attempting to find more content. Trash, broken maps, and mutiple copies of the same map are all hiccups in the user experience and the rules serve to prevent that. It's why content doesnt need to be on the vault and unhidden for you to play it - because the vault is for presenting things for our average users and thus should be of a certain quality.

If you're talking about literally copying the map and changing it a bit then I agree. The post I replied to made it sound as if a map that was made from scratch but was similar to, and inspired by, another map such as craters, would also be disallowed and would be removed. That is what I take issue with. I agree that we don't want trash, broken maps, 50 copies of the same exact map. But if somebody puts in legitimate effort to improve upon an existing concept with their own take on it, then I don't see why it shouldn't be permitted even if the end result is clearly similar.

[RazerFeed]

There are laws that differentiate how artworks can be considered different to each other or copying.

I'm not suggesting we get super serious about the law here - I am just saying we dont need to invent rules to manage similar-but-different content, such rules already exist.

If we're going by the law here then FAF need not enforce any copyright on maps unless formally requested by the creator.

I think in generally you'd find that derivative works don't generally apply to works which are inspired by another work but were created separately. For example, if I draw a picture of a person sitting at a bar, I can't claim copyright when somebody else draws a picture of a person at a bar in a similar pose but they drew it in their own style, and the bar looks different.

It's actually a fact, you can’t copyright an idea, so FAF rules are even more strict than in real world, lol.

"Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work."

By the way, when is BRS_Astro getting hes rights back and maps to the Vault/ranked? It's been pretty clear he was deceived by Resistance.

[biass]

The post I replied to made it sound as if a map that was made from scratch but was similar to, and inspired by, another map such as craters, would also be disallowed and would be removed.

That isn't true. FtX said and I quote "Other similar maps are derivations of the original works and only exist at the discretion of the original authors." which in short means that maps that are and I quote "legitimate effort to improve upon an existing concept with their own take on it" are allowed.

It's actually a fact, you can’t copyright an idea

Nothing here is under copyright,
stop saying things are under copyright.

Your maps are protected under a private design rights agreement.
AKA - these rules we're supposed to be discussing.

[RedX]

The post I replied to made it sound as if a map that was made from scratch but was similar to, and inspired by, another map such as craters, would also be disallowed and would be removed.

That isn't true. FtX said and I quote "Other similar maps are derivations of the original works and only exist at the discretion of the original authors." which in short means that maps that are and I quote "legitimate effort to improve upon an existing concept with their own take on it" are allowed.

These 2 sentences mean completely different things to me.

It's actually a fact, you can’t copyright an idea

Nothing here is under copyright,
stop saying things are under copyright.

Your maps are protected under a private design rights agreement.
AKA - these rules we're supposed to be discussing.

Everything is copyrighted the moment it's created. That rights are extended to FAF does not make the copyright invalid.

[mr_blastman]

Unrank astro and gap, plz.