I have for some years been working over at a mud. Now, because of personal reasons, I want to close most (not all) of my areas and some other code.

Suddenly the admins refuse this. They claim that they have some policy that says they are free to use my code. Nothing has been signed. It is an american mud. Is there anything I can do about this as a swede?

Well actually there is probably a help file on that mud as with most about ownership of areas/code. You don't own the mud, you are a builder/coder an adminastrator/owner has all rights to the mud and its content unless OTHERWISE noted, not the other way around. If you go and build a house on someone elses property is it yours? The only thing you can really do i request a copy of your areas/code to take with you elsewhere. My biggest advice is, its just a game, its your imagination take it elsewhere with you, in the end whether they use it or not it wont affect your life any at all (unless its a pay to play mud that you created an immense codebase for, that will revolutionize mudding as we know it forever). Just take your personal reasons and begin building a new world somewhere else.

Yeah, I know. Its just a game and I am not prone to petty fights. If there is something reasonable I can do, then I will do it. But going to some sort of extremes and starting flame wars, etc, etc. Nah. I just cant believe it can be legal of them do to this. Man, it sucks.

You have to look at it from both sides of the argument. How would you feel if, as an admin, one of your coders suddenly decided to split, along with ahefty chunk of your code? Now, granted you did build it, but they use it, apparently for awhile. Now, I'm sure the rest of the codebase is tied in at least somewhat with your code, which would make for problems removing it and keeping their mud running smoothly during the split.

Just trying to look at the other side of the argument here, but I would say that I agree with the admin here. You built it for their mud, and regardless of your reasons for leaving, it is now their code.

The admins of the game provided you a place to code, server space, bandwidth, access to players, access to help, a functional codebase, etc.

In turn, you produced some code that they were able to use for the betterment of the game. Furthermore, by taking the "job" at the game you were agreeing that your work would be for the benefit of that game.

It is very selfish to expect them to remove your code just because you decided to go elsewhere.

I do think they should let you have copies of your own code.

Sigh. I coded lots during my time there. Most likely the top producing wiz, next to an admin who has retired. I did code that was part of the lib and I did areas and guilds. I never had any intention of having them remove the lib code, they know this. The lib code and chatlines I did was to stay behind. Same as some of my areas. What I wanted to remove is those of my areas that people changed without asking me. No bug fixing, just changing values. Without notification, without a word. Same with the guild. The guild would have been no loss. Only one person logs on to it, now and then to keep the char. It has been like that in the guild for a year because its too different from the rest. But... As soon as I stop hanging around as much, they start changing my code to make it look like they would like it to look. Maybe i am unique, but that upsets me.

Lastly... All other muds I have been on (two) have copyright notices saying that everything in the wiz dir and your eventual guild dir belongs to you. I kinda assumedit was the same in this one, but perhaps that is a swedish phenomenon (it was swedish muds)?

I still think it sucks. I will never again code for a mud and be abused in that way. Sure they provided me with a server, but they did not provide a functional (kinda functional at best) codebase, nor much help. What did I provide for them? Lots of time helping players when admin code bugged out. I coded 2.5 guilds, of which only one got in game cause of admin procrastination. I provided (rooms total from all areas) some 1500 rooms of aeras - from newbie to highbie. Questsystem as well as quests. Not to mention ****loads of ideas that helped forming their mud. So I am not out of line asking them to remove the guild and the areas I wanted closed.

But I guess this is it. After a nights sleep... I am over it, sort of. Just know that this was not some impulsive idea I got. After one of the admins retired, it all went downhill. Other admins treat you differently depending on who you are. I saw it with others, so it was just a matter of time before it happend to me.

So what is the lesson I learned? Never code for someone you do not know in person. A lot of spare time have beeb put in, a lot of free work have been done for them. While one is on good terms with the admins, they are nice guys and everything is dandy. But they do what they like and if you are not on their wavelength, they run you over. Conclusion: Coding is cyberslavery. Never again will I fall in this trap. My mudding days are over. Maybe just as well, not much time for it anymore.

Sure it upsets you, but it is hardly unreasonable. In businesses things change over time, sometimes by the person who originally made it, mostly by others. For example business websites. Those change all the time, incorporating old code into new code. I don't think it's unrealistic to say a lot of the time the people who made the original site aren't consulted.

A mud is no different. Everything you did, you did for the mud for no reason but to better the mud. This is how most muds work.

Actually that is unreasonable. Imagine this. mud Fun has builder Bob. Bob builds many areas for Fun that makes Fun popular. Fun has a high playerbase with Bob's areas being the most popular. But Bob decides he doesn't like Fun anymore and wants to leave so he demands that the areas he built be taken off the mud so he can then take them and incorporate them into a new mud.

Now imagine if every single coder and builder could do this. No-one would hire them because the risk would be too high. To come around afterwards and say the mud must remove the areas you want it to remove is unfair, especially considering the standard for muds and businesses is to have anything contributed to the business/mud be owned by the business/mud.

What you're asking, is very similar to someone saying "alright, you can have the areas, but you must pay me for my work." You worked to better the mud. You can't take away what you did just because you no longer like the mud (IMO).

You own the copyright to your contributions (including areas and code), but the mud owner will likely have good grounds for claiming an to use those contributions, even if you didn't formally agree anything beforehand. After all, as you yourself pointed out, you were coding for them.

Hmmm.... That's not such a bad thing, we might even have admins who *gasp* know what they're doing!

*keeps ranting about 13 year-olds who think knowing what the <html> tag does is enough to get you started on making a mud*

However, KaVir, isn't he now giving an explicit request to remove said code? Also, couldn't it be argued that by letting them use this, and assuming the MUD is full of a corrupt staff, by giving him credit they are "harming" his name, so to speak?

Legally, doesn't anything explicit normally override anything implicit?

While I agree with the implied license, I tend to disagree on this point many people restate.

You aren't accepting a "job" as some people have likened it to. And this is a slippery slope argument - Don't use it unless you want to pay all staff members A) A salary and work under contract, or B) At least minimum wage.

That's NOT unreasonable. If the MUD wants exclusive control of the areas/exclusive license/the copyright/whatever, then that is actually required by law.

On a sidenote, I also agree with Amnon on the subject of admins knowing what they are doing. It would -definitely- decrease the amount of twink staffs.

The worse thing about these arguments is that not everyone can be happy. I lost a great friend when I could not help him with a similar issue. He was the only guy I hung around who loved anime as much as I.

The honorable thing to do is the MUD give you copies of your work, but they do not have to give you a thing or remove your work from their MUD as there is no type of agreement. Intellectual rights are also a fickle argument, but I am not a lawyer and do not wish to comment.

I ran into this issue once.

A coder decided to leave after I told him to stop sexually harassing the players and to stop being an #######. He left and demanded that I remove all four of his areas he had written, along with all code he had written.

Since the code consisted of renaming the disarm skill to "disarm shield" and changing the dirt kick skill to "caltraps", I removed them. The areas I removed happily since they were overpowered, except for one area which I had rewritten of his - making it partially mine.

Now, if things had been different, I think some people present good arguments here. Dulan's idea that you should be paid because it is considered a job is bunk. Many people consider it a job from their end for all the effort they put into it.

I do not believe you should be able to up and wish to have all of your integrated code just right out removed. I don't know the law inside and out, but it would seem to me that the coder is doing "volunteer work" and any property he creates, the mud owner has rights to use. Not distribute, just use.

So they want it ripped out... well, you should have thought of that beforehand. Mind you, this is all for free, nonprofit muds I assume, since they are not companies I wager. A profit making mud had better have some contract made up for you.

Ask for a copy of your work, or even a copy of the codebase, ask to not have your code just given away for fun, and go about your business.

You'll probably realize in six months what utter crap you had written anyways, along with how you could code something 10x cooler more efficiently.

It does show that when running a mud you ought to have a builders/coders agreement in place to protect thyself.   But even having one in place doesn't prevent the "situation".  I've had a builder still demand their area be removed despite reading and agreeing to a simple "right to use" style agreement.  Of course we didn't.

Since Huxley isn't going to sue the people running the mud, the law isn't relevant. No point in discussing it.

Huxley: You sound pretty sincerely disappointed without letting that turn into ranting anger. Have you tried just writing the owners a letter from the heart, laying out why you feel hurt/upset about the altered areas being used, and asking if there's some compromise the two of you can come to? I know I respond to that kind of pleas a lot better than someone just asking me to do something. You must have been friends with these people at some point, so perhaps you could appeal to sentimentality and part ways, if not friends, then at least not enemies.

You probably won't get everything you want but unless these people are real a**holes, they'll be willing to compromise if approached politely and respectfully.
--matt

No, naturally wont I sue. And yeah, I used to be on friendly terms with the admins. Not super friends, but we worked well together most of the time. WHen one of the admins retired, the rest started showing interest in mocking around with my stuff and it all just escalated more and more and after some 6 months ended like this.

It has been a couple of days now. I am, somehow, over it. I logged on an old second and read the notes. I guess that is what made me realize that nothing I say, do, mail to them, etc wont make any difference. In their notes, they write saying I deleted all my code and sabotaged the mud. All I did was edit out one add_action to prevent entrance to one of the areas. Anyone with basic lpc knowledge realize that if I deleted my code before the reboot... And people log on with their autoloaders from my areas... Well, nothing was deleted. Anyway... I have decided to just let it be. I have read all the answers I got. It was interesting to see both sides of the situation and get some insight on how the admins might view what I did. I feel the admins here who feel that the admins in that mud did right seem to be more sensible then the admins in the mud I used to code at. Thanks for the wise words everyone.

The "pay" was access to the server, bandwidth, codebase, and player base. Those are all assets that the admins/owners of the game provided.

Furthermore, just because a job is a volunteer job doesn't change the fact that there was most certainly an agreement, either implied or formally stated, that any code written for that mud was property of that mud.

Obviously, a smart admin makes sure every builder/coder agrees to this explicitly in advance. But even those who did not require such an agreement are not hosed.

Furthermore, I don't think this is rising to the level of a legal matter. This is really a discussion of ethics. It is certainly ethical for a mud owner to be able to keep code that was written on and for his/her game, regardless of the changing whims of the people who wrote it.

Personally I think Yuki made a good point when he said:

To continue on this: If you code for a mud, you can do so in your texteditor and keep backups of your work etc. Same goes for areas, you hand them your area, but you keep a copy for yourself. If they have changed your code and areas then I guess it won't be a problem to use it in other projects you are going to undertake.

But even if you didn't keep the stuff you have written (you did it all on the server?) then you still have gained a lot of experience doing it and will do so faster and most likely better next time.

As an admin as well as a coder, I personally think that everything you make for the mud as a builder/coder will be the mud's property (it won't be "mine" cause I am an admin) and will be changed in anyway for the mud's sake. If this clashes with the author then it can be discussed, but in the end I am the admin and I'll decide what happens to it. As long as this is clear from the start I don't think a disgruntled coder/builder has any right to claim so otherwise.

I guess in this matter you were badly treated, and if they continue to do so the mud will fail horribly (if not already) and you'll have your revenge after all.

Good luck on your endeavours.

Not sufficient.



"The determination of whether an individual is an employee for the purposes of the work made for hire doctrine is determined under "the common law of agency." What this means is that courts will look at various factors to determine whether the individual is an employee, such as:

* the control exerted by the employer over the employee (i.e., the employee's schedule and the hiring of the employee's assistants);

* the control exerted by the employer over how and where the work is done;

* the supplying of equipment for the employee's use; and

* the payment of benefits and the withholding of taxes.

Although these factors are not exhaustive and can be difficult to analyze in close situations, it is clear that a work created within the scope of a regular, salaried employee's job is a work made for hire."

Unless that statement was signed, and in writing, it is not sufficient for a transfer of ownership (or exclusive rights).

That depends on the situation, but I agree that most such admin would have good grounds for claiming non-exclusive rights to usage of the work.

I know nothing about the nature of the changes that were made to your code, but it's unreasonable to expect your code to remain intact when you go inactive. Taken to the absud, this would prevent any maintenance of your areas or guild.

This is also where the implied license falls short - unless I'm mistaken, implied license only gives the mud owners the right to use the content, but not to modify it. Clear rules that give admins enough rights to control the game as a whole are a must.

Not quite...the idea of an is "to allow the licensee (the party who licenses the work from the copyright owner) some right to use the copyrighted work, but only to the extent that the copyright owner would have allowed had the parties negotiated an agreement. Generally, the custom and practice of the community are used to determine the scope of the implied license."

Actually, it is sufficient. He's not going to sue, so the law doesn't come into play. Sure, you can say, "Ooh, it's illegal!" but so is jaywalking. *shrug*

--matt

No, it is not, and I've already provided the links explaining why.

In case you've forgotten, this is the Legal Issues forum. The fact fact that the original poster isn't going to sue has no bearing on the legality of the situation.

Furthermore, the issue currently being discussed (ownership) goes beyond the situation described by the original poster (the mud he works for wasn't claiming ownership), and is one which crops up from time to time.

I refer y'all to a comment someone else said I think back on the first page:

If a builder comes onto my property at my request and per his agreement to do so - whether he volunteers (as in Habitat for Humanity) or is a paid contractor..

and the builder builds a house on my property, and for some reason he ceases to continue building it after he's laid down the foundation...

He is -not- entitled to remove whatever he built and take it with him, nor am I obligated to have whatever he built removed from my property by other means.

You come to my property and change the property, you cannot UNchange it without my permission. You could add a temporary structure (such as a tool shed) or some other moveable object (such as a vacuum cleaner) and have it repossessed if I refuse to pay you...

But you cannot place a permanent object (such as a building foundation, or in the case of a MUD, code) and expect me to give it back to you and remove it from my property when things don't work out.

That's just the way it is.

It's not always that simple, Jazuela - it really depends on the individual situation, and what the arrangement was between the admin and the builder/coder.  In most cases, where the coder or builder has obviously created their work for the purposes of contributing towards the mud, then (as I said before) the mud owner would have good grounds for claiming an implied licence.

But in other cases it's not so clear.  What if the builder had only created the area on the test port?  What if they had emailed it to the mud staff to see if the mud owner was interested in negotiating for its usage?  What if the code that was used was something the coder had been developing in a separate directory, which just happened to be done via the same shell account?

If I were to offer you hosting space, and you agreed, would that give me permission to use your source code to create my own mud, just because you'd uploaded it to my property?  Does my ISP have permission to copy any of my work that I place on my website, on the basis that they own the hosting space?  Note that in both cases there would be very good grounds for claiming an implied licence to copy for the purposes of backups - but no more.

Wrong.

You can argue that untill the cows come home, but that's not "pay" legally. Unless you are arguing that by going to work for a software development company, they are paying me by giving me access to resources I need to develop code for them? Same thing, Threshold. Those are just requirements to do the job - those are not pay.

Volunteers are required to sign a legal document if they want to donate their time. Doesn't matter if it was implied when they sign up RL - law REQUIRES their signature RL, kiddo. I'll repeat it again. REQUIRES their signature. Otherwise, be prepared to pay minimum wage.

Dulan claims:

Volunteers are required to sign a legal document if they want to donate their time. Doesn't matter if it was implied when they sign up RL - law REQUIRES their signature RL, kiddo. I'll repeat it again. REQUIRES their signature. Otherwise, be prepared to pay minimum wage.


I say - cite please. Refer me to the law that requires this. Because - I've spent countless hours volunteering for various non-profit organizations, and have worked as an employee for a few non-prof organizations with volunteer helpers. The only time it was -required- was when they needed signatures for insurance purposes. But that was the policy of the insurance company, not a law.

And no it wasn't just "helping my dad mow the lawn." I worked for the American Cancer Society as both an employee and an unpaid volunteer over the course of the past few decades, I worked for a synagogue that had several volunteer charity groups, and I've done volunteer work for the American Lung Association - in addition to a myriad of animal shelters in the area. I had to sign a release form with a bicycle run for the Lung Association, and another release form holding them harmless in case I got bit by dogs or cats for the animal shelters.

But no - it wasn't required by law. So - I'd like to see the law, please. Thanks.

You're right. Carry on with the pointlessness!

--matt

Jazuela -

That's in reference to intellectual property, what we are talking about here. What you are talking about is irrelevant to the discussion - grunt work is entirely different legally, and is a whole lot less...convulated.

You'd have to sign over an area that you built for the ACS, for example, in writing. Or they'd have to pay you at least minimum wage for it. Otherwise, you'd have full control over it, and there's a whole crapload of stuff associated with that.

-D

Volunteers may of course donate their time freely - what requires a signature is when the organisation they are working for wants ownership of the intellectual property they produce.

So for example you could do "volunteer work" for mud X as a general admin, running quests and helping with player issues, and there would be no problem.  But if you produced code or areas and the mud wished to claim ownership of them, it would require either a transfer of copyright, or a work for hire agreement.



"Any or all of the copyright owner's exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent."



"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author."



"A “work made for hire” is —

(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire..."



"The determination of whether an individual is an employee for the purposes of the work made for hire doctrine is determined under "the common law of agency." What this means is that courts will look at various factors to determine whether the individual is an employee, such as:

* the control exerted by the employer over the employee (i.e., the employee's schedule and the hiring of the employee's assistants);
* the control exerted by the employer over how and where the work is done;
* the supplying of equipment for the employee's use; and
* the payment of benefits and the withholding of taxes."

I fail to see anything "pointless" about informing mud owners and developers about their legal rights.  From the thread so far it seems obvious that many people are ill-informed about some of the details of intellectual property ownership and transfer, which IMO is evidence enough that this thread is not "pointless".  And those who are already familiar with the facts can simply ignore it.  In fact the only people who would lose out from this thread are those mud owners who falsely try to claim ownership of their staffs work.

They can write whatever they like, however the "".  Saying that your contributions belong to them is no more legally binding that saying your firstborn belongs to them.

However the "".  In addition to which, "".

The mud can claim the nonexclusive right to use the contributions for whatever purposes they like - no problem there.  What they cannot easily do is claim ownership of the actual copyright.

Has anyone said they're claiming exclusive right to the contributions? The first time I read it was in a reply to my post (and I didn't mention it anywhere in my post nor did I mean to imply it).

I've done some more reading on copyrights, and it would seem they can claim copyright to the area as part of the mud but not otherwise. That is, they are not allowed to move it to another mud, publish the code as snippets or anything in that sense - they can, however, keep the area open and revise it if needed. Once any part of a mud is opened, it is "published" as part of a collective work:

Under the present copyright statute, the copyright in a separate contribution to a published collective work such as a periodical is distinct from the copyright in the collective work as a whole. In the absence of an express transfer from the author of the individual article, the copyright owner in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of using the contribution in the collective work and in subsequent revisions and later editions of the collective work.

Thus, there are two distinct copyrights. You can take your area and do anything you want with it (use it on another mud, for example), but you cannot take it out of the mud, because there it falls under the group copyright of the mud as a whole.

Several people have suggested that contributed code and areas become the property of the mud.

That's called a compilation copyright, and the important part to remember is that it doesn't give any ownership over the existing code.  What it does do is give you a copyright of the organisation of those parts, much like someone who has assembled a collection of short stories - they have no rights to the individual stories (nor can they use those stories without permission from the copyright holders of those individual stories).

U.S. Copyright Statute §103 (b):



"The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."

Not so - the compilation copyright protects your particular combination of areas and code, but it doesn't give you permission to use them.  That permission has to come from the copyright holders of the parts.

Take Diku as an example.  You can create a Diku derivative by agreeing to the licence.  Your new diku derivative is now copyrighted to you, but your copyright doesn't extend to any of the pre-existing material.  This means that you must continue follow the conditions of the Diku licence.

However if someone were to steal a copy of your mud and modify it, they would also be creating a derivative work.  But because they didn't have permission to create that work, you would be perfectly within your rights to legally prevent them from using their new mud.

Equally if I were to make some changes to your mud (at your request) I would effectively be creating a derivative work which was copyrighted to me - however my copyright would not extend to any of the pre-existing work, and so I wouldn't legally be able to take a copy of the entire codebase with me if I left.  However the nature of our relationship (the fact that I was creating work specifically for your mud) would give you very good grounds for claiming an implied licence to use my derivative, while preventing me from claiming the same.

I realize you've edited your replies and deleted mine Kavir. Apparently you don't like having it pointed out that all you're doing is masquerading as an authority.

Here's a piece of advice to everyone else: If you're serious about knowing what the law is, consult an expert. Please do not depend on what is posted here as much of what is posted here by self-proclaimed legal experts is potentially wrong (we have no way of knowing as we're not IP experts).  The ability to post some web links does not give one much knowledge of how the law actually works. Case history, interpretation, and so on are at least as important as how the laws in question actually read. After all, if all we had to do to understand the law was read a website, there's a lot of people I know who have wasted their time going to law school and gaining actual experience.

--matt

I removed your posts because they basically amounted to "ignore the law - nobody will do anything anyway".  That is not a constructive opinion.  I edited my posts to remove the questions directed at you, so that you wouldn't be incited to respond to them again.

Absolutely - and even then nothing is final until decided in court (both sides will have legal experts, but only one can win) and will vary from case to case.

However you can get a very good idea of some things (such as ownership) simpy by reading the appropriate laws.  That is why I answer with links as much as possible - because those links go to the sites of experts.

No, what I said was that the law in this instance is irrelevant, because nobody is going to do anything that involves the law. In the case of something worth suing over, nobody with half a brain is going to base their actions on the postings of random mud forum inhabitants.

Now that's a sensible response.

--matt

Yet unless they have lots of money to blow, they would at least do a little research before paying for a lawyer. The links cited may not cover specific cases, but will at least give the reader a good idea of general situations - for example (as per this thread) that if the mud owner seriously wants to claim ownership over the work of their contributors, they should speak to a lawyer about drawing up a work-for-hire agreement (or something similar). And that even if they don't, they would do well to arrange some sort of agreement for nonexclusive rights before integrating the work of others.

Considering the last few posts, I just had to add in my two cents and it relates to the overall value of these types of discussions.

There is obviously a lack of case history and other clear legal precedence covering the types of situations that people producing a free Mu* encounter. PTP types typically are governed by business law and have legal gurus to dream up and administer contracts but the people who produce a world out of love for the game and a world vision can't usually afford that.

Most of the people here don't have law degrees and I seriously doubt anyone could be considered a legal expert without the precedences to cite. What we DO have are experienced veterans who can offer opinion, cite experiences, and provide references which contributes to the general creation and acceptance of a community standard.

In the end, if any of this ever does wind up in a court some day, which though unlikely, is possible then what WE as a community embrace will have great consideration in actually establishing that elusive case history.