Jump to content


The Klackons: A mini-biography.


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

RayFowler #21 Posted 16 October 2015 - 03:01 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 217
  • Member since:
    07-02-2015

View PostVahouth, on 15 October 2015 - 07:13 PM, said:

 

And Big guns Exhibit #2 :P

 

Btw, I love the effort you're putting for a Java MoO and I think more people deserve a look at it. 

If I were you, I'd link my work in my signature. :)

 

Thanks for the kind words! I'm never too sure of how many people even know about the project.

 

I don't want to do a lot to promote it because Wargaming (unlike Atari, thank god) is actually doing something good with this franchise and I don't really want to distract from their efforts. Secondly, of course, is the copyright issue so I don't want to promote it and then disappoint people if Wargaming decides that the project cannot be shared publicly. So I am just working on it as a hobby project for now and then will hopefully get WG's ok to allow others to test and play it.


Master of Orion fan since 1993

Vahouth #22 Posted 16 October 2015 - 09:10 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Players
  • 1,288
  • Member since:
    10-03-2015

Yeah, I suppose you're right...

Just so you know though, I've heard of many others commenting on your project and it seems that there may be even more people aware of it than you know. Maybe even people in Wargaming! Who knows? ;)

I too hope that there will be no copyright issues with WG so that all will benefit from the feedback involved. 

In any case, I just wanted to tell you that I really appreciate your effort (and I'm sure others too) and can't wait to see it done. Keep it up! :D



MOO2MOD #23 Posted 16 October 2015 - 09:13 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 402
  • Member since:
    06-22-2015

Block Quote

Secondly, of course, is the copyright issue so I don't want to promote it and then disappoint people if Wargaming decides that the project cannot be shared publicly.

So I am just working on it as a hobby project for now and then will hopefully get WG's ok to allow others to test and play it.

I don't think your version of MOO1 is a direct competition in any way to the MOO rebooted. Instead, it is a great addition to it.

Personally I would play them both (and really I would still play classic MOO1 too, just to experience the blocky graphics and midi music of old).

As for the copyright issue; I would assume your new race graphics, music and coding create more than sufficient original work.

But I am no legal expert and perhaps it requires some goodwill from Wargaming.

If I were Wargaming, I would not only 'allow' your version to exist, but go beyond that and embrace it as part of an extended MOO universe.

 

Block Quote

In any case, I just wanted to tell you that I really appreciate your effort (and I'm sure others too) and can't wait to see it done. Keep it up! :D

 +1

 

 


Edited by MOO2MOD, 16 October 2015 - 09:14 AM.


Vahouth #24 Posted 16 October 2015 - 09:18 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Players
  • 1,288
  • Member since:
    10-03-2015

View PostMOO2MOD, on 16 October 2015 - 09:13 AM, said:

I don't think your version of MOO1 is a direct competition in any way to the MOO rebooted. Instead, it is a great addition to it.

Personally I would play them both (and really I would still play classic MOO1 too, just to experience the blocky graphics and midi music of old).

As for the copyright issue; I would assume your new race graphics, music and coding create more than sufficient original work.

But I am no legal expert and perhaps it requires some goodwill from Wargaming.

If I were Wargaming, I would not only 'allow' your version to exist, but go beyond that and embrace it as part of an extended MOO universe.

 

I couldn't agree more! Though also not expert on the legal part too. :)

 

EDIT: Now, about the Klackons and to keep this on topic...Aany insight about their models ingame? Will the simpleton Klackon be any different from the Queen shown here?


Edited by Vahouth, 16 October 2015 - 09:20 AM.


Varadhon #25 Posted 16 October 2015 - 06:47 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 442
  • Member since:
    07-11-2015

View PostMOO2MOD, on 16 October 2015 - 09:13 AM, said:

I don't think your version of MOO1 is a direct competition in any way to the MOO rebooted. Instead, it is a great addition to it.

Personally I would play them both (and really I would still play classic MOO1 too, just to experience the blocky graphics and midi music of old).

As for the copyright issue; I would assume your new race graphics, music and coding create more than sufficient original work.

But I am no legal expert and perhaps it requires some goodwill from Wargaming.

If I were Wargaming, I would not only 'allow' your version to exist, but go beyond that and embrace it as part of an extended MOO universe.

 

 +1

 

 

 

Since I'm a licensed attorney, I'd like to correct the misconception described above. None of the ensuing constitutes legal advice or is intended to give rise to an attorney-client relationship. I write for the purpose educating our forum community.

 

1. Copyright

 

The quoted description is not how copyright law works in the U.S.--or in any of the 168 signatory countries of the Berne Convention. One of the six enumerated rights granted to copyright owners under U.S. law is the right to prepare derivative works. One of the simplest examples of a derivative work is a sequel. Copyright law also specifically protects characters and titles.

 

Ray's totally awesome and completely beautiful JavaMoo would qualify as a derivative work at the very least because it uses the title and characters (races, place names, etc.) from the original 1993 game. As such, the present owner of the copyright subsisting in the 1993 game (WG) would have a cause of action against Ray. 

 

Now, that's not the end of the story because Ray has a potential fair use defense (probably risky and certainly expensive). WG would also have to weigh whether suing a fan is really in its interests. A number of factors, especially whether Ray derives any profit from the game and how long WG has been aware of JavaMoo before asserting its rights, would impinge upon remedies available to WG.  

 

2. Trademark

 

In addition, U.S. trademark law also protects the game's name and trade dress from a likelihood of confusion. There's a potential cause of action lurking there not only from WG for the use of "Moo," but also from Oracle for the use of "Java."  Indeed, Oracle could probably also sustain a trademark dilution claim because Oracle can probably prove that "Java" is a famous mark.  Ray would have fewer defenses against either of these claims, though how long either mark owner waits to assert its rights after it should have become aware or actually became aware of JavaMoo also matters.

 

3. But what about mods?

 

In principle, a mod would constitute a derivative work. Since games generate avid fans who like to engage in their own modifications and the writing of fan fiction, many IP owners write clauses into their End-User License Agreements (EULA) or Terms of Service Agreements (TOS) that specifically carve out what sorts of modification and fan fiction is

 

are permissible. In some cases, they imply such licenses by their own behavior. In essence, they typically grant a specific license for these purposes. Anyone interested in modding and writing fan fiction should read his/her relevant EULA and TOS and be sure to adhere to its requirements, otherwise such a person would have to fall back on the usual defenses against an infringement claim.

 

 

 


Edited by Varadhon, 16 October 2015 - 08:17 PM.


Vahouth #26 Posted 16 October 2015 - 07:12 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Players
  • 1,288
  • Member since:
    10-03-2015

Wikipedia states that names of products are an exception to copyright. Is this false?

 

But in any case I can only hope for a sense of goodwill to get along that can better benefit us the community. :)



Varadhon #27 Posted 16 October 2015 - 07:28 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 442
  • Member since:
    07-11-2015

View PostVahouth, on 16 October 2015 - 07:12 PM, said:

Wikipedia states that names of products are an exception to copyright. Is this false?

 

But in any case I can only hope for a sense of goodwill to get along that can better benefit us the community. :)

 

The name of a product would not constitute subject-matter giving rise to a copyright. Product names are protected under trademark law. What that means, for example, is that United Airlines can't sue under copyright law for someone else's use of the words "United Airlines."  United Airlines would have to pursue a remedy under trademark law or local unfair competition law.

 

A title of a work of authorship, however, IS protected under copyright. A game, as a piece of software, is a "work of authorship" under copyright law. As such, its title is protected in much the same way the title of a book would be. There is potential overlap here between copyright and trademark law because "Master of Orion," unlike "United Airlines," is both the title of a work of authorship and an ostensibly valid mark for a product or service (in this case, a computer game). 

 

Both areas of law permit nominative fair use of product names and titles--i.e., you are permitted to write or talk about either one of them. That's not the same as granting the right to reuse the title in another work of authorship.


Edited by Varadhon, 16 October 2015 - 07:43 PM.


Vahouth #28 Posted 16 October 2015 - 07:32 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Players
  • 1,288
  • Member since:
    10-03-2015

View PostVaradhon, on 16 October 2015 - 07:28 PM, said:

 

The name of a product would not constitute subject-matter giving rise a copyright. Product names are protected under trademark law. A title of a work of authorship, however, IS protected under copyright. A game, as a piece of software, is a "work of authorship" under copyright law. As such, its title is protected in much the same way the title of a book would be. There is potential overlap here between copyright and trademark law.

 

Both areas of law permit nominative fair use of product names and titles--i.e., you are permitted to write or talk about either one of them. That's not the same as granting the right to reuse the title in another work of authorship.

 

Ah ok. Thanks for the clarification. :)


Varadhon #29 Posted 16 October 2015 - 07:42 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 442
  • Member since:
    07-11-2015

View PostVahouth, on 16 October 2015 - 07:32 PM, said:

 

Ah ok. Thanks for the clarification. :)

 

You're welcome :)

 

I added some content to provide a concrete example above in the time that you were replying. Feel free to re-read the post.


Edited by Varadhon, 16 October 2015 - 07:44 PM.


Varadhon #30 Posted 16 October 2015 - 08:26 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 442
  • Member since:
    07-11-2015
On a totally separate note, I absolutely love Ray's take on the Psilons and the Bulrathi.  They both look fantastic!

RayFowler #31 Posted 16 October 2015 - 08:27 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 217
  • Member since:
    07-02-2015

View PostVaradhon, on 16 October 2015 - 06:47 PM, said:

 

Since I'm a licensed attorney, I'd like to correct the misconception described above. None of the ensuing constitutes legal advice or is intended to give rise to an attorney-client relationship. I write for the purpose educating our forum community.

 

1. Copyright

 

The quoted description is not how copyright law works in the U.S.--or in any of the 168 signatory countries of the Berne Convention. One of the six enumerated rights granted to copyright owners under U.S. law is the right to prepare derivative works. One of the simplest examples of a derivative work is a sequel. Copyright law also specifically protects characters and titles.

 

Ray's totally awesome and completely beautiful JavaMoo would qualify as a derivative work at the very least because it uses the title and characters (races, place names, etc.) from the original 1993 game. As such, the present owner of the copyright subsisting in the 1993 game (WG) would have a cause of action against Ray. 

 

Now, that's not the end of the story because Ray has a potential fair use defense (probably risky and certainly expensive). WG would also have to weigh whether suing a fan is really in its interests. A number of factors, especially whether Ray derives any profit from the game and how long WG has been aware of JavaMoo before asserting its rights, would impinge upon remedies available to WG.  

 

2. Trademark

 

In addition, U.S. trademark law also protects the game's name and trade dress from a likelihood of confusion. There's a potential cause of action lurking there not only from WG for the use of "Moo," but also from Oracle for the use of "Java."  Indeed, Oracle could probably also sustain a trademark dilution claim because Oracle can probably prove that "Java" is a famous mark.  Ray would have fewer defenses against either of these claims, though how long either mark owner waits to assert its rights after it should have become aware or actually became aware of JavaMoo also matters.

 

3. But what about mods?

 

In principle, a mod would constitute a derivative work. Since games generate avid fans who like to engage in their own modifications and the writing of fan fiction, many IP owners write clauses into their End-User License Agreements (EULA) or Terms of Service Agreements (TOS) that specifically carve out what sorts of modification and fan fiction is permissible. In some cases, they imply such licenses by their own behavior. In essence, they typically grant a specific license for these purposes. Anyone interested in modding and writing fan fiction should read his/her relevant EULA and TOS and be sure to adhere to its requirements, otherwise such a person would have to fall back on the usual defenses against an infringement claim.

 

I am in total agreement with Varadhon. WG definitely holds all of the cards and Java MOO is 100% absolutely a derivative work. This has always been intended as a not-for-profit hobby project and was originally started way back in 2004 before being shelved.

 

I am not going to be one of those people who create a clearly derivative work, change a couple of items and then pretend it's an original creation. However legal it may be, I think there's something subtly dishonest about that approach so I'm not interested in taking it, although there are a lot of projects that are doing just that. Java MOO is both an homage and a graphical update to MOO1, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

 

Wargaming has been aware of this project since at least mid-May (about 3 weeks before the MOO4 announcement), although I did not make the connection at the time. In addition, an employee of WG contacted me about a month ago and gave me an unofficial notice that WG was ok with the project as long as it is not-for-profit. I assume it was unofficial in the sense that they reserve the right to revoke that OK at their discretion.

 

And that's ok with me. It's their intellectual property and I have every intention of respecting their wishes. It can always remain a personal project.

 

I like how they portrayed the Klackons as 6-legged insects with the front two legs upright as arms (like centaurs). It was exactly the same approach that I was planning to take artistically!


Master of Orion fan since 1993

RayFowler #32 Posted 16 October 2015 - 08:30 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 217
  • Member since:
    07-02-2015

View PostVaradhon, on 16 October 2015 - 08:26 PM, said:

On a totally separate note, I absolutely love Ray's take on the Psilons and the Bulrathi.  They both look fantastic!

 

I've always seen the original MOO1 Psilons as an homage to the big-brained aliens from the original Star Trek TV series. That's the artistic direction I gave to the illustrator with some additional nods to the MOO1 implementation (4 arms, no nose).

 

The Bulrathi are presented as bears. They are awesome.


Master of Orion fan since 1993

Varadhon #33 Posted 16 October 2015 - 08:33 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 442
  • Member since:
    07-11-2015
I'm really glad they've given you a green light to continue the work. What you're producing, Ray, is simply beautiful.

Vahouth #34 Posted 16 October 2015 - 08:52 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Players
  • 1,288
  • Member since:
    10-03-2015

Excellent news giving you the ok to proceed! Kudos to WG!!!   \o/

View PostRayFowler, on 16 October 2015 - 08:30 PM, said:

 

I've always seen the original MOO1 Psilons as an homage to the big-brained aliens from the original Star Trek TV series. That's the artistic direction I gave to the illustrator with some additional nods to the MOO1 implementation (4 arms, no nose).

Oh, you mean those from the pilot episode with Cpt Pike! I knew they looked familiar... :) I also love the way you portrayed the Psilon diplomat. It never occurred to me that he could be a she in the original game.

I really loved those Psilons with their 4 arms and big heads, and I'm loving the new ones too simply because the Devs went that route again. MoO2 Psilons were a total let down for me artistically. :(

 


Edited by Vahouth, 16 October 2015 - 08:54 PM.


RayFowler #35 Posted 16 October 2015 - 09:00 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 217
  • Member since:
    07-02-2015

View PostVahouth, on 16 October 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

Oh, you mean those from the pilot episode with Cpt Pike! I knew they looked familiar... :) I also love the way you portrayed the Psilon diplomat. It never occurred to me that he could be a she in the original game.

 

 

Well, the original MOO1 Psilon diplomat was male. However, the Psilons are one of the few races where gender would seem identifiable and, frankly, males were overrepresented so I thought that a female Psilon would be a good thing.
Master of Orion fan since 1993

OrionSol #36 Posted 18 October 2015 - 03:50 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 431
  • Member since:
    06-12-2015
I know this race will be epic to play, but it creeps me out

Jedi Master Or-ion Sol

Founder of THE JEDI ORDER | Community of Guilds 

www.jediswtor.com 


Vahouth #37 Posted 31 October 2015 - 03:31 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Players
  • 1,288
  • Member since:
    10-03-2015

Here she is

 

EDIT: And here is the Queen from Ender's Game


Edited by Vahouth, 31 October 2015 - 03:35 PM.


Master_of_Orion_CZSK #38 Posted 31 October 2015 - 05:20 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17
  • Member since:
    10-27-2015

View PostVahouth, on 31 October 2015 - 04:31 PM, said:

Here she is

 

EDIT: And here is the Queen from Ender's Game

 

Have you this in better resolution ?

Vahouth #39 Posted 31 October 2015 - 06:59 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Players
  • 1,288
  • Member since:
    10-03-2015

View PostMaster_of_Orion_CZSK, on 31 October 2015 - 05:20 PM, said:

 

Have you this in better resolution ?

 

I'm afraid not. :(

This was taken from the PAX stream and that's the best resolution I got. Maybe ElPozoleOlmeca can help? 



Master_of_Orion_CZSK #40 Posted 31 October 2015 - 09:45 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17
  • Member since:
    10-27-2015

View PostVahouth, on 31 October 2015 - 07:59 PM, said:

 

I'm afraid not. :(

This was taken from the PAX stream and that's the best resolution I got. Maybe ElPozoleOlmeca can help? 

 

Ok, thank you for answer and news from MOOCTS. New informations is insufficiently. I try make fan sites about MOOCTS, but find good content is hard. When u have some interesting, write this. When u have for example interesting picture, show it. Thank you for this. 




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users