I found some nice small dungeon maps via Dragonfoot in the thread Dungeon Maps. I picked the first map and started adding room descriptions. Then I noticed the license on the homepage: Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial *No-Derivatives*. Hm, that’s a surprise. That means I cannot publish the map with my location key because that’s a derivative. Unless I arrange for a separate license. Unfortunately I think that’s too much hassle. It might seem like so little, but in the end it seems to me that I profit more if I learn to quickly draw dungeons myself.
Digital technology has enabled us to copy and publish with ease. Unfortunately that has brought a large segment of the population in contact with copyright law – something that was written for a different time, for a professional target audience. Gah! I’m torn: Should I be happy that a Creative Commons license was used, or should I be frustrated because the license allows me to copy the map (and use it in my game) but doesn’t allow me to easily build on it and contribute back to society? Consider that copyright here in Switzerland doesn’t have a Fair Use exception; instead we have a list of exceptions. One of them is the right to make copies for your own private use amongst your closest friends and family. Thus, personally making a copy for my own game is legal with or without the particular Creative Commons license used. The particular license allows me to mirror the author’s website. Interesting, and valuable in the long term – but not what I need.
#RPG #Copyright #Publishing
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
⁂
Yep; that’s a strange choice of licensing for a map. *No-derivatives* makes sense for music where you don’t want someone else to mangle your lyrics. But a dungeon map that positively begs to be customized, I’m not convinced.
As you say, for your own game there’s no problem with personalizing the map. It does restrict making your version of the map available for public download, even if it’s released for free. Silly, that.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
– GreyWulf 2008-08-14 23:00 UTC
---
thanks for the links. I think you should contact the author - maybe their just a knucklehead and clicked the wrong box. I’m using CCL for my Dead Queens of Morvena series, but it’s with Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license. Maybe that’s what they intended. IMHO its good that people are using CCLs, but i think there’s a lot of misconception about what license people should use.
– jonathan 2008-08-15 01:40 UTC
---
I’m the “knucklehead” author and I originally did it on purpose. I was experimenting/being cautious with the CC license and exploring my options while reading up on CC. With time, I realized that the share-alike option was the best route to follow so I have changed my license to follow suit. If you check you will see that I’m now using a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License.
– Tim 2008-08-15 03:05 UTC
---
Thank you, Tim!
I also found another comment on the web by David Dorward. He writes:
If the author didn’t publish under a CC license, then normal copyright restrictions would apply. Thus you have gained, so be happy. CC licenses don’t take anything away from you, and one of the things that they have left you is the ability to request further permissions.
Thus let me continue the discussion of the No-Derivatives license even though the original situation is no more.
I’d argue: Why use CC in the first place? No license would have achieved the same purpose. People wanting to build on your work would have to ask for permission. People wanting to archive your work instead would not have to ask for permission, but I guess I’m a tinkerer at heart. The simple act of copying might be enough for music since I’m not good enough to actually remix it. But I know how to remix code (sometimes), adventures, or maps.
I understand the sentiment of not wanting your work to be used for things you aren’t comfortable with, but I’m not sure that the license is the correct place to express the sentiment. Other licenses don’t do this, either. Imagine a work derived from hundreds of contributions, such as a Free Software project. What would be common denominator of allowed uses? How would we figure it out? And if we had to ask for permission everytime we wanted to make a change, how would it work? I think that controlling the creation of derivatives using the license works but for a very small number of contributors. It’s not something I want to encourage.
The alternative is a legal solution. There are basically two schools of thought regarding copyright – they differ in their regard for moral rights. These would be protected here in Switzerland, for example. As the Berne Convention says, this right allows you
to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. ¹
Perhaps that’s good enough?
– Alex Schroeder 2008-08-15 08:08 UTC
---
Sounds to me like you might like to get involved in our project, the Free RPG Community:
– Ricardo 2008-08-15 08:10 UTC
---
Indeed, I like the idea!
– Alex Schroeder 2008-08-15 08:25 UTC
---
(Ah ha, there is a comments system which I missed when I was looking around earlier)
“In fact I’d argue: Why use CC in the first place? No license would have achieved the same purpose.”
It wouldn’t. The license allows public redistribution, including as part of a collective work. As far as I know, you don’t get that for free under copyright law in most jurisdictions.
“I think that controlling the creation of derivatives using the license works but for a very small number of contributors. It’s not something I want to encourage.”
Speaking for myself - if a project got that big, then I’d consider relicensing it. It comes down to risk _ benefit. A project that has enough momentum to keep generating something good gives enough benefit to risk that my work will be used in a way I don’t like._
– David Dorward 2008-08-15 08:47 UTC
---
I wrote up a map key using Tim’s Dungeon Map 001.
a map key using Tim’s Dungeon Map 001
– Alex Schroeder 2008-08-16 11:58 UTC