So why did Blizzard sue Valve over DOTA 2? Can you explain that?
I am not very familiar with the case, but quick searches seem to state that the situation there is basically a mess. As far as I can see, Blizzard's position was more along the lines of a trademark claim, where they stated that consumers could mistake DOTA 2 as being endorsed or associated with Blizzard due to DotA being associated with Warcraft III for so long. The situation becomes more interesting because there were several (at least three?) people who made a version of DotA in the game over time, and they all went on to do different things with their claim on the DotA they worked on.
I do not think Blizzard originally had any actual assigned legal ownership of DotA. Though I would not be surprised if they supported DotA in some way behind the scenes. If I recall correctly, when patch 1.24 hit for example, DotA still worked for a time. So perhaps there may be things the DotA maintainers accepted from Blizzard over time that I have no idea about. For a name and the value DotA brings, it is probably worth fighting for even if you do not have the legal certainty.
Yes, you can probably still lose a legal battle with Blizzard even if you have the so called right to whatever it is you are doing. Sadly this is a reality of the legal system, where things like patent trolling exist.
Edit: It looks like the people who worked on DotA previously had their claims bought up by either Blizzard or Valve and they were pitting these against each other. I find this situation to be very silly. In this case I guess they both had some claim to use DotA.
Also, it looks like the Valve and Blizzard stuff was settled already out of courts? Is there something they are still fighting over?
Edit 2: I briefly forgot that the new WC3 launcher and installer includes a new EULA (here
Blizzard Entertainment:Blizzard End User License Agreement ) which includes this (
Blizzard Entertainment:StarCraft II Custom Game Acceptable Use Policy ). I amended my original post to reflect this.
In light of this, I would say you are correct that Blizzard does attempt to take ownership of things people create in the editors. This is kind of funny to look through. The World Editor license states that it is the sole license agreement and supersedes any other one, though it includes by reference the "Battle.net Terms of Use", which from the name looks like it refers to this:
Blizzard Entertainment: Battle.net Terms of Use (
Blizzard Entertainment: Battle.net Terms of Use for an older version) (with perhaps some modifications for the US version). This one does not seem to try to take sole ownership, but does attempt to take from the user a license to basically use created content however Blizzard desires, provided you use Battle.net. The Battle.net Terms of Use no longer seems to be in effect, and instead there is the Battle.net End User License Agreement, which does try to take sole ownership of custom games, and you need to agree to it to install newer versions of WC3.
From a cursory glance at some version of the agreement(s), older versions of the agreement(s) seem less restrictive than now with regards to this issue. I suppose, then, that the situation of any given map would depend on a variety of factors, such as the license at the time the map was created / last updated and whether the creator used Battle.net, and I guess if they updated and "agreed" to the new terms in the newest versions. And also whether or not these terms can be enforced in court. And perhaps even the country one resides in. And these things are meant to be read by users, heh.
I think the original license agreement shipped with the WE needs to be updated to reflect the changes on the online side of things.
Anyway, this is all very silly and tedious to sift through, so I will call it quits here. This is the job of lawyers after all, I suppose. Though at the end of the day, we have DOTA 2 and Valve owns it, so eh.
And to reiterate: I am not a lawyer and none of this is legal advice.