- Joined
- Jul 27, 2020
- Messages
- 2
I was a map builder for years and now I am making some other original games.
Is it legal for me to use some icon resources on hiveworkshop.com .
Is it legal for me to use some icon resources on hiveworkshop.com .
-
🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
-
It's time for the first HD Modeling Contest of 2024. Join the theme discussion for Hive's HD Modeling Contest #6! Click here to post your idea!
please help me on this question about copyright
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2020
- Messages
- 2
I will give credits to the resources makers certainly.
If it is still not legal, what should I do to get permission.
If it is still not legal, what should I do to get permission.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 12,337
The borders would be Blizzard's, so that's not viable. The rest should be on the authors ...
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2017
- Messages
- 248
TL/DR: case by case ("icon by icon" and "submission post by sumbission post") analysis. very hard question in fact. i'm tempted to say that if you want total certainty you should ask for a special permission ("can i use your icon in a standalone game").
Since you are concerned about copyright, first i will say this: an icon border is hardly a creative work. If you think it is indeed one or you don't want any chance of trouble (and to indulge in lazyness), you can always use your custom border over the art icon. This can be easily done nowadays.
It is clear that the principal aspect is regarding the art of the icon. The art present in icons submited by the Hive is very heterogenic in terms of their position in copyright law. Which is exactly which is a hard question indeed that i'm not really qualified to answer as absolute truth. Try to use common sense.
You have loose modifications of Blizzard's art (you CAN'T use these, these are reproductions). In my opinion, this would include functional recolors, blizzard icon fixes, etc. No creative value here so these are IP of Blizzard and i doubt they are going to license their work so it is used in a game (compare that to usage made by fanpages).
You have art icons that could be considered derivative works. In extreme layman terms a derivative work is a creative modification that was allowed by the author of the original work. I can think of two possible "theories", both with different conclusions. One could say that any EULA signer has an implied (read: not express) derivative works license as we are allowed to use the Editor (and this program natural use is indeed modifying Warcraft III games and assets). Then you must add that Blizzard hasn't enforced their rights unto this community during all this time, which means that they are clearly "licensing" (ie. allowing us to modificate freely (modificate including do derivatives), excluding commercial purpose) with their acts. If this theory is sound in a trial, then derivatives made by modders are IP of them and not Blizzard's (modification + creative + allowed). The other theory is that we don't have a derivative works license, so all icons considered derivatives are in a legal limbo controlled by Blizzard. The second theory is weaker than the first because it gives copyright law a purely monopolistic nature that in the end halts creative expression. Creative expression is the very thing copyright law protects so we end up having a beautiful anti-paradox argument.
You have art icons that could be considered original works. I would say that there are lots of these. These are IP of the author, and there is no legal limbo, not even the EULA (if you are an author by copyright law then you own those rights, it doesn't matter what a contract says, unless it is a work-for-hire contract or other legal exceptions; license contracts like the EULA are hardly an exception -ie. we are not being payed to create-).
Regarding legally sound derivatives and complete original works, then what we must analyse is what rights users of the platform have (persons like you and me). Here you must see the submission post of the author. These submission posts are, again, very heterogenic (some say nothing, some allows us to even distribute and freely modify the work). As an inescapable rule, you can't reproduce, do derivatives and publicly difuse the work unless the author says otherwise. Using assets on a game will always (this is of your interest) mean reproducing a work and difuse it, often to a great public. The thing is, most people here don't offer clear ("you can do whatever you want") or any copyright licensing conditions. I could be wrong but The Hive only has rules regarding the quality of the sumbission and not bare minimum licensing rules or guidelines.
But i think that, unless we want to be in another legal limbo and create more stupid paradoxes, we must, atleast, use this general rule (applied only if the conditions made by the author are unclear):
Submiting a work in the Hive gives users the right to "use" it on our "games". "Use" would mean an implied license (all neccessary acts that allows a modder to employ a resource in their games, including ie. reproducing all needed times or modify it so it functions in our game). Note that "using" an icon on our games will not include acts like distributing and do actual derivatives of the icon, because these two rights are not acts that are essential to use it on a game (they are unrelated to this "use" concept).
Then there is the word "game". This is an interesting part because you say you want to use it for a standalone game. I think it is more reasonable to say that "game" only extends to custom games (mods) and not stand alone games. The nature of the Hive as a modding site is perhaps the stronger argument. But you can argue that there is no actual distinction at all. A good, permissive and suficiently secure rule is baring that Blizzard's derivative works can only be used on mods (as these can be in a limbo and can tilt Blizzard if they are used on other games) but original works could be used on any kind of game.
Since you are concerned about copyright, first i will say this: an icon border is hardly a creative work. If you think it is indeed one or you don't want any chance of trouble (and to indulge in lazyness), you can always use your custom border over the art icon. This can be easily done nowadays.
It is clear that the principal aspect is regarding the art of the icon. The art present in icons submited by the Hive is very heterogenic in terms of their position in copyright law. Which is exactly which is a hard question indeed that i'm not really qualified to answer as absolute truth. Try to use common sense.
You have loose modifications of Blizzard's art (you CAN'T use these, these are reproductions). In my opinion, this would include functional recolors, blizzard icon fixes, etc. No creative value here so these are IP of Blizzard and i doubt they are going to license their work so it is used in a game (compare that to usage made by fanpages).
You have art icons that could be considered derivative works. In extreme layman terms a derivative work is a creative modification that was allowed by the author of the original work. I can think of two possible "theories", both with different conclusions. One could say that any EULA signer has an implied (read: not express) derivative works license as we are allowed to use the Editor (and this program natural use is indeed modifying Warcraft III games and assets). Then you must add that Blizzard hasn't enforced their rights unto this community during all this time, which means that they are clearly "licensing" (ie. allowing us to modificate freely (modificate including do derivatives), excluding commercial purpose) with their acts. If this theory is sound in a trial, then derivatives made by modders are IP of them and not Blizzard's (modification + creative + allowed). The other theory is that we don't have a derivative works license, so all icons considered derivatives are in a legal limbo controlled by Blizzard. The second theory is weaker than the first because it gives copyright law a purely monopolistic nature that in the end halts creative expression. Creative expression is the very thing copyright law protects so we end up having a beautiful anti-paradox argument.
You have art icons that could be considered original works. I would say that there are lots of these. These are IP of the author, and there is no legal limbo, not even the EULA (if you are an author by copyright law then you own those rights, it doesn't matter what a contract says, unless it is a work-for-hire contract or other legal exceptions; license contracts like the EULA are hardly an exception -ie. we are not being payed to create-).
Regarding legally sound derivatives and complete original works, then what we must analyse is what rights users of the platform have (persons like you and me). Here you must see the submission post of the author. These submission posts are, again, very heterogenic (some say nothing, some allows us to even distribute and freely modify the work). As an inescapable rule, you can't reproduce, do derivatives and publicly difuse the work unless the author says otherwise. Using assets on a game will always (this is of your interest) mean reproducing a work and difuse it, often to a great public. The thing is, most people here don't offer clear ("you can do whatever you want") or any copyright licensing conditions. I could be wrong but The Hive only has rules regarding the quality of the sumbission and not bare minimum licensing rules or guidelines.
But i think that, unless we want to be in another legal limbo and create more stupid paradoxes, we must, atleast, use this general rule (applied only if the conditions made by the author are unclear):
Submiting a work in the Hive gives users the right to "use" it on our "games". "Use" would mean an implied license (all neccessary acts that allows a modder to employ a resource in their games, including ie. reproducing all needed times or modify it so it functions in our game). Note that "using" an icon on our games will not include acts like distributing and do actual derivatives of the icon, because these two rights are not acts that are essential to use it on a game (they are unrelated to this "use" concept).
Then there is the word "game". This is an interesting part because you say you want to use it for a standalone game. I think it is more reasonable to say that "game" only extends to custom games (mods) and not stand alone games. The nature of the Hive as a modding site is perhaps the stronger argument. But you can argue that there is no actual distinction at all. A good, permissive and suficiently secure rule is baring that Blizzard's derivative works can only be used on mods (as these can be in a limbo and can tilt Blizzard if they are used on other games) but original works could be used on any kind of game.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,321
If you are making a commercial project, I assume you absolutely require permission from the people who made the resources.
But really, I feel you should have known this without needing to ask, and so this question almost looks like you are trying to ask if it is possible to use resources without permission from the authors themselves. (assuming it is for a commercial project, if it is for a mod then I assume that was what the authors originally intended their resources to be used for).
- Status
Similar threads
