Agree but also disagree. The thing is theres an extremely fine line between actual copyright and intellectual copyright. Does that actual mean that if I make a completely scratch built model that it belongs to someone else?? Simple answer: No. Whilst the original concept design the new model is not theirs to claim copyright to. The additional thing is, how many of the original creators actually base their own work of someone elses design (even loosely designing a ship, station or other item on someone elses work requires some form of crediting). Its the same with creating a new game. I mean how many shoot 'em ups are giving credit to the original space invaders creators?? Do those who create a new FPS give any credit to those who made the first FPS game?? Do those who create a new RTS based game give credit to the original creators of the genre?? The thing is you can argue symantics as much as you like but at the end of the day that very thin line appears.
And you make an important point, so I will clarify some points on copyright law.
Copyright is automatic, meaning if you create something original, either in Literary Works, Visual Arts, Performing Arts, Sound Recordings or Serials/Periodicals it is covered under US copyright law. No registration is required....however, if you wish to bring suit based on the law specifically, you must register your work with the office. You can of course sue someone without malice, but your case is much stronger if your work is registered.
Copyright law provides specific protections with respect to using one's original work. Granting credit does not automatically protect you from litigation, nor does changing the product from the original concept UNLESS it is at least 30 percent different from the original copyrighted item. An example would be the automobile. No royalties have to be paid to Ford motor company based on the copyright (remember, I am speaking of copyright, the concept of a horseless carriage, not the patent, the specific design of the automobile....a common mistake) even though all automobiles are essentially the same. Also, a copyright holder grants the user harmless by refusing to take action, intentional or lack thereof, therefore allowing the usage by default. Only litigation demonstrates a copyright holder's desire to protect one's work.
That said, Paramount's copyright is quite extensive, and goes beyond simple ship design. Using the name Star Trek, a registered trademark, or the words "warp drive", "phasers", etc, would be considered copyright infringements and open you to litigation, as well as patent violations.
A patent violation is actually a crime. A copyright violation is a civil matter.
Now, when you take an original patented and registered design, say the Defiant for instance, and refuse to provide credit for the original authors, you are doing two things....you are claiming that your use of the design is harmless under the definitiion of harm according to copyright law, and that your use is not original, therefore has no copyright protection.
That means anyone can use your work without harm, since your use of the original work assumes lack of harm on the original copyright.
Now, what does this mean? This means, from a legal or civil standpoint, you are bound to claim harmless, in a court of civil matters, any harm on yourself from use of your "model", in order to avoid a claim of harm with respect to the original author. Allowing your work to be used openly, without restriction, tends to discourage harm claims from the original author. Nightsoft uses just such a claim.
With Nightsoft products, all claims of harm are suspended as long as certain specific rules are met in our released licence. That means, in laymans terms, you can do what you want with that product as long as you let anyone else do the same, and you understand that we claim ownership of the product without requirement of compensation. That is our legal precedent on the matter, and most other companies are the same on non-patented items.
It costs me money to copyright my designs. I fully intend to prosecute anyone that violates our EULA by claiming ownership on any product that contains our products, in whole or in part, and that includes restricting access to, or changes thereof, of the product. We have already filed and won two lawsuits in this respect, though we chose not to seek compensation...instead we simply had the product removed in one instance, the website shut down in another.
Now, in the EULA for SFC it specifically states that anything released in MOD format is property of Paramount. It also states in Paramount copyright usage guidelines that any and all copyrighted or patented items under ownership by that studio, or Viacom, is restricted to permission only use and release. That means, if you make a connie, it is thier property if they so choose to exercise it in a court of law.
Courts have been lenient with copyright violations when they were demonstrated to be harmless and two conditions existed...the open unrestricted use of the product by others, and proper credits listed with the product. In almost every case where those three conditions did not exist the court found in favor of the originator.
I hope this helps clear up the issue.
Topic: Considering a change in the rules for Nightsoft Network sites... (Read 5198 times)