Intellectual Property as a third party..

JSonnab...

This is primarily a copyright issue.  Strictly speaking, the author of a new "map" has copyright interests in that work and can prevent others from copying it or creating new works from it.  

That being said, if the author of such a "map" derived his work from a pre-existing "map", he himself is likely an infringer who would be prevented from distributing his work.  There may be fair use and/or implied license arguments to make on behalf of the author, which, if persuasive, would allow the author to distribute his work despite any infringement.

- Jeff

JimIvey

Jeff is right, that's a copyright question.  All the topics at the top of the list (down to this one) are patent topics.  I suppose that could be made a little more clear.

I think a good case study for this issue is all the content created by users of The Sims line of computer games.  My understanding is that many users have created skins, buildings, etc. and either give the away or sell them -- i.e., control them in the way any copyright owner would.  Looking into how those creations are treated would go a long way toward answering your question.

Sorry I don't know off the top of my head how that's done.

Regards.

clarkla...

I think there is a case involving Duke Nukem that seems similar
in some ways to this. ?I'm describing the case from memory, so
I hope I don't mangle it too badly. ?(Microstar v. FormGen)

My recollection is that there was a tool that allowed designing
new game level files for Duke Nukem. ?I think users were allowed
to share them non commercially, but a third party collected
a bunch of user game level files on a CD (.MAP files)
and distributed them for profit.
In that case, the court found that even though the game files contained
no Duke Nukem's code, use of the collected .MAP files with the
game created an unauthorized derivative work.  This supported
a contributory infringement claim and an injunction preventing distribution.
The point is that it's very difficult to cover all of the bases
without knowing the details of the license, exactly how the
content files interact with the game, and what implied licenses
there might be concerning the game. ?A shrink wrap license
might well be found enforceable even if it limits rights that
copyright law does not.

JimIvey

Interesting.  I wonder to what degree using the copyright holder's software to generate the .map files.  For example, what happens if I create entirely original "themes" for Internet Explorer using non-MSFT tools.  Maybe that's moot -- don't know if IE supports themes.  I think Mozilla welcomes that kind of development, so Mozilla wouldn't help us answer the question.

I would think that enabling theming and skinning would be an implicit welcoming of development of supplemental content.  Then again, maybe the copyright owner should be able to set the terms of such contribution.  

In fact, the Duke-Nukem prohibition of commercialization of added content reminds me of open source software licenses -- an attempt to prevent any proprietarization -- like my new word ;-) -- of software.

Thanks.

JSonnab...

This discussion is all well and good, but one should not forget the author's rights to the derivative works; that is, the creator of the new "map" has copyright interests in it.  Thus, the compilation would infringe his rights regardless of the license granted from the original owner of the work.

- Jeff

clarkla...

I think the use of the tool could impact the generated work
in a couple of ways.  First the tool could have a license
attached which puts limits on the use of tool output.  In that
case the theory would be that while the tool owner had no
copyright in the tool output, violating the agreement would make
your use of the tool unauthorized.

The other way would be if the tool include bits of copyrighted
work into the output.  In that case the tool owner would have
a copyright interest in your work and could limit the terms
under which you distributed the combination.  Bison used
to be have this issue before the FSF relaxed the license terms.

I don't recall that this was an issue with Duke Nukem.

JSonnab...

Quote

clarkla...

Yes I did digress a bit.  Let me drag my remarks closer to the
topic.  In order to have rights in a derivative work, the
derivative work must be lawfully created.  See 17 USC 103(a).

In this case, it seems likely that the derivative work was
lawfully created, but some of the issues I mentioned might
conceivably come into play in deciding the underlying issue
of lawfully creation of a derivative work.