[Bahamut ZERO]

Just noticed something I figured I should point out: When you shoot your gun, only part of the character's sprite changes to the shooting pose (the right side). Not a BIG issue or anything, it just looks like Harry's lifting his leg to shoot bullets from his knee like the Bionic Leg guy from Ehrgeiz.

Look, if you feel the video offends you or negatively affects your publicity in any way, I'll happily take it down. Once again, it was not supposed to bash your mod at all.

If it's more talking about the remaining flaws in the original game, I'd say leave it up, or redub the audio at the beginning to point that out. As an outsider looking in it looks more like you hurt the author's feelings than the legitimacy of his patch's improvements.

Point out what things the patch improved on, then point out what of the original mechanics you felt brought down the experience from there. If you make your criticism clear and constructive, I'm sure the author would be more likely to listen and talk back and forth, rather then brush you off after a point about some text you were joking about.

If people are still butt hurt at that point, oh well. As much as the patch improves the game, it's not the single-greatest-patch-in-history.

[nesrocks]

Just noticed something I figured I should point out: When you shoot your gun, only part of the character's sprite changes to the shooting pose (the right side). Not a BIG issue or anything, it just looks like Harry's lifting his leg to shoot bullets from his knee like the Bionic Leg guy from Ehrgeiz.

That has to do with the game's system on "sprite types". That sprite type has no tile where the left leg should be. For a big part of the project I hadn't mapped out all sprite types as there wasn't a big reason to do so.

Now, at the end of the project I had totally figured out how to fix that because I was creating new sprites for the progress and the ending screens, but there was a deadline so I chose to leave it and focus on creating the sound manager, the sound tester, inserting the remaining songs that FCandChill sent, and implementing the save feature. The last couple of weeks were like an unpaid full time job.

There's also the issue that I don't know if that sprite type was dedicated to Harry shooting or if something else uses it. There are many sprite types that are reused for different things and it's hard to map it all.

That's just one of the remaining issues though. For a future revisit (if I ever do one), there are many issues to address, some of which may or may not be possible due to my programming abilities or free space on the rom:

1 - Redo the entire map. I find the way the crystal balls and the wall locks are positioned in the map sometimes completely random and sometimes simply put there to annoy the player. They should be used to unlock entire areas, but they are used instead to make the player backtrack after finding out a crystal ball is missing. This is very bad level design and it should be addressed. A complete map redesign would remove the need to go back to the starting area and give it a proper final area with one final objective, so the game would have a more natural way to end.
2 - The hidden warp area is completely subutilized. It could make for really interesting paths, but it is used as three separate dead-ends. This is poor level design.
3 - Try to fix the metatile attribute loading. This would fix the wrong metatile colors being shown at the edges of the screen.
4 - Likewise fix the way the sprites are loaded when they enter the screen, because right now they show a garbage sprite type for a few frames before showing the correct one.
5 - Add a way to duck and shoot (would require fully fixing the diagonal bugs).
6 - Add an options screen.
7 - Add a life bar system, like in the coco3 version.
8 - Make it so the snail enemy can actually be shot when he stops, like it says in the manual but never worked in the actual game.
9 - Nobody noticed or mentioned it yet, but the crystal balls collision is 8 pixels horizontally off. Every other item has correct collision, but not that one (not that it is worse than the original game, but that bit wasn't improved).
10 - A better shooting pose.
11 - Make it so dropping from ladders or getting caught by a waterfall takes you to a controlled falling like when now walking off a ledge.
12 - Stop accepting up/down commands when on a vine and when on a moving platform.
13 - Fix the CHR loading.
14 - Fix the map loading.
15 - Add diagonal swimming.
16 - Redo the sound engine to use more complex effects and remove the horrible lag it causes.
17 - Add water decorative metatiles. There is only one swimmable metatile in the game and it is the reason all water is a flat blue in my hack.
18 - Reduce the range for the waterfall sound effect to activate so it really only activates when it is on screen.
19 - Fix the way the Balloon allows Harry to get into walls.
20 - Fix the camera so it moves faster than Harry when it's too close to the edge until it hits a certain threshold.
21 - Make it so vines don't disappear when their hinge is above the top of the screen to a certain point.

[lexluthermiester]

Nesrocks, or anyone else;

Would like to point out that the comments I made were not intended to start drama or be insulting. Only to bring up an interesting perspective from a legal vantage point. Now to be clear, your artwork and anything you created from scratch would indeed be yours IF you had not applied such to the copyrighted work of another person/entity, in this case Activision. Because you applied such work to a copyrighted work without the consent or agreement of the copyright owner, you effectively surrender the rights to those works and they become public access/domain. The upside is that no one can take credit from you. The downside is that you have no effective way to control how it is used. Thing is, you shouldn't care. You made this mod for the love of doing it and sharing it with everyone. If someone takes it and mods it a little[or a lot] more and posts their mod, as long as you are given where it is due, why do you care?

For example, there have been a few things mentioned that could be done differently, or improved upon such as the shooting while crouched point. If someone posts a mod that adds that action ability and changes the graphic used, this is an improvement and a positive addition to the mod. In that situation, would you not welcome it so long as credit was not taken away from you?

This mod you've CLEARLY worked very hard on is something to be truly proud of! And no modification of that work, with or without your consent, will take away from that achievement.

[nesrocks]

This site distributes patches to the roms because that's how you can distribute only the work of the hacker, and not distribute copywritten things. How is this confusing?
My hack for example: it just so happens that my patch works with a specific super pitfall rom, but my patch alone can be applied to an empty file and there you will find my pixel art. I don't see how the way the user uses my patch nullifies the ownership of my artwork. The only practical reason my work isn't fully protected by law is that I didn't register it, but it has nothing to do with activision. As a game per se, it's foggy because my patch doesn't work on its own as a game (unless the user applies it to super pitfall or writes his own game which would work with my patch). But my brand new code routines and my brand new original pixel art and FCandChill's brand new original music is what I am distributing. There should be no confusion here.

[lexluthermiester]

This site distributes patches to the roms because that's how you can distribute only the work of the hacker, and not distribute copywritten things. How is this confusing?

It's not at all confusing once you take into account simple facts which will be touched on below.

My hack for example: it just so happens that my patch works with a specific super pitfall rom, but my patch alone can be applied to an empty file and there you will find my pixel art. I don't see how the way the user uses my patch nullifies the ownership of my artwork.

Because you specifically designed your artwork to be exclusively applied to a copyrighted work that you do not own/control. Your artwork on it's own would, of course, be yours. But because it is applied to, and requires the presence of a copyrighted work in order to function properly that you don't own/control and did not acquire permission to modify, releasing such work in such a manner nullifies your exclusive rights and ownership of it. Activision is limited in any recourse they can levy because you are not trying to benefit from, or deny them any benefit of the work in question. You are both in what is effectively a "gray" area of the law. 

The only practical reason my work isn't fully protected by law is that I didn't register it, but it has nothing to do with activision.

Registering does not matter for the above-mentioned reasons.

As a game per se, it's foggy because my patch doesn't work on its own as a game (unless the user applies it to super pitfall or writes his own game which would work with my patch). But my brand new code routines and my brand new original pixel art and FCandChill's brand new original music is what I am distributing. There should be no confusion here.

Had you released your artwork, code routines and sound routines on their own, but with instructions on how they are to be applied to the Super Pitfall game code, then your copyright claim would then be valid and you would be lawfully entitled to control how and when it may or may not be used. But because you have released it as a patch deliberately designed to be applied to specific copyrighted work that do not own, you have forfeited ownership claims to it all. That is the law in most of the civilized world.

Brazilian law might have addendums and statutes which allow you the controls and rights you speak of, but such would be the exception rather than the rule. Additionally, because you designed the patch to be applied to a game available to much of the world outside of Brazil, such statutes almost certainly do not apply outside of that country.

Does that make sense?

September 13, 2016, 03:04:44 am - (Auto Merged - Double Posts are not allowed before 7 days.)

That quote is more of a rule for the website of thumb than a portrayal of the actual law. But this whole issue really falls under the addenum clause of this website's rules: http://www.romhacking.net/forum/index.php/topic,22166.0.html

Are you allowed to tell users not to make addenum patches of your hack on the website? I don't know ... I would assume yes. But I would reccomend everyone to take it up with a moderator instead of arguing.

Topic you referenced basically states that you need to properly submit a patch to the correct section of the site, giving all credit where it is due. It does not spell out limitations for "hacks of hacks" beyond giving proper credit as limiting such would be grievously hypocritical and ultimately self-defeating.

[nesrocks]

Your artwork on it's own would, of course, be yours. But because it is applied to, and requires the presence of a copyrighted work in order to function properly

Then we agree, like I said earlier, that a part of my work isn't mine (the part that requires the game to function properly), while the other part that doesn't require it (graphics, new algorhythms and music) belong to their respective owners (me, me and infidelity, and FCandChill, respectively).

Had you released your artwork, code routines and sound routines on their own, but with instructions on how they are to be applied to the Super Pitfall game code

It's called a patch.

[macbee]

Because you applied such work to a copyrighted work without the consent or agreement of the copyright owner, you effectively surrender the rights to those works and they become public access/domain.

Romhacks are a legal mess, everyone agrees. But you're saying that mixing original content with copyrighted work will turn (the original content) public domain. Please, show me WHERE I can read this in the North American Copyright Law.

Roy Lichtenstein's "Look Mickey" was made from a copyrighted image and uses two worldwide famous, trademarked characters without permission of their owners. Is "Look Mickey" public domain? No.

The same to Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby". This song was released with samples of classic "Under Pressure" song used without authorization. Money was paid later to Queen+Bowie - but was "Ice Ice Baby" public domain? No.

Copyright violation won't make anything become public domain. It doesn't make any sense.

[lexluthermiester]

Then we agree, like I said earlier, that a part of my work isn't mine (the part that requires the game to function properly), while the other part that doesn't require it (graphics, new algorithms and music) belong to their respective owners (me, me and infidelity, and FCandChill, respectively).
It's called a patch.

You're not following along here. Before you publicly applied your works to the game, they were your exclusive works. Once you released them publicly in a format designed specifically to be applied the game[a copyrighted work you do not own, do not have rights to, nor had permission to modify] you immediately and permanently surrendered your exclusive rights to those works. No one can take credit away from you all for the work you've done. But you don't own it anymore because you applied it to someone else's work without their consent. The flip-side is that no one else owns it either. Activision can not take your mod, slap their name on it and sell it as an updated release, even if they give you credit. Furthermore, even if you all and Activision made an agreement to do such a release, the publicly released mod can not be retracted because it started out as an unauthorized, but not illegal, work.

[nesrocks]

It seems that you are the one not following. I didn't apply it. It's distributed as a separate file. The user can apply it anywhere. Will the user get more out of my patch by applying it to Super Pitfall (USA)? Yes. Will the user get something by applying it to any file ever? Yes, my artwork, my code, infidelity's code and FCandChill's music will be there on that any file.

[Disch]

I figure since we live in the age of the internet, there's no point in guessing as to what copyright rules are.  So I looked some stuff up.

Here's what I found (with sources)

- ROM hacks would fall under "derivative works".  Specifically, derivative works explicitly include "A new version of an existing computer program" [1] -- which is quite clearly what a ROM hack is.

- The copyright holder of the original work is the only one with the ability to legally create derivative work -- or allow derivative work to be created [2].  Additionally, derivative work that was created without authorization of the copyright holder is not protected by copyright [3].

- Failure of the copyright holder to crack down on infringement does not mean the copyright holder has any less rights to their copyright.  You can ignore infringement for decades and suddenly snap and crack down on one poor sucker -- and you'd have full legal ability to do so -- though amount of money you'd get in damages will probably be less [4].



[1] http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf   page 1

[2] http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#change

[3] http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf   page 2, "Right to Prepare Derivative Works"

[4] https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/stopping-internet-plagiarism/your-copyrights-online/3-copyright-myths/    "If you don't protect your copyright, you lose it" myth section.





So.... it sounds like lexluthermiester is right, he's just not explaining it the best way.  If this was original material, nesrocks, FCandChill, etc would have copyright, but because it's derivative material... they don't.


This being distributed as a patch and not a full ROM is an extremely flimsy point and not much to protect you here.  I couldn't find anything about the format of distributed material impacting copyright ownership -- but I can't imagine such a defense fooling even the most technologically naive judge.  "But your honor, I didn't make a program, I made a zip file!"



EDIT:

Though lexluthermiester's claim of your work falling back to public domain is probably not correct.  It's more likely the original copyright holder (Activision?) would obtain the copyright on all derivative works.

[protomank]

Don't trying to get into some technical war here but... it depends on how you create the patch.
If the patch does not contain ANY notations to the original code, but rather only line numbers and such, it is not considered derivative work, simply because it can be applied anywhere, even on a text file consisting of only empty lines and the result and the result is only your work.

Now, I have no clue how IPS patches are created, that if those contain notations or not, but simply creating a patch is not a copyright derivation. You can take Apache as an example, it was born as a patch (therefore its name) and the patch was always considered Apache Group's property, never NCSA one. Surely, this didn't get in courts, but when you look at how Google won fair use on Java's API, it is very hard that a court would consider a patch without notations as derivative work, much less likely a non-fair-use of the copyright material.

But, shouldn't we discuss this kind of stuff in another thread instead of the Super Pitfall 30th anniversary patch?

[lexluthermiester]

Romhacks are a legal mess, everyone agrees. But you're saying that mixing original content with copyrighted work will turn (the original content) public domain. Please, show me WHERE I can read this in the North American Copyright Law.

Roy Lichtenstein's "Look Mickey" was made from a copyrighted image and uses two worldwide famous, trademarked characters without permission of their owners. Is "Look Mickey" public domain? No.

The same to Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby". This song was released with samples of classic "Under Pressure" song used without authorization. Money was paid later to Queen+Bowie - but was "Ice Ice Baby" public domain? No.

Copyright violation won't make anything become public domain. It doesn't make any sense.

Your reference of Roy Lichtenstein's "Look Mickey" does not apply here as that was a completely new work which used the original as a reference material only. None of the original work was actually included. Additionally, the painting was deliberately meant to be an artistic impression and reinterpretation type piece, something which can lawfully be done. But that is not what Nesrocks & crew have done here. Instead of creating a new game built from scratch, using the original as inspiration, they have taken an existing work and modified it to work in a new way. That's the difference. Next, Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby' took a from Queen's "Under Pressure" with the deliberate intention of making a profit and benefit from it. But had Vanilla Ice released it without any intention to benefit from it and Queen failed to enforce their right of not being denied benefit[and there is a statue of limitations for such], then yes at that point it would have become public access/domain.

And lets clarify what the terms "Public Access" and "Public Domain" actually mean. Generally speaking, "Public Access" is used to define that a work is accessible to the entire public with the limitations being that no profit or direct benefit may be attained from use and that no new work based on the work in question may be made. "Public Domain" is a term that has several uses and definitions. In the context of this discussion, and because of the way the work was released to the public, then yes it is "Public Domain" because the work may now be used by anyone in any way they wish so long as no direct benefit or profit is derived from it.

[Disch]

Now, I have no clue how IPS patches are created, that if those contain notations or not, but simply creating a patch is not a copyright derivation.

It's not the patch that is the problem, it's the work itself.  That's where the confusion here is.

You're basically saying "if you distribute your work as a patch, you retain copyright on it".  Which may be true, but that's beside the point.... because if your work was created as a derivative of other works, you never had the copyright on it in the first place.

It's quite clear to anyone that this hack was created using the original Super Pitfall as a base.  Therefore it is derivative.  And therefore nesrocks and friends do not have a copyright on it.  Whether or not they distribute it as a patch doesn't really matter.

[protomank]

Your definition of derivative work is too broad. If that was the case, every single patch would be derivative work, no matter what, and the copyright would be of the original code owner.
This is not how it works, I worked on large companies that have patches for other people's code/work, the patches are generated from the original code (therefore, by your definition, derivative) but still are copyright of the big companies that created the patch, not the original produce/code owner. This is largely accepted and used by the industry.

The thing is that if you, lets say, draw a new art OVER the old one, your work is derivative, but still it is not an automatic copyright infringement, as it cal still be considered fair used or even can be considerate non-derivative work on courts. It is the copyright owner of the original work that needs to prove that your work is based on a copy. (several cases got away that way already, in USA).
If they can't prove that you draw everything from zero, they have no claim of copyright, even if your work is meant to be applied over theirs.

[Bahamut ZERO]

Not picking any sides here, but:

Once you released them publicly in a format designed specifically to be applied to the game

I didn't apply it. It's distributed as a separate file.

Kind of looks like you're both using the same logic as the base of your debates at this point.


I get that you don't want full-scale hacks being made with your hack as a base, but I don't think you need to be too worried of swaths of people making hacks of your hack of Super Pitfall. It's Super Pitfall.

I could maybe picture someone coming along wanting to tackle some of the tasks on your to-do list if you decided to cease work on it waaaaaay down the line, but that'd be more in the ballpark of wanting to contribute to your work than hijacking it.

So how about we all go back to discussing what the hack does to make the base game not-suck-balls, while discussing possible things that'll make the base game more epic should the hack progress further? Talking about the do's and don'ts and legality of hack-of-hacks here is about as annoying as the EX-HIROM back n' forth in the "Puzzledude's Quest" thread months back.

Let's just enjoy a Super Pitfall that doesn't suck in terms of, well, everything. 

[lexluthermiester]

- ROM hacks would fall under "derivative works".  Specifically, derivative works explicitly include "A new version of an existing computer program" [1] -- which is quite clearly what a ROM hack is.

This would be a correct interpretation, except that modifying code does fall under fair-use so long as it is done without profit or benefit to the person modifying the code AND it does not deprive the copyright holder of profit or benefit, as has been ruled in multiple pieces of case law

- The copyright holder of the original work is the only one with the ability to legally create derivative work -- or allow derivative work to be created [2].  Additionally, derivative work that was created without authorization of the copyright holder is not protected by copyright [3].

True, in a for-profit situation. In the context of THIS situation, the original copyright holder can not prohibit such a modification.

- Failure of the copyright holder to crack down on infringement does not mean the copyright holder has any less rights to their copyright.  You can ignore infringement for decades and suddenly snap and crack down on one poor sucker -- and you'd have full legal ability to do so -- though amount of money you'd get in damages will probably be less [4].

This is false. All laws, civil or criminal, which carry a penalty have statue of limitations. A copyright holder DOES have a time limit to make claim.

[1] http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf   page 1

[2] http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#change

[3] http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf   page 2, "Right to Prepare Derivative Works"

[4] https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/stopping-internet-plagiarism/your-copyrights-online/3-copyright-myths/    "If you don't protect your copyright, you lose it" myth section.

These citations quote the law itself and not case law by judges who have interpreted the law and decided how it may be applied. Prime example, which make modding games like this not unlawful, is Nintendo VS Galoob re: Game Genie. In that case a judge ruled that a user modifying code to suit his/her own needs is lawful as long as copyright holder is not deprived of benefit or profit. That ruling also defined that a utility that provide a mechanism to apply or create modifications are not unlawful either. Thus the Game Genie and devices and/or software utilities like it and modifying code within software became legal.

So.... it sounds like lexluthermiester is right, he's just not explaining it the best way.  If this was original material, nesrocks, FCandChill, etc would have copyright, but because it's derivative material... they don't.


This being distributed as a patch and not a full ROM is an extremely flimsy point and not much to protect you here.  I couldn't find anything about the format of distributed material impacting copyright ownership -- but I can't imagine such a defense fooling even the most technologically naive judge.  "But your honor, I didn't make a program, I made a zip file!"



EDIT:

Though lexluthermiester's claim of your work falling back to public domain is probably not correct.  It's more likely the original copyright holder (Activision?) would obtain the copyright on all derivative works.

I could quote case law all day long. There is no need. What I've said IS correct.

Nesrocks and crew; Here are your rights as the law and court rulings define:
1. You have the right to claim credit and recognition for your work without limitation. Which means that anyone who uses your work must give you credit and you have the right to demand that they do.
2. You do NOT have a claim of copyright to the work you've done because it was applied to a copyright work you were NOT authorized to modify.
3. You have no claim of ownership to the modification you have made, even if such includes new material as you did not have authorization from the copyright holder to make said modifications.
4. You are protected from prosecution by the copyright holder so long as you make no attempts to profit or benefit from the modifications you have created.
5. Any request made to limit use of or limit further modifications of your unauthorized modifications do NOT have to be honored and are NOT legally enforceable.

I didn't mean to start a fight at all, only to bring perspective to a statement that seemed more than a bit out of touch.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you are going to make a hack/mod of a game don't try to claim rights you do not legally have. Do it for the love of it, for the love of being creative and sharing with the world.

[nesrocks]

I still don't agree. In short:
My hack isn't all derivative work. Some of it is, and I agreed earlier that the bits that are derivative are not mine. They are activision's, or juventino rosa's, or nintendo's, etc (some of the credits are even inside the hack, visible on the sound test for example!). There are many copywright holders when it comes to an NES ROM.
The other bits that are not derivative, that are 100% original, are mine, are FCandChill's etc. A hack (specially this one) isn't one thing, it's many things packed together. How are FCandChill's entirely new songs derivative? They are his songs and they were put into the patch. So were most of my new pixel arts. Some of the pixel art was derivative, like the title logo, the reimagined enemies, the new quickclaw (based on the cartoon), etc. What I will never agree is that EVERYTHING is derivative. No. A lot of it is completely original.

So, to be clear, as I said before, again: I don't own the rights to the hack. But parts of it, yes I do.

For example, FCandChill's songs are on youtube, on famitracker. And they were later on put into the hack. So was a lot of the pixel art. I posted them here, I posted them on my site. They work there, they are images. And then, later, they were also put into the hack. That doesn't change what those things are, get it? If I take Mickey mouse and insert it into the hack does disney lose the rights to mickey mouse? Of course not.

So stop treating the hack as an indivisible thing, because it isn't that.

[lexluthermiester]

I still don't agree. In short:
My hack isn't all derivative work. Some of it is, and I agreed earlier that the bits that are derivative are not mine. They are activision's, or juventino rosa's, or nintendo's, etc (some of the credits are even inside the hack, visible on the sound test for example!). There are many copywright holders when it comes to an NES ROM.
The other bits that are not derivative, that are 100% original, are mine, are FCandChill's etc. A hack (specially this one) isn't one thing, it's many things packed together. How are FCandChill's entirely new songs derivative? They are his songs and they were put into the patch. So were most of my new pixel arts. Some of the pixel art was derivative, like the title logo, the reimagined enemies, the new quickclaw (based on the cartoon), etc. What I will never agree is that EVERYTHING is derivative. No. A lot of it is completely original.

So, to be clear, as I said before, again: I don't own the rights to the hack. But parts of it, yes I do.

For example, FCandChill's songs are on youtube, on famitracker. And they were later on put into the hack. So was a lot of the pixel art. I posted them here, I posted them on my site. They work there, they are images. And then, later, they were also put into the hack. That doesn't change what those things are, get it? If I take Mickey mouse and insert it into the hack does disney lose the rights to mickey mouse? Of course not.

Disney owns "Mickey Mouse" so if you hand drew an image of Mickey, digitized it and put it in a game, Disney doesn't lose any rights. But you do. Just like Activision doesn't lose any rights over Super Pitfall. But you do.

So stop treating the hack as an indivisible thing, because it isn't that.

But in the eyes of the law and the courts, it is.

You can disagree all you want. It doesn't change the fact that your perspective isn't supported by law. I've been in your place and learned the hard way. Back in 2003 I made a mod for a PC game and did the exact same thing you did. Even though MY work was included in the mod, the law did not support my claim of ownership or rights of control. We don't have to like it, and I'm not telling you that you have to. All I'm saying is that because of the way the work was done and released, you can not claim ownership or rights of control over it in any way.

Let's look at it another way, because of the way things are in the law, you, me and everyone else can make mod/hacks like this one without fear of penalty. Because of the rulings judges have made we are allowed to do what we do. Otherwise we could not without risk of fines and even jail. It's a double edged sword for sure..

[nesrocks]

You're failing to understand simple english, so let's just stop this pointless discussion (it's like you never read my posts). Anyway, since you're not a judge, and this isn't a lawsuit, it's going to be one side saying blue and the other saying green to the end of time. But mostly because I'm talking to the walls here, while you're saying random words unrelated to the issue. If you want a serious discussion please go back to my post and read it without a "I must win this argument" mentality.

[lexluthermiester]

Ok, shutting up..