This is not about TAS, this is about property rights, which are serious business and have every reason to be.
Property rights for a key-input file that has to be played with a pirated, illegally-obtained ROM file. SERIOUS BUSINESS!
I mean, I could understand if FractalFusion was, you know, claiming it was his own. But the only real indication FractalFusion had anything to do with it was the fact he wrote the submission text -- it's still properly attributed to the real author.
Triple Fail Score for the fact that (iirc) many of this site's starting libraries was publishing other people's TASes (e.g. morimoto's SMB3 run).
I absolutely loathe this line in the submission text. People have the full right to disagree on something, and this line gives these people a label that they are are taking things too serious at the moment they post. I think it's very cheap.
No, it's called humor. If this line stops you from expressing your opinion, then you are taking things too seriously.
Anyway, I don't see the problem here even before veup replied, it's not like FractalFusion tried to take the credit for this or anything. People could have just waited and watched the submission like normal and not call bloody murder at the first sight. The final decision could have waited for veup's approval if so desired.
Then again, that would have lessened the amount of drama in this thread by 97%*.
* Harrison-Stetson used to generate this statistic.
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Xkeeper wrote:
Triple Fail Score for the fact that (iirc) many of this site's starting libraries was publishing other people's TASes (e.g. morimoto's SMB3 run).
Just because it started out this way does not mean it needs to continue in this way.
I personally see TASes as a form of artistic expression. The fact that they are "just keypresses" has as much meaning to me as the fact that poems are "just words". They were still created by someone, usually with a lot of work dedicated to the process of creation. And for that reason, I find it to be courteous to the author to ask their permission. I seem to remember several people getting upset 2-3 years back when WebNations "took" some input files of runs created for the use at this site, encoded them, and published them on speedruns.net. I don't see any difference here, and I tried to avoid a similar situation from happening.
You can feel free to disagree, as I know you already do, but that frankly means very little to me, as disagreeing with the site's administration is your chosen default setting. It was when Bisqwit managed the site, and it has clearly continued. But try to see things from another point of view. Restriction of site content was not my intent with my initial decision. Rather, it was protection of an artist from unauthorized distribution of his work. I would not want something I created (TASes and otherwise) being distributed without my knowledge and consent, and I choose to assume that others do not either.
in no way can you really "own" a set of key strokes that could be generated again through someone trying to achieve the same goal... Someone could independently write a program to generate the exact same input to beat the game as fast as possible.
Counterpoint: The same could be said for many of the best works of literature in the English language... they could be theoretically generated by someone else trying to achieve the same goal, or by a program brute-forcing prose, however both would generally be considered plagiarism.
The difference to me is that key input for "fastest time" can be generated in a "mathematical/scientific" fashion. If I try to, say, write a sonnet, there is realistically zero probability that I or a thousand monkeys typing will reproduce Shakespeare or any other sonnet. Whereas if I were to try to beat King's Bounty as quickly as possible, there is a high likelihood that I would reproduce the input file we have here.
That said, I do agree with you that it is not courteous to publish something someone made without asking, and I do appreciate your attitude and actions in dealing with this submission (ie taking a nice middle of the road approach).
Oh, and voting yes now :D
in no way can you really "own" a set of key strokes that could be generated again through someone trying to achieve the same goal... Someone could independently write a program to generate the exact same input to beat the game as fast as possible.
Counterpoint: The same could be said for many of the best works of literature in the English language... they could be theoretically generated by someone else trying to achieve the same goal, or by a program brute-forcing prose, however both would generally be considered plagiarism.
The difference to me is that key input for "fastest time" can be generated in a "mathematical/scientific" fashion. If I try to, say, write a sonnet, there is realistically zero probability that I or a thousand monkeys typing will reproduce Shakespeare or any other sonnet. Whereas if I were to try to beat King's Bounty as quickly as possible, there is a high likelihood that I would reproduce the input file we have here.
Shakespeare can't be compared to King's Bounty... you are comparing a long piece of text attempted to be written by monkeys to the shortest TAS attempted to be done by a person. Try comparing King's Bounty to the shortest piece of text next time. It is true that the number of words that can be used is greater than the number of different input one can give... there is however an extremely low likelyhood that you will produce a same input file without seeing it. While I agree there are more possibilities in writing, the amount of possibilities in TASing is still so stupifying that I don't see why you can't "own" a set of keystrokes (and by own, I mean that the original ideas within the input file should at least be credited to you... not so much that others can't use the same strategies when trying to improve the TAS).
Well, that's why I went with sonnet... but I doubt even a single couplet or single line from a sonnet would be reproduced by our greatest contemporary writers. And I'm all for credit where credit is due, don't get me wrong, but I don't think input files can be lumped in with other creative work. But now I'm beating a dead horse, so I will just say that I do see the other point of view and hope that maybe others can see mine.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
alden wrote:
The difference to me is that key input for "fastest time" can be generated in a "mathematical/scientific" fashion. If I try to, say, write a sonnet, there is realistically zero probability that I or a thousand monkeys typing will reproduce Shakespeare or any other sonnet. Whereas if I were to try to beat King's Bounty as quickly as possible, there is a high likelihood that I would reproduce the input file we have here.
While I believe you have a valid point for extremely short games, the vast majority of movies here, even "perfect" ones, have stylistic choices that make each TAS an individual work: Jumping repetitively in Donkey Kong, continuous backwards running in SMB, etc. It's these unique touches that distinguish one author from another, one revision of a TAS from another, and create the expression in this artform.
This discussion has merit for decisions regarding future site policy, but it is no longer relevant to the submission, so it should probably be split out of this thread at this point.
Edit: Nice work, moozooh.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Xkeeper wrote:
upthorn wrote:
alden wrote:
FractalFusion wrote:
TAS is serious business.
This is not about TAS, this is about property rights, which are serious business and have every reason to be.
Property rights for a key-input file that has to be played with a pirated, illegally-obtained ROM file.
That's not necessarily true. They could have obtained whatever material they needed legally.
Input files are more than just a solution as well, they are artistically creative too.
Since as adelikat pointed out this site was built on submitting other people's keypress files, I don't see why we should diverge from that standard, if the author just gives away his keypress file no strings attached.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Since as adelikat pointed out this site was built on submitting other people's keypress files, I don't see why we should diverge from that standard, if the author just gives away his keypress file no strings attached.
I personally think that it should primarily allow submission of other people's TASes provided that the run is properly attributed to who made it.
If the user ends up not liking this, they can request its removal, and no more movies from that user should be accepted without their consent. However, forbidding them all blindly until they get consent opens up problems where someone might be unreachable or otherwise vanish, which could rob tasvideos of a decent movie.
This would also help in instances where someone cannot understand the tasvideos site due to language barriers.
It's curious how the general view on this issue changed since the submission system became popular. Back in their infancy Arc's and Bisqwit's sites were catalogues of tool-assisted movies, rather than having their "brand" that other people could subscribe for. As far as I know no-one complained about their run being listed, and no-one requested their run be removed from the list. Just some food for thought.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3574)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
Xkeeper wrote:
I personally think that it should primarily allow submission of other people's TASes provided that the run is properly attributed to who made it.
If the user ends up not liking this, they can request its removal, and no more movies from that user should be accepted without their consent. However, forbidding them all blindly until they get consent opens up problems where someone might be unreachable or otherwise vanish, which could rob tasvideos of a decent movie.
This would also help in instances where someone cannot understand the tasvideos site due to language barriers.
I don't mind people submitting on the behalf of other people, but I do think that permission is vital. If there's a language barrier, we can find someone who's bilingual and get them to ask the TASer for permission. I really just don't feel like we have the right to publish someone's work for them, though.
Back when I was in college, I made a bunch of instruction sets for various chainmaille weaves. I put a lot of effort into them, and then put them online so that other people would have a decent way to learn the weaves instead of the "learn by inspection" approach I often had to use (the site is still online, if you want to see how I thought a website should be designed six years ago). Every once in awhile I had someone ask if they could use my work in some other context -- for example, they were going to be teaching a class and wanted some graphics to use. I always gave my permission. But you can bet your ass I'd've been pissed if someone just blithely assumed that it was OK for them to use my work. It's my work; I have all the rights for it, and anyone else who wants to do anything with it has to get my permission first; that's how these things work.
Maybe you can argue that input files aren't sufficiently creative to justify giving the author copyright (with the associated protections against other people distributing the work without their permission). In that situation, you might be able to make a plausible argument that you can simply appropriate someone's work and show it on the site. I don't think you'd get very far that way, though, since the barriers for what's considered a creative work can be pretty low. And if you don't have either copyright on the work, or permission from the copyright holder, then you can't distribute the work.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Xkeeper wrote:
Nach wrote:
Since as adelikat pointed out this site was built on submitting other people's keypress files, I don't see why we should diverge from that standard, if the author just gives away his keypress file no strings attached.
I personally think that it should primarily allow submission of other people's TASes provided that the run is properly attributed to who made it.
I fully agree. It should contain their name, and a link as to where it came from.
Xkeeper wrote:
If the user ends up not liking this, they can request its removal, and no more movies from that user should be accepted without their consent.
I agree with this too.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Say we publish a movie which the author is unaware of. He becomes aware, and asks for it to be removed. We have a strict policy against unpublication. Which policy do we adhere to?
Even aside from that, an author posts a run publically that he doesn't want reposted.
Should he have to vigilantly search the internet at regular intervals to find whether or not it's reposted? Or should he be able to assume reasonably that other people won't take his work and use it without asking him?
I believe that it should be the latter, and in keeping with that, the site should not allow run submissions from non-authors.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3574)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
mmbossman wrote:
Say we publish a movie which the author is unaware of. He becomes aware, and asks for it to be removed. We have a strict policy against unpublication. Which policy do we adhere to?
I would unpublish. Such a case would be a worthy reason to do so.
With that in mind though, a submission is far easier to remove than a publication. So if there is a chance of getting the author's permission it should be attempted pre-publication.
Say we publish a movie which the author is unaware of. He becomes aware, and asks for it to be removed. We have a strict policy against unpublication. Which policy do we adhere to?
The strict policy against unpublication should be loosened to allow cases like this. Problem: solved.
upthorn wrote:
Even aside from that, an author posts a run publically that he doesn't want reposted.
Should he have to vigilantly search the internet at regular intervals to find whether or not it's reposted? Or should he be able to assume reasonably that other people won't take his work and use it without asking him?
I believe that it should be the latter, and in keeping with that, the site should not allow run submissions from non-authors.
If they post it publically, they should say "don't repost this elsewhere". It isn't rocket science.
In the event that a run like this is submitted to the site, when the problem is discovered, at which point the submission can be removed and that author's submissions blocked. But the vast majority of people will likely not have a problem with such a policy.
Maybe you can argue that input files aren't sufficiently creative to justify giving the author copyright (with the associated protections against other people distributing the work without their permission). In that situation, you might be able to make a plausible argument that you can simply appropriate someone's work and show it on the site. I don't think you'd get very far that way, though, since the barriers for what's considered a creative work can be pretty low. And if you don't have either copyright on the work, or permission from the copyright holder, then you can't distribute the work.
The problem with movie files is that about 20% to 95%+ of their input is either:
1) unoriginal (meaning similar or exact same input was discovered by somebody else, in many cases independently from each other, and/or incorporated in an earlier version of a movie if there was any), or
2) the only one possible (i.e., when an optimal solution for some problem has been found, with any deviation proved to be inferior). How exactly do you claim any kind of copyright in this case? How exactly do you defend the notion of everything in your movie being original content? And finally, if/when an improvement is made reusing the same input, how is it affected by copyright?
A movie file is basically a wiki page. Anyone can edit it, and edits are attributed to an author, but the whole content isn't.
Besides, I would like you to think for a minute if you've always asked the author's permission before distributing their work in some way. Do you never send links to images found on the internet to your friends? Do you always ask the authors if you can distribute their work in that case?
[EDIT]
It's been brought to my attention that 20% is not a low end. However, the point is that there will always be unoriginal input strings, no matter where they come from. With this in mind I don't think the author has the right to claim the entire movie as their own.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I still dislike it. It could very well be that to the author, it was just a wip, and he wanted to add more to it, or just a good testrun, that happened to be faster than the currently published run. This particularly reminds me of Glitchman's Mega Man 4 (it was 4, right?) movie he posted, which beat the published run. He however knows he can do better, and only wants to submit the absolutely best there is. I admire something like this, and it would mean that posting movies like this would be taking a risk that someone submitted it. Does the author have to go through great lengths to note at everything he posts that it should be submitted by someone... or go through great lengths to get something unsubmitted or unpublished? Posting something in the thread of a game isn't making it nearly as public as submitting it, it only shows the movie to people who are interested in that game particularly.
It should obviously be possible to submit for someone else... this is basically what's done for team movies anyway... but I'd say only with the author's consent. This is what's needed in the end anyway, otherwise the movie won't remain published... and what's the hurry? Waiting until the author agrees doesn't do any harm.
moozooh:
Similarly, in books, a vast majority of the character-sequences used to tell the story will be "unoriginal". In fact, in most novels, 100% of the character-sequences will have been previously discovered and used by other people. That is to say, they will be previously existing words that the author did not invent or even refine.
And in many cases, these character-sequences will be the only possible character-sequence to convey the intended meaning within the system of the language.
So why is it that a book can and should be considered a creative work, if a TAS is disqualified for similar reasons?
Baxter:
In cases with team movies, the submitter is still one of the authors. I think it should only be possible for people to submit movies that they are one of the authors of, with the possible exception of site admins so that people who have difficulty with english can request their work to be submitted despite their difficulty reading the form.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
The problem with movie files is that about 20% to 95%+ of their input is either:
1) unoriginal (meaning similar or exact same input was discovered by somebody else, in many cases independently from each other, and/or incorporated in an earlier version of a movie if there was any), or
2) the only one possible (i.e., when an optimal solution for some problem has been found, with any deviation proved to be inferior). How exactly do you claim any kind of copyright in this case? How exactly do you defend the notion of everything in your movie being original content? And finally, if/when an improvement is made reusing the same input, how is it affected by copyright
You're getting into copyright issues that I don't think any of us are experts on. However, I'd like to point out that assuming that someone does not have copyright protection on their work is dangerous (in that, if they turn out to have copyright protection, they could rightfully file suit), while assuming that someone does have copyright protection is merely annoying (in that movies that could be published if they didn't, don't get published). So in cases of doubt, I'd prefer if the site err on the side of respecting copyright, at least until we can get an informed and authoritative response on whether or not movie files are copyrightable.
I suspect that the response you'd get, though, would be "It depends". There's no hard-and-fast rule for if a work is "creative" or not. In general, though, I suspect you'd find that all of the following qualify as creative work, and thus are eligible for copyright:
1) Figuring out the best path through a given area.
2) Figuring out how to manipulate input to minimize lag or re-synch a desynched level.
3) Actions taken during mandatory waiting periods.
4) Specific patterns of "null" input (e.g. buttons pressed that have no impact on the game)
It's very easy to get copyright protection. Any creative work gets it. Arguments like "Do you worry about copyright when you email images to your friends" don't hold when we're talking about an official organization like TASVideos. There's plenty of things we can choose as private individuals to do that TASVideos can't be seen to be doing. For example, TASVideos has an official anti-ROM-distribution stance, because if it didn't, it'd get sued into the ground (or, more likely, would have received a cease-and-desist letter as soon as it got big enough to attract notice).
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Similarly, in books, a vast majority of the character-sequences used to tell the story will be "unoriginal". In fact, in most novels, 100% of the character-sequences will have been previously discovered and used by other people. That is to say, they will be previously existing words that the author did not invent or even refine.
And in many cases, these character-sequences will be the only possible character-sequence to convey the intended meaning within the system of the language.
Yeah, and with books you can't copyright what has once been copyrighted, otherwise you can receive a lawsuit for plagiarism. In TASing, plagiarism doesn't just happen often, in vast majority of the time it's a good thing that means the result is as good as known. If we were to copyright parts of the movie, that would be just sad.
Derakon wrote:
In general, though, I suspect you'd find that all of the following qualify as creative work, and thus are eligible for copyright:
1) Figuring out the best path through a given area.
2) Figuring out how to manipulate input to minimize lag or re-synch a desynched level.
3) Actions taken during mandatory waiting periods.
4) Specific patterns of "null" input (e.g. buttons pressed that have no impact on the game)
I can promise you that the day somebody claims copyright on any of those and demands the offender to find their own way TASVideos is going to die a very retarded death. It's in the nature of the site to take an existing work and improve upon it — books don't work that way.
Derakon wrote:
Arguments like "Do you worry about copyright when you email images to your friends" don't hold when we're talking about an official organization like TASVideos.
TASVideos is an official organization now?.. It's not even a legal entity to begin with, it's basically a private site.
Derakon wrote:
There's plenty of things we can choose as private individuals to do that TASVideos can't be seen to be doing.
Yes, that I know. I was, however, surprised that you would do such thing while getting pissed that somebody would do the same to you.
All that aside, I'm not sure there is a copyright license that fits TASVideos best. So far the closest match seems to be GPL, while some users suggest Creative Commons Attribution + ShareAlike (by-sa) or an even stricter license be used.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
moozooh wrote:
It's in the nature of the site to take an existing work and improve upon it — books don't work that way.
Depends on the type of book actually. For fiction, you're correct.
But for works which are scientific in nature, or dealing with some matter of exactness, later authors do come along and make corrections or notes and publish them.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
