- Apr 10, 2018
- 1,910
- 2,389
Well, I am not even sure, how somebody can DMCA a Renpy game. For what it is worth, RenPy is open sourced, and DAZ models belong, well to DAZ.
Not relevant at all, derived works can still be copyrighted, it's pretty common. The copyright is on what is novel, the story, its text and characters, the game's decisions, the specific renders etc. Even when the copyright on underlying things belongs elsewhere.
So are you this infamous italian thief who has been stealing other developers content and sold it as your own?
- Apr 10, 2018
- 1,910
- 2,389
I don't really think that's possible. I am not a lawyer, but at least part of RenPy is released under LPGL, which here means Renpy Games have to be distributed under manner compatible with it. Which means, a) they cant really copyright it as derivative work, and what it is more important b) it can be sold, but source code has to be freely distributed. That's why we don't see DMCA bombings by larger players.
In short, I am currently thinking it's more likely that developer is reporting the links. DMCA firms should know better than this.
SureSo are you this infamous italian thief who has been stealing other developers content and sold it as your own?
Developer has already confirmed that they have bought services for it,
You must be registered to see the links
. When you start up the game you can see the copyright claims. They have trademarked their stuff.
Last edited:
- Apr 10, 2018
- 1,910
- 2,389
I don't see any copyright claims, or trademarks when I start the game. There is his logo, there is warning about epileptic seizures, after that warning about game being 18+...
Like I said, I am not a lawyer, but what exactly he can copyright? RenPy which is released under few dozen of open source licenses, some very restrictive? Daz models? He would have to buy copyright from them. Not to buy models, but copyright...
Text? It's coded into renpy, and can't be copyrighted...
As for buying services... maybe he did, maybe he didn't. It doesn't mean there is any legal basis for him or them to claim dmca.
- Apr 24, 2020
- 6,699
- 10,947
- Jul 26, 2017
- 152
- 145
That makes a bit more sense, whoever said it before didn't really explain that. Just that he put a DMCA up and that F95 was supposed to be excluded, nothing about someone else stealing his material which is why it happened to begin with.
Are there any jumpscares or horror thinks beside slenderman in the sophie story? I don't wanna play games with horror theme.
Guys i got small problem
During start of season 2 (EP5) Emily is asking about bonus code
S2 E5 Bonus Code: frozenhot
S2 E4 Bonus Code: bunny
S2E3 Bonus Code: hoehoehoe
Season 1 Episode 10 code - thanks
So when i write "frozenhot" game says that code is wrong ... When i write "bunny" it says its code for ep4 but it works .... Someone knows how to fix it ? or savegame from Day 1 with working code of episode 5 ?
During start of season 2 (EP5) Emily is asking about bonus code
S2 E5 Bonus Code: frozenhot
S2 E4 Bonus Code: bunny
S2E3 Bonus Code: hoehoehoe
Season 1 Episode 10 code - thanks
So when i write "frozenhot" game says that code is wrong ... When i write "bunny" it says its code for ep4 but it works .... Someone knows how to fix it ? or savegame from Day 1 with working code of episode 5 ?
You don't have to declare a copyright if I remember correctly. Just publishing something in some public form comes with an assumed copyright. The models are someone else's, but what the devs do with them can be copyrighted, in the same way you can't copyright an actor, but you can copyright the movie they are in. The tools to create the game are one thing, but the game itself can be copyrighted. It would be a pretty useless product if the maker of the tool kept the copyright for anything made from it. They can also copyright the dialogue and maybe some elements of the story, although time loop stuff is common everywhere.
- Apr 10, 2018
- 1,910
- 2,389
It's depends on jurisdiction. EG, Mexico might recognise (I don't imply they do or not), and Sweden might not. You do realize it doesn't mean a lot at internet in this cased.
But models are indeed copyrighted.
Well, not here. Why? Because, game is not only developed by RenPy SDK. It's distributed with RenPy libraries and code.
What you are completely overlooking is that, copyrighting the game "Echoes of Lust" is not the same as trying to copyright the models used and game engine used as their own.
"Echoes of Lust" itself is an original work. They aren't copyrighting the models or game engine used to create the original work.
If Inceton starts DMCA'ing other games that use the same model or using Renpy, now that would be something they can't do.
There are 179 countries that are part of the Berne Convention, in which they agreed to do things like I mentioned. ie, copyright is automatic. Not all countries are a part of it, but after scanning the list of the few countries that aren't part of it in some shape or form... well, who really worries about them?
After doing some quick research, Daz allows you to use your models in their games, as long as they aren't extractable so that someone else could then use them. You can definitely use them in your own work, which is then copyrightable.
The RenPy SDK is open source. No one can charge for that or copyright it since it's not their work. But something made with it? Of course they can. Apple doesn't own the copyright to a story I write on a Macbook. Photoshop doesn't own any picture altered using it.
- Apr 10, 2018
- 1,910
- 2,389
Does Berne convention apply to computer software?
Of course that Daz allows you to use them. I was saying that you don't get copyright rites with buying a model. Your work is copyrightable but what is your work here?
Actually, you can charge for Open source software. For exampe Red Hat Enterprise Linux. You have to provide source cod so somebody can compile it for free.
You don't really get what I am talking about. Random RenPy game is not some product made by open source software. It's Open Source software itself, more precise open software engine showing pictures and animations. Of course, it wouldn't mean somebody cant copyright said software. There are non-restrictive open source licenses there... RenPy is actually published under such license. But, here is the catchy part. RenPy contains segments released by Gnu Lesser Public License, which specifically defines what can be done and what cant be. It's tightly integrated, with LGPL libraries.
There is distinction between: a) work based on library and b) work that uses a library. If case is a) then game has to be shipped in way compatible with LGPL restrictions. Now you may object that work (random RenPy game) uses library and it's not based on it. Well, for purpose of LGPL, RenPy is work based on library. In fact, it's clearly stated in RenPy license:
Taken from here:
You must be registered to see the links
As you can see, it doesn't say RenPy SDK, but RenPy games. Despite it's published on MIT license, RenPy (engine and SDK) is based on LGPL libraries and restricted by LGPL.
But you don't publish your story with Mackbook as medium. RenPy game is Open sourced software with integrated pictures and videos. Not independent piece of software made with RenPy SDK.
Echoes of Lust is not independent work. Like I said above, few times it's RenPy engine+pictures and videos. If it would have it's own engine, made be Inceton, he could copyright it yes.
Story? It's his, ore more precisely theirs, as it's studio. But it's integrated with RenPy code.
As for models? Yes, he tweaked them that's sure. He also bought rights to use them in his works. That's also sure. But he didn't buy copyrights for models.
Last edited:
Of course it does. It applies to everything except photographs and movies, which have their own laws. But a google search will confirm it for you.
The models don't really make a difference. You seem to be saying the entire game can't be copyrighted because the specific models can't be, which is false.
Red Hat charges for support and other stuff, or for add-ons to the original software. There are also different open-source licenses. Some say you can charge for the code if you continue to keep that new code open source. But Red Hat makes it's money mainly from big companies that use their software and pay through the nose for the support.
Open source does not mean "you must keep this free". It means you must keep the shared code you use available for other people to use if they want. It says nothing about code or programs you attach to it. And that you cannot copyright that portion of the code.
The Macbook is just a tool, like RenPy software. I don't think you really understand what open source means, or how it applies to work created with it or derived from it. Yes, there are parts that are open source. And there are parts added by the devs that are not. Those parts are copyrightable. Even just the story itself is, and honestly that's enough for them to be able to get someone to exercise the DCMA.
The fact that part of something is open source does not make the entire thing open source, and open source does not actually mean what you seem to think it does in all cases.
- Apr 10, 2018
- 1,910
- 2,389
Actually, no it doesn't. Some legal jurisdictions treat software as literary works, and apply Berne convenction (eg Germany or US), but others do not.
But what he can actually copyright?
Yes, but it has nothing to say with part you just quote here.
It's not just what you can and can not copyright. It's how you use LGPL component. Here we are talking about LGPL restrictions.
Derivative works of LGPL software has to be distributed by restrictions of LGPL. For example RenPy. It's published under MIT, but, as pointed in licenses it's derivative work of LGPL components. So, in order to DMCA RenPY games, one developer would have to separate his own code from LGPL libraries. Which nobody does. Actually, it's shipped directly with LGPL libs. Not that they use shared libraries.
Very bad analogy. When you make a story on Macbook, your final product doesn't contain mackbook, or any of it's parts. RenPy game contains RenPy engine which has restrictions of use due to different licenses.
In fact, if you use MSOffice, as many of writers typing at Macbook, your final story would have more to do with Microsoft, as you would use format they copyrighted (doc or docx).
Dude, seriously, do you even read me. Somebody could add large chunks of his own code, and make his own engine based on RenPy, but in order to copyright he would have to separate his own code from LGPL parts. Simple as that.
Of course somebody can copyright a story. But here we speak about story which is included in software code.
Emh, let's repeat some things.
Entire RenPy is open source. It's released under MIT license. It would allow for somebody to incorporate it in proprietary software, but as it's derived of some LGPL licensed libraries (shipped and can't work without it), restrictions of LGPL apply to RenPy. RenPy game is not only work produced by RenPy SDK. It's the RenPy engine + images, story and videos. Since it contains RenPy, all restrictions of RenPy apply to it.
1)RenPy is derivative work of LGPL libs->2)RenPy game is derivative work of of RenPy->3) RenPy game is derivative work LGPL libs.
Last edited: