"Learning from" scripts

[Ellie]

Seen a lot of people complaining at the cost of good mouse scripts for commercial games, and it got me thinking: given you're making a commercial game, you need to know how a mouse script really works to be able to implement it well and test it properly at the end of it.

So, it would be logical to take apart the mouse script you have and put it back together, like taking apart an old clock to see how it works and then... getting it working again.

But at what point does this become "a new script"?

The things in scripts - the functions, lines, etc - are going to be relatively the same for any mouse system. It's the concepts that are important, but those concepts can only be coded in a few different ways, and it's best to go with the most efficient one, and there can only be one "most efficient".

So in that case, it's the concepts, not the actual script, you're paying for. ...but in something as "basic" as a mouse system (basic as in that the concept is basic, not necessarily it's implementation), the concept isn't really patentable or unique.

So, I'd put the case that if you take apart a script and put it back together in your own way, you have created a new script. You've learned from, but not copied and pasted, the old script.

...which is a horrible way to look at it, because either way, the original scripter deserves credit and royalties.

But that original scripter could have been one of many scripters to implement the same concepts in their own way.

I guess I'm trying to stir up debate or come up with an answer. I try not to use other people's scripts in my games, but... I do have a lot of scripts that are very similar to existing scripts, in as much as it's difficult to code them efficiently but also differently. And I did learn a lot of my scripting by reading other people's scripts, even if not deconstructing and remaking them like for like.

What's your thoughts. When does it become plagiarism? And when are you OK to claim something as your own?

 

[Ellie]

I guess this applies to pixel art too, actually. And for that matter, mapping.

Because while you might not be intentionally frankenspriting, or down right plagiarising, looking at other people's sprites to see how they've done things embeds their way of doing stuff in your mind, and then implementing techniques in the way they have, logically, on the same sprite should come up with something very similar.

Making bricks, for example. If you've used the RTP a lot you might well highlight bricks in the same way and such, using the same techniques. And if in future you came to make a grey brick of the same shade as an RTP one, even from your mind, you may well logically come up with the same brick, as you're using the same techniques they did...

...so are you plagiarising?

 

[aphadeon]

You're presenting two different arguments.

First, the intellectual property. If the script truly is generic enough to be considered "standard practice" and employs no unique or proprietary mechanics, then this is a non-issue. Where that line exists, just use courtesy and a basic sense of ethics, and you'll be fine for private projects. For commercial projects, if its unsettling enough to make you nervous, you'd probably best cough up a few bucks and ask a lawyer.

Second half of the issue - the actual plagiarism. If you wrote your script, from scratch, or at least replaced any copied code in its entirety, than I would say this is a non-issue. If you copied and pasted (or typed verbatim) any of it, than it would be fair to either credit the original author (at least as a "special thanks"), or at least let him know you did so and find out if he's "cool with it" (in writing, preferably).

As for pixel art, that's a line that every artist has had to ponder. After all, there's no such thing as "original", as our brain can only mix and match things we've seen in new ways, not so much for creating actual new content. So *all* art is plagiarized. Question is whether you're in any kind of legal trouble. Now, unlike patents, trademarks generally apply to visuals. In the US, trademark law is *extremely* fine pointed. For example, if you take my logo and change one letter from green to blue, it's not a trademark violation. (Could still be a copyright violation, if using the same name.) That said, depending on relative countries, I'm sure this law differs. And besides, don't be an a**h*le. Try to make it as unique as you are able. To keep this in RM* scope, "templates" seem to be fine - as for a specific hair/dress/whatever, I would either roll your own or just ask the original artist. Most of them would be happy enough to let you use their content (or variations of it). And if you have permission, you should be all set.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.

 

[Xilef]

It all depends on the licence attached to the script. If someone wants to fight in court over if they invented the mouse input script, they're free to do that, but they would probably loose because computer mice implementations have been done over and over so whatever is special about their script probably isn't unique to their script in the broader computer world.

When it comes to most software that doesn't have a specific licence attached, the clean-room implementation idea tends to come into play, so for example you see a mouse input system, you see how it works and think "That's clever, I'll remember how that works" and then make your own implementation remembering how the other one works without copying the code, without even looking back at the code, but this comes into legal problems all the time (Especially if Oracle gets involved...)