Would it be an idea to get listed on Wikipedia, alongside Civ and AdvCiv?

If you want to write some, why not?
I also recall someone previously mentioned boardgamegeek...

Funny that you mention it. I just wrote the Advanced Civ article myself a week ago, but I haven't put a link to here yet. There IS a link on the Civ article. In fact, that's how I found this site. I'll make sure the link gets on the Advanced Civ article.

I didn't realise we was on Wikipedia at all...
I just checked out the pages, and the link is now on both of them.
I also updated the CivProject paragraph on the Civilization page, as it only mentioned the larger map, and not the other changes.
I didn't create a separate page for CivProject though, that's a job for someone else.

I can definitely tackle that project. I started thinking about it right after leaving the other post. It would help greatly if I could use the mapboard image and probably some of the cards. The better the article looks, the more chance it will have being allowed. Some articles (for GOOD reasons) are judged as frivalous, vain, self-serving, etc... 2 of my articles barely passed their rigid "articles for deletion" process in which senior editors VOTE on whether it should stay or go.

An article on Wikipedia might go a long way at getting The Expansion Project some significant recognition. Some thought should go into how to present it there. A 'project' has less weight than a real game. We might do better to rename it there, which might mean renaming it here.

Thoughts?

"Civilization: The Expansion Project" is a real game, not a project! Civproject.net is the community project that produces the game.
Do you have any (good) reason why a game can't have the word "project" in it's title? If you wich to you can easily interpret the title in-game. To win the game you have to successfully expand your nation, both geographically (on the mapboard) and cultural (by acquiring civcards), and thus you are undertaking an "expansion project" when playing. This is a POV I would encourage when trying to sell the final product (the game), but I'm not about to replace a perfectly good, and already well established, name because it can be interpreted in a less favorable way. We did this once in regard to an imho much more important issue (dropping "Advanced" not to scare of novice users), and there is still people referring to it using it's old name (or the old abbreviation ACEP). I really don't want to add a third name to this, as that could develop into a very messy situation.

Wow. I didn't mean to get you riled. By 'game' instead of 'project' I meant published professionally. I was waning against puting project in the article name on Wikipedia for fear of the article receiving the dreaded "vote for deletion" which I defenitely DO NOT want. I want to get the word out. Seeing this game produced would be fantastic and this could be a step in that direction if that is your goal. If you just want to recruit more contributors and players, a Wikipedia article would do just the same.

By the way, as to the name "Expansion Project", I completely read that as 'expansion of the game' and not expansion of a nation. I don't mean to be insulting in any way, but that was my first and only interpretation of the name. I don't dislike the name in any way, but I'm willing to bet that's how most people see the semantics of the title.

My whole take on the game would be a unique one. The game itself is unique (and remains today my favorite), has a Rocky-Horror cult-like following despite being out of print for decades, inspired an incredible popular computer game and has now spawned a huge joint effort project literally spanning the globe. From that point of view, I find enough material for a fascinating article right there.

I would love to see the game published professionally, I have even had some fancy ideas on how to accomplish this (most of them completely unrealistic), and can certainly see the use of a Wikipedia article in spreading the word. However, I don't think we should change our name just because someone might draw an incorrect conclusion (that there is no real game, only a project). I'm not involved in Wikipedia, but I certainly hope they do read an article before voting for it's deletion, and if so I think the content would be much more important than the title. If you can't write an article so that "Civilization: The Expansion Project" is presented as a real game produced by a community effort, perhaps someone else should write it.


The expansion project as an expansion of the original game is the main interpretation of the title, and I'm in no way discouraging it. The nice thing with interpretations, however, is that there are never just one! Just by describing expansion of your nation as one of the main goals you might get at least some readers to think twice, which is always good. Some, including me, might even consider the double-edged name a nice pun.


I think that would make a great article on Wikipedia, no matter what the title is...

I just want to remind everyone that we do not own the rights to the game this varient is based on. I have requested that Civ Project be removed from the Boardgamegeek database in the past because, technically, adverstising this as a FREE game based on Advanced Civilization is probably in violation of copyright law in the US. So the current owners of Advanced Civ could technically sue me (and Jonno though he isn't in the US) and force this site off the net.

I'm definatly proud of all the work everyone has done on this - it has been alot of fun, and I hope it will conintue to expand (China anyone?)! However, please realize that if the owners of Advanced Civ ever sent me cease and desist letter I would have to comply (I can't afford to fight it). So be careful when promoting the game outside of civilization fans. On some forums (take BBG for example), people would love to debate copyright law and if civproject is breaking it. That's really not the sort of press we want to generate.

Technically, this is just a fan-site varient, unless someone can acquire the rights to Advanced Civilization or we change the "project" around enough to make it basically a new game (I've thought of it).

I think a wikipedia entry would be great... provided it is labeled as a fan-based varient (at least for now).

I know my response might seem a bit of an overreaction to an unlikely event, but I just want to ensure that this project is around for a long time

You are absolutely right, and I thought of doing the same, though I would probably have done it as a email to whoever was about to write the article, not to bring publicity to the issue.


Well, they could try to sue me, but they would have to do it under Swedish law, in Swedish court, which require them to actually lose money (or me to actually gain money) for this to be an infringement. So basically they would have to actually sell copies of AdvCiv to win such a case, and personally I would love if CivProject actually got them to re-launch AdvCiv. That would almost be worth shutting CivProject down.


Please note that "cease and desist" letters is (almost) unique to the US. In Sweden they would actually have to win in court to shut down a site, and legal council is not as expensive as in the US. So, unlike in the US, money isn't enough to win a case (though it generally helps), you must have a case as well, and they don't unless they re-launch AdvCiv. Fortunately US laws, and especially the US legal system, doesn't apply all over the word (though quite a lot of Americans seems to believe so).


No, we don't want that kind of publicity, no matter if we actually break copyright or not.


Actually, we don't have to change the game per se, only the copyrightable components (texts and graphics). So a complete rulebook rewrite from scratch, and replacements of all the images on Civcards/Calamities/Counters, should make CivProject 100% legal to sell for profit (if you have permission from me, Velusion, DLuciano and Martin). Note that I say all images, as graphics found on the net most likely is copyrighted by someone...
If I got a few months of time, and proper motivation, I could do a non-infringing version of the rulebook (though it would most likely change the feel of the game, as I would have to write it in a different style), but we would have to find (a) good artist(s) to do our almost 100 drawings for us....


Not that very unlikely, unfortunately. Hasbro, the owner of AdvCiv, recently shut down Google Risk, a RISK^TM clone using Google Earth as it's map, by the means of a "cease and desist" letter. This is troublesome, as Google Risk didn't use any texts or graphics from the original game (thus not breaking copyright) and didn't use the trademark RISK^TM, only the word "risk" (note the capitalization). So the only possible infringement was the use of Google^TM, which Hasbro has no rights to. The creator opted to shut down anyway, since he couldn't afford a lawsuit, even though he was almost guaranteed to be clean. (In the Swedish legal system a court-appointed free layer would have been enough to win such a clear case, but not so in the US). If Hasbro finds out about CivProject they might very well send a "cease and desist". The difference from the Google Risk case being that I don't intend to shut down without a Swedish court order...
Not speaking for Velusion of course, so the civprojet.net domain might disappear.

Oh, and the standard caveats. I'm not layer (nor do I want to be one). If you need legal council, get a real one.

Some important topics are being addressed and I think I will talk about them one at a time:

Copyright is probably the most important, as it could lead to legal and/or financial impact. Hasbro owns the rights to Civ now and (in the US, where I live) corporations usually tend to only go after someone if they believe it could harm them financially, expecially since litigation is so costly in the here.

Jonno mentioned Google Risk. That had a potential to DEFINITLY impact Hasbro Risk's sales and therefore they went after them. Hasbro has a trademark o nthe name 'RISK', so you can't use it. Hasbro (to my knowledge) hasn't retained a trademark (if there ever was one) on the name 'Civilization'. Everything else is moot point. You can't copyright concept of play, the general idea of the game and so forth. That's how all the off-shoot Monopoly games can be made. About the only thing that can be copyrighted in Monlopoly, aside from the name, is the rulebook in its entirety as a literary work. Change a word or 2 and you're good to go.

So, The Expansion Project, really stand as it's own game and is really in no danger of copyright infringement, as I see it.

My experence from reading about computer abandonware (wich is essentioally what AdvCiv is) is that it difers widely, some companies is persuing everything, no matter of impact.

True


Yes, but Google Risk didn't infinge on the RISK^TM trademark. Note the capitals! As "risk" is a single common English word you can't trademark it in itself, only a non-standard expression of it or the combination of it with other words. Hasbro did the former with RISK^TM. Also note that Avalon Hill trademarked Civilization^TM, though probably only the expression of it used on the Civilization box is valid (as it's a common English word). That trademark never went to Hasbro though, as it was sold to Take two Interaktive (the guys making Civilization III & IV). It was that trademark purchase that allowed them to dropp "Sid Meier's" from the name.

Correct, which I state to!

NO! This is so wrong in so many ways.
1) Names can't be copyrighted. They can be trademarked though. Completely different laws, with nothing in common!
2) The rulebook, as a literary work, is copyrighted (not can be, you get copyright automatic unless you explisitly place the work in public domain). However, copyright covers the entire work, each pice individually. Changing some words in a text consitutes a "derivate work", and is explisitly covered by copyright law. So in fact you can't copy even 2 words from the original rulebook (though you can legaly write the same two words independently). However, if there is "substantiall differense" (whatever that means) it is they who has to prove you copied, not you who has to prove you didn't.
The CivProject rulebook, as it is today, is a derivate work, and defenitely is in violation of copyright!!! In Swedsh law it's not punnishable though, as they don't lose money, and I dont't gain any, but in US it is. If it goes to US court Velusion may be forced to pay a few thousand US$ as "compensation" for "lost sales" (eventhough they don't sell it).


As I stated copyright DOES cover derivate works. We DO break copyright. Only question is how serious crime it is (which differs between countries) and whether Hasbro is going to sue (which we hope they won't). The fact of the matter is that with us they would actually have a case in US court, as opposed to Google Risk, which they managed to shut down anyway...

Jonno

Derivative works copyright law (in the US) doesn't specifically state anything about game rule books. It mainly pertains to movies based on plays and that sort of thing. In fact, copyright law specifically omits game ideas, sequences of play, etc. This rulebook issue is a different matter and open to interpretation, in my opinion, since the rulebook is based on a game (whose concepts and sequence of play) we are copying (and isn't copyrightable) but we are writing a rule book describing them, s otherefore it's nearly impossible NOT to have similar descriptions.

Saying any two words taken together from the original rulebook is copyright infringement as the same as saying that any two notes in row from one song cannot be used in another. You may disagree.

I think we will just have to settle on a difference of opinion which only a judge could truly decide. That's not something I want to see happen. In fact I want to avoid anything like that.

That's basically the point of this discussion right now:

I would like to write a Wikipedia article that describes the game a fan-based variant of a game decades out-of-print and thus avoid turning any Hasbro heads (or Take Two Interactive).

I am all for this game and can't wait to play. Anything I can do to promote it to the game community the better. If there aren't any objections (Velusion?), I will procede with the article on Wikipedia.

No, it mainly pertains to written works based on other written works. Movies wasn't even invented when the laws was written...

Yes, but not the expression of the same. Thus, we can use the same rules, as long as we describe them differently. Currently we do not. Though if we did rewrite the rulebook from scratch we could solve that problem (still an issue with graphics though).

The problem is that we are not writing a new rulebook, we are modifying an existing one. Some paragraphs haven't even gotten a single change (except paragraph numbering).
Also note that, at least in the eyes of the law, it is always possible to present the information in new ways. And similar descriptions is allowed, as long as you are writing them 100% INDEPENDENTLY. Note: It's you who has to prove you wrote them without accessing the original, and if you have ever had access to the original that's quite hard to do if there are large similarities.

Not quite. Notes is more like letters than words, but otherwise you are correct. In both cases it's an infringement (though minor) if you copied them. In both cases it's legal if you wrote them independently. It's that simple. Proving it one way or the other might be more difficult though...

Only a judge, or a lawyer, can give a final answer, and I wouldn't like it coming to that either... However, one can do qualified guesses by comparing similar cases, and reading the lawtext (yes, I have read both the American and Swedish lawtexts, as well as layers general interpretations of the same). As I'm interested in, and somewhat involved in, open source development I got to know this stuff, as copyright (and copyright licenses) is at the very core of open source, as well as some mayor obstacles when someone has previously worked with similar, closed source, applications.

As long as you don't describe it as a free alternative, that should be fine. Please note (the generaly ignored) disclamer in the navigational frame:


I have no objections, as long as you follow the my and Velusion's advice from this thread.