Today I was looking through dashboard as I sometimes do for new maps and I found this.
http://warlight.net/Map?ID=13076
Seems familiar. Well it is.
http://warlight.net/Map?ID=5019
A blatant copy of the map I made.If it was a differently ,made map of the same region I wouldn't be upset but it looks like a less quality copy of my map. One just traced over in inkscape. Something must be done

The map previews says it's made by....
a)Ironheart
b)DynamiteT
c)SirMueck

wich made the real one ?

Ironheart (old name of Dynamite) made the map originally. I was involved in testing it.
This looks like an exact copy, except for mainland Asia.
I would understand it if it was exactly the same region (possibly could have used the same base map as Ironheart), and similar divisions are also understandable (same provinces of Indonesia etc.). But the bonus divisions of Australia, the bonuslink locations and even the clever connection trick in the Northern Mariana islands are identical. That can only mean that it is a copy, and not a good one either.

Edited 2/22/2014 16:29:48

This is outrageous I would rage if this happened to me. I gave it a 1/5.

Mail Fizzer as fast as you can. he can do something about it.

I find it quite disturbing that this is allowed to happen. I know fizzer cannot control all maps and that he doesn't allow .svg to be handed out without permission but there has to be a more strict control. Blatantly copying another persons' work is nothing less than describing yourself as a garbage, a lowlife unworthy of calling yourself human being, trash of the worst kind.

I must add if Fizzer has any regard for the people making maps at this site SirMueck should be banned.

Fizzer accually cares about the maps (I asked if I could lend a SVG from him and he didn`t want to give it cause he lend and altered another SVG, so it was technically not his to share he said), but with over 500 maps it is hard to know all of them. If you message Eagle I`m pretty sure he`ll have a look at it and do something about it.

I haven't emailed fizzer because i didn't think it would be that important.I begining to think i may have over reacted.I will contact fizzer on the issue.

so he wanted a version of your map without the blue and a few extra territories, and he just did it instead of bothering you about it. what's the big deal?

the big deal is that you ask for permission before copying other peoples work

Get over it, if you don't like it then give it a bad rating. but guess what it's NOT the same map. If you get a painting, and change it, it's a new piece of artwork. you guys are bored and need to find something better to do with your time

and you need to stop posting about things you haven't got a clue about

Edited 2/23/2014 02:32:40

Any chance they both copied the same map from online? That would add an interesting twist.

Here you can see the maps on top of each other:



As you can see, the positions of all landmasses are identical. I did consider that the maps might have both been traced from the same source, so I asked SirMueck what source image he used as a basis for the map. He said just Google maps and wikipedia.

Well, this map contains some islands that aren't located anywhere near their real-world positions (see the three in the top right for the most extreme). Yet those three line up exactly in both maps. I thought maybe they were both traced off of an image on the internet somewhere that put them there, but SirMueck could not produce one. So this is pretty conclusive sign that it was copied from this map.

Second, the bonuses are all in identical positions. However, these could have been determined by political borders. But the bonus values are all identical as well. I considered that both map makers could have used a mathematical formula to determine bonus values, so I asked SirMueck and he said they weren't determined based on a hard-and-fast formula. So it's highly unlikely that both people came up with exactly the same decisions for every bonus on such a large map.

I have taken the map down for now. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that maps are owned by their creators, so they have an implicit copyright over them under US law. If they grant someone permission to use their map, that's fine, but taking it without permission is not allowed. SirMueck should talk to Ironheart and work something out.

Hail to Fizzer the King!

That was indeed a right thing to do.

it's only human nature

http://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix.html

Thanks Fizzer!I follow fridge statement in hailing you as king. PS that was kind of a remix but we can't let such things run rampant.Ps i had a long post writtento defend why it should have been taken down but i deleted it and all i can say now is it screw that i got copyright.

ironheart: nothing personal against you or your map, i'm just defending my anti-copyright views here.

Copyright was invented to ensure fairness in economic exploitation of a piece of work. It's side-effects is that it stiffles creative culture and product development cycles. It also promotes secrecy instead of sharing and openness. There are movements to find alternatives to copyright (like creative commons and the whole copyleft culture), to reform it (as in legislation changes) and to open it (open source, open knowledge, open data).

In this case you aren't making any money from your map, but you, with your stand, are preventing other people from making their own variations of your map. You are forcing them to either have more work finding the original references and remaking all the connections, and/or obfuscate their copy further so Fizzer no longer can unequivocally call it a blatant copy that is infringing on your copyright.

I do understand your positions though:

Fizzer wants to obey the law since he does have the responsibility of running the site, and he also doesn't want to piss off his user base.

And ironheart on the other hand feels his work is not being recognized, because his name is not on it despite him having done most of the hard work.

Some authors feel betrayed when someone touches "their baby" without their permission. Almost as it was being defiled or corrupting their vision. It's a strong feeling that is hard to let go for some authors, i would not wish to force anyone to watch their babies getting raped.

But others do find it acceptable to use creative commons licenses and allow others to remix their maps at will (some just want their credits listed, others just want to make sure it won't be used commercially without their explicit consent). And it would be nice to have those options laid out more clearly.

I'm sure some hardcore map makers would prefer to keep their copyright (you never know, they might want to sell prints of them on ebay or something one day) but atleast having the option of waving your copyright under certain exceptions would be nice.

Maybe it already exists, i don't know, i never made a map on warlight, don't know the process. But from this talk i believe it doesn't, so I created a uservoice for it just now:
https://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/5561373-allow-users-to-choose-public-domain-or-creative-co

Edited 2/24/2014 10:42:54

I understand your position and i recommend you listen to cgp greys copyright podcast and his copyright video.Btw he also mentions the everything is a remix guy in his video.
http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/hello-internet-2-copyright-not-intended
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4