Undaunted Stalingrad or Battle of Britain

Module Discussion
1

Helloa all,

Just wondering if Undaunted Stalingrad or Battle of Britain are being worked on at all?

I know @alecrespi made Undaunted Normandy, so I’m hoping theres a chance!

Cheers

1 Like
2

Hi Flukanuck,
if there is interest in doing it, I’m available.
Obviously both the material and the authorization of the author/publisher are needed.
Best
A.

2 Likes
3

Well, at the very least I’m interested haha. No idea how one goes about getting permission!

4

There is nothing that prevents anyone from making a module for any game and privately sharing it with other players.
The only thing a publisher can do if they disapprove is to object to it being posted publicly.

5

I would also certainly be interested! I lost my gameroom just after getting this game. My Grandson needed a bedroom.
Unfortunately, I have zero experience making vassal modules. Looks like it would be a wee bit complicated to cut my teeth on this one.

6

I’d be interested too, as a player though. I got no knowledge as to developing modules.

7

Hi all,

That is not true, or only partially true.

TL;DR: You cannot share copyrighted materials with anyone if you do not have permission to do so.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer - when i doubt, seek legal consultation.

  • If you use copyrighted materials (see more below) without adequate permission or license, to make a derived product (e.g., a VASSAL module) that you only use yourself, and you have obtained the material legally, then you are not infringing any copyright, and can most likely not be held liable.
  • If you use copyrighted materials, again without adequate permission or license, to make a derived product, and you distribute that product in any shape or form, you have most likely committed copyright infringement and can be held liable.

It does not matter how you distribute your derived product (remember Napster? - “I borrowed it from a friend”). Any distribution is distribution, whether to friends, for free, for profit - does not matter to copyright law. Another thing to consider is trademark (see below).

The kinds of materials that can be copyrighted are original and artistic works - see also this thread on BGG. In game terms, that means the exact formulation of rules and the graphics. It does not include the game mechanics or the ideas behind those.

Thus, if you make your own, original, graphics of Undaunted: Stalingrad or Undaunted:Battle of Brittain (meaning you copy absolutely nothing from the original) and rewrite the rules in your own words, then you are probably in the clear in terms of copyright. However, if you chose to “market” your product as “Undaunted”, or even “Undaunted-adjacent” you are likely infringing Osprey’s Trademark. Note that trademarks need not be registered as long as they are used and possibly enforced.

Of course, if you only share a derived product with “friends”, and never post it “publicly”, it can be harder for the copyright-owner to prove, but it will still be unauthorised use and as such you’d be liable.

Your best option would be to reach out to the developer of Undaunted: Normandy (Alessandro Crespi - @alecrespi - who’s already in this thread) and check to see how authorisation was obtained for that module. Otherwise, you probably have to contact Osprey Games directly.

Yours,
Christian

8

Re-read my previous statement slowly and carefully:

I’m not saying it’s legal or ethical, I’m merely saying that it cannot be prevented. The copyright, in this case, would essentially be unenforceable.
They key words are prevent and privately. In effect, the only thing that can realistically be enforced is the public posting of copyrighted material. There is nothing, or little, that can be done to prevent people from sharing things privately.

I make this point because there are always people who are having cows over whether or not they are “allowed” to make modules, when the real question is merely whether they can share them publicly.

It’s the pretentious virtue signaling that irritates me. Like the people who still fret over whether or not digital CD versions of The General magazine can be sold. Get over yourselves, no one cares, including the copyright holder, Hasbro.

9

Please re-read the statement slowly and carefully. It said partially for a reason :slight_smile:

Napster is a good case study. Technically, the users of Napster did not share music in publicly but did so privately with friends - where the term “friend” was interpreted rather liberally. Despite that, Napster was still found liable. Another example was LimeWire - which also was found liable - which, unlike Napster, did not have a central database but only peer-to-peer sharing. The point is, if you break copyright law, you do so at your own peril.

Side-note: I’m a big proponent of OpenSource, and I wish more materials would be copyleft’ed, and people would give clear licenses on the use of their copyrighted materials (in so far it can be copyrighted) - ideally something like CC-BY-SA 4.0. Without a clear license, there’s actually very little people can do legally, although a statement like “all rights reserved” is not as encompassing as many people believe.

I think it is important that we give accurate information. In no way should we give the impressions that an action that is illegal could be legal. What people do after that will be their own headache.

But, and this is kinda important, the hosts of vassalengine.org are perfectly within their right to reject hosting a module if the uploader cannot reasonably substantiate that they have the necessary rights to the materials. The hosts are taking a legal risk by hosting third-party content.

Also note, that the assumption on vassalengine.org is that uploaded materials are copyleft’ed and distributed under a license like CC-BY 4.0. If an upload contains copyrighted material by third-party, then that third-party must give permission to relicense the content (unless, of course it itself was copyleft’ed).

All the more reason to be precise and accurate. One correction to the above: “… when the real question is merely whether they can share [the modules].” Again, from a copyright-law standpoint, it does not matter if you share publicly or privately. If I copy a Metallica song and send it to my friends, I am still violating the copyright. As long as you share with people you trust, there’s probably little risk of being caught, but you are, nonetheless, violating copyright law.

The point of being accurate is not to “virtue signaling”, but to inform people so they can make educated decisions on their own.

Yes and no. Yes, publishers like Hasbro probably doesn’t give a damn, and other publishers like GMT and Decision Games give away VASSAL modules, rules, etc. for free (as in beer).

However, I personally have experience with copyright holders (who elsewhere claim to be “open” and “give back to the community”) that have threatened with law-suits when I approach them about publishing Print’n’Play materials and VASSAL modules, even though it contained none of their copyrighted materials (original and artistic expression). Out of respect for their wishes, I did not publish those things.

That said, I agree that there’s a lot of misconceptions about copyright law, which is why I recommend the BGG thread on the subject. While the thread explicitly adresses copyright law of the U.S.A., it can easily be transferred to other juristticions that has signed on to the Bern[e] Convention - with some notable exceptions.

Yours,
Christian