Katawa Shoujo Forums

Aura wrote: I pretty much can guarantee (because I don't have to prove it) a KS 2 would be a significantly better VN than KS is.

mad respect, I'm not sure if I can articulate why, but I'll try

there is something to be said about the integrity of an artist/author who turns down a guaranteed success in order to pursue what they want to do that might not go over as well.

although I guess an artist/author without that kind of integrity would be hard pressed to have a big hit like KS in the first place

BananaPudding wrote:

Aura wrote: I pretty much can guarantee (because I don't have to prove it) a KS 2 would be a significantly better VN than KS is.

mad respect, I'm not sure if I can articulate why, but I'll try

there is something to be said about the integrity of an artist/author who turns down a guaranteed success in order to pursue what they want to do that might not go over as well.

although I guess an artist/author without that kind of integrity would be hard pressed to have a big hit like KS in the first place

Well you know. What is success? To be popular, receive acclaim and lots of fans? To me success means overcoming a challenge, doing something daring or going against odds. We certainly did that with KS, not only actually completing the project against all odds but it also becoming one of the most popular visual novels of all time. A sequel would almost automatically be popular, as you say. It wouldn't feel the same.

You have to understand that I'm in a very special position that allows me to say things like this. I don't want anything from anyone. Money, stroking my ego, anything like that. If I had some motive like that, some metric to measure "success" by, maybe if KS had tanked, I'd certainly be more calculating, more driven by these external goals. It feels a bit disturbing, kind of like selling my "artistic soul", even if it's just a little. Many creative people who have to deal with external factors in their jobs are brought down by them. That's why I'm wary of bringing money into what 4LS does, because it would change the ways we go about things in ways I'm not entirely comfortable with. I'm not against it or anything, and I like money as much as the next guy, but it's something to be cautious of. Maybe we could try it, see how it feels, but maybe it's just better to keep on going as we have.

I've been wondering, why did you choose to go with a regular heartbeat in the intro’s EKG despite Hisao having arrhythmia, which by definition means his heartbeat would be irregular on an EKG? Also, read an earlier post saying he also has Long QT which also doesn't show up. As a human bio. major its been bugging me ever since I first started this game.

Is the only use of red text in the game a reference to the Higurashi/Umineko VNs?

Jerith wrote:I've been wondering, why did you choose to go with a regular heartbeat in the intro’s EKG despite Hisao having arrhythmia, which by definition means his heartbeat would be irregular on an EKG? Also, read an earlier post saying he also has Long QT which also doesn't show up. As a human bio. major its been bugging me ever since I first started this game.

These are just design decisions that we made because they felt the best for us. The regular EKG is iconic and immediately recognizable and that's why it's used. It doesn't represent Hisao's heartbeat. Hisao has long QT syndrome but it's not mentioned because we felt it would be meaningless exposition.

Woody Alien wrote:Is the only use of red text in the game a reference to the Higurashi/Umineko VNs?

No.

I'm more perplexed by people calling an EKG lacking the P wave "regular".

I have a question about the license as applied to the soundtrack.

The main game is licensed under CC-NC-ND, so creating derivative works requires permission. That would include derivatives of its soundtrack, such as YouTube performances or transcriptions to sheet music. The devs don't seem to mind these sorts of derivative works, but I still feel uncomfortable doing something technically illegal, especially when it can be tied back to my real name (again, YouTube).

The devs have explicitly said they don't want anyone trying to extract audio assets from the game, but there's a separate download of just the soundtrack available. It doesn't have a stated license, so I assume it's also CC-NC-ND.

My question is whether the devs would be willing to re-license the downloadable soundtrack, and only that, to the CC-NC license. This wouldn't affect the game's licensing, but would permit legal creation of non-commercial derivative works (sheet music, performances, arrangements) based on the soundtrack.

haita wrote:I have a question about the license as applied to the soundtrack.

The main game is licensed under CC-NC-ND, so creating derivative works requires permission. That would include derivatives of its soundtrack, such as YouTube performances or transcriptions to sheet music. The devs don't seem to mind these sorts of derivative works, but I still feel uncomfortable doing something technically illegal, especially when it can be tied back to my real name (again, YouTube).

The devs have explicitly said they don't want anyone trying to extract audio assets from the game, but there's a separate download of just the soundtrack available. It doesn't have a stated license, so I assume it's also CC-NC-ND.

My question is whether the devs would be willing to re-license the downloadable soundtrack, and only that, to the CC-NC license. This wouldn't affect the game's licensing, but would permit legal creation of non-commercial derivative works (sheet music, performances, arrangements) based on the soundtrack.

Given that the CC licence has never been tested in court I wouldn't stress too hard...

By you coming here and asking something like "Hey can I do X"? you are effectively applying for (and being granted) a licence.

I would also be interested to read a bit more into the actual terms around a "derivative" work. In Australia it is legal to make a cover of a song, so long as the Copyright provisions and Moral Rights of the original author are maintained.

So a cover/transcription may not actually count as a "Derivative"; because you are doing something that is essentially the same. A Derivative work would have to be a new Work (as defined in the Berne convention) that was substantially based on the original work.

I know that this is probably confusing you too much, so please just ask the original composer (depending on the track) and see if they are happy for you to proceed.

What we were trying to avoid with the licence was people making their own versions of the game with the original assets and passing it off as "authentic" 4LS works (which is a Moral Right not to be falsely attributed). We also wanted people to feel free to share it amongst their friends without thinking that the big bad Copyright police would bash down your doors.

How did 4LS go about organizing the development team?

fireye9 wrote:How did 4LS go about organizing the development team?

Found some willing developers.

Locked them in an IRC chatroom.

Threw away the key.

There were early attempts to organise people, but this kind of project needed a group that was able to form and re-form as the task at hand changed.
Initially there were specific "non-artistic" roles like "Head of Writing" and "Producer" but essentially once the ball got rolling these titles meant little. There was a lot of organisation by time zone as well, with people on the leading edge of a time zone filling in people on the training edge, around and around, until a consensus was reached.

A lot of work was done in small groups of 2-4 people as well; e.g. an artist and an author discussing a CG, or two authors and Delta discussing a story flow method...

cpl_crud wrote:Given that the CC licence has never been tested in court I wouldn't stress too hard...

By you coming here and asking something like "Hey can I do X"? you are effectively applying for (and being granted) a licence.

It's not that I'm worried about the devs getting mad, rather, I'd like to avoid the appearance of being cavalier about copyright. For my day job I sometimes get involved in copyright disputes, and it would be (at minimum) very awkward to get caught with license-violating stuff in my video uploads or website.

I understand this is probably an edge case that the dev team would not care much about, but making their stance on music derivatives legally clear would be very helpful to me, so I figured it couldn't hurt to ask.

cpl_crud wrote:I would also be interested to read a bit more into the actual terms around a "derivative" work. In Australia it is legal to make a cover of a song, so long as the Copyright provisions and Moral Rights of the original author are maintained.

So a cover/transcription may not actually count as a "Derivative"; because you are doing something that is essentially the same. A Derivative work would have to be a new Work (as defined in the Berne convention) that was substantially based on the original work.

I can't speak for Australian law, but in the US, there's a fairly strict set of rules about what sorts of derivative works can be created without getting explicit permission, and anything that isn't exactly the original work is derivative. So I could post [4ls]_katawa_shoujo_enigmatic_box_of_sound_[503ACD68].zip without infringing, but a transcription of Nocturne would infringe, and definitely so would a recorded performance (which would be a new Work).

How did you get the sound for the large crowds of people, such as in the cafeteria or at the festival?

haita wrote:

cpl_crud wrote:Given that the CC licence has never been tested in court I wouldn't stress too hard...

By you coming here and asking something like "Hey can I do X"? you are effectively applying for (and being granted) a licence.

It's not that I'm worried about the devs getting mad, rather, I'd like to avoid the appearance of being cavalier about copyright. For my day job I sometimes get involved in copyright disputes, and it would be (at minimum) very awkward to get caught with license-violating stuff in my video uploads or website.

I understand this is probably an edge case that the dev team would not care much about, but making their stance on music derivatives legally clear would be very helpful to me, so I figured it couldn't hurt to ask.

cpl_crud wrote:I would also be interested to read a bit more into the actual terms around a "derivative" work. In Australia it is legal to make a cover of a song, so long as the Copyright provisions and Moral Rights of the original author are maintained.

So a cover/transcription may not actually count as a "Derivative"; because you are doing something that is essentially the same. A Derivative work would have to be a new Work (as defined in the Berne convention) that was substantially based on the original work.

I can't speak for Australian law, but in the US, there's a fairly strict set of rules about what sorts of derivative works can be created without getting explicit permission, and anything that isn't exactly the original work is derivative. So I could post [4ls]_katawa_shoujo_enigmatic_box_of_sound_[503ACD68].zip without infringing, but a transcription of Nocturne would infringe, and definitely so would a recorded performance (which would be a new Work).

Actually, the UCC stuff and the Rome convention in the US has largely bee superseded by the adoption of the Berne convention; this is why you don't need to put the (c) logo on anything anymore.

And a performance is not a work. The sound recording is not a Work, but a Copyright Material Other Than a Work, and this is where you get a lot of the "freedoms" that you saw above.

The old Rome/UCC combo in the states actually offered less protection; for example the song "Blue Suede Shoes" was not written by Elvis. The original composer had a car accident after delivering the score. He had intended to record it, but Elvis recorded a "cover" of the work, and when the original singer/songwriter recorded the same song it was considered a cover...

He was made damn rich in royalties however...


Anyway, back to the point, I don't really think there would be an issue, but you should ask the specific musician for the piece that you want to deal with. Once you have their permission then that is that. The owner of the Copyright (which is still all of the original Authors of 4LS) can give out as many licences as they would like.

During their date Lilly mentions to Hisao that Akira felt that the strict school they attended was suffocating and she left for a job as soon as she was able to. In Japan, only elementary and middle school are mandatory. Does that mean Akira never even attended high school? (and somehow still managed to become a lawyer despite law bar exams in Japan being almost impossible to pass even for seasoned Tokyo U students)