ip_rights_violations

[snow olive]

One of the mods that were included is under my name

The (OO WW2 WEAPONS PACK)

[viscid maple]

Probably just in queue behind some other reported stuff.

[elfin heron]

dmca it if it has your stuff

BI legal takes longer to take stuff down than it takes men to find the clit

[paper prawn]

Funny thing is that if you read the APL-ND license then they can reupload (share) so long as they make no changes to it ... I guess renaming can be considered to be transforming it... BI licenses do suck lol

Obviously they do not seem to have attributed though, unless credited inside the mod... That said, with the wording of the license it seems like unless the original author says you have to attribute then you might not have to in legal terms 🤷 ```If You Share the Licensed Material, You must:

retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:
identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);
a copyright notice;
a notice that refers to this Public License;
a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties;
a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;```

"With this licence you are free to adapt (i.e. modify, rework or update) and share (i.e. copy, distribute or transmit) the material under the following conditions:

Attribution - You must attribute the material in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the material).
Noncommercial - You may not use this material for any commercial purposes.
Arma Only - You may not convert or adapt this material to be used in other games than Arma.
No Derivatives - If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material."

Though ofc, rereading the original post, it seems that they changed the license for the original content from APL-ND to APL... If so, that's a big no, no!

And ofc, the above is why neither RHS nor CUP use any form of APL license except for content based on BI stuff...

[viscid maple]

Hmm, I haven't looked at the licenses closely but what would be the point of resharing a mod with APL-ND especially if you're NOT allowed to if you remix/transform/etc. At that point someone should just use the original mod no?

[paper prawn]

In the past, repacking... Not sure whether that's a thing in Reforger yet. It is in ARMA 3 and DayZ (sometimes allowed, often not). But Steam Workshop's EULA prevents unauthorized repacks there

I was told by someone I respect that repacking mods in Reforger is a lot harder than in ARMA 3/DayZ so 🤷

[viscid maple]

Steam workshop my beloved. Being able to comment on mods, clean and formatted mod descriptions, the good ole days.

I'll be curious to hear what someone from BI says in regards to it, if there is an actual intention in reforger for people to repack or if its carryover from arma 3 stuff. Problems like that reupload will only become more prevalent moving forward and into arma 4

[paper prawn]

Well, ARMA 3 and DayZ modders could take advantage of the Steam Workshop EULA in addition to any other licensing specifications... Why APL stuff from ARMA 2 has been DCMA-ed there despite being APL 😉

Something that BI has helped enforce on the Steam Workshop

Looking at you Taviana repackers

While it would be an insane effort to port Taviana to Reforger/ARMA 4, with the current rules it would be allowed on BI's Workshop.

[ruby halo]

Yea they changed licenses and repacked everything and in some of the mods he said he made them in the description for his clan

Or team

[paper prawn]

Yeah, that's a definite violation

One question I just honestly don't have the answer to is the repacking of Reforger APL-ND mods, whether it's requires more than in the past and thus would be a derivative though... In ARMA and DayZ you just plop the pbos in the mod.

Am I right in remembering that you can't have the equivalent of multiple pbos in a Reforger mod though... I vaguely remember someone mentioning that elsewhere.

[ruby halo]

Tbh not sure I never fooled with arma 3

[coral torrent]

The original Taviana was never shared in an open license (to my knowledge). Any lookalike re-makes from scatch that were shared under APL (-SA or not) are free to be shared under the given license terms like attribution. For mod makers who do not want to allow others re-uploads their content we are currently awaiting clarification on the topic of ND from our legal department and if there is a need for more restrictive licensing regarding unmodified versions we will look into that. You can however always choose a custom license or "no license" to restrict the usage of your workshop content

[soft egret]

I would say that was in relation to Arma 3 mods (back at the time when APL was created). Where many players were not using the workshop but instead their own mod distribution tools.
There you need ability to copy and redistribute, even if you just take/use the mod as is without any changes. You still use the original mod, but you need to redistribute it.
There were also lots of mods that weren't published on the workshop at all. (Good old armaholic)

Using the workshop is not a requirement for the APL licenses, they also need to work without it.
It also takes care of the case where you have downloaded a copy of a mod, but the original author has deleted it from the workshop for whatever reason.

That has always been that way, just the Steam Workshop rules prevented you from uploading it to there. And as far as I understand the Reforger Workshop rules don't.

[viscid maple]

Alright that's kinda what I expected but wasn't sure if it'd been reviewed for reforger 'compatibility/intentions'. Appreciate you and arkensor taking the time to respond. Time for ARPL to be born

[soft egret]

You can birth your own license that has the terms that you wish.
Just put it on github somewhere so people can easily link to it.
Just needs one person to make a good one that others can use

[viscid maple]

Yup I was leaning this way after the comment by arkensor, I'll look around first and dive into the current ones to see where I would like to make adjustments if any.

[soft egret]

My go to (as APL-ND alternative) is https://www.cup-arma3.org/cup-license

[glossy depot]

From what I've read, as per EU copyright law, the original creator is allow to add limitations and exceptions.

[queen lodge]

More than a month later and GREYZONE is still up on the workshop. Why does nothing happen?

[manic laurel]

@midnight compass @pliant oar

[pliant oar]

it's wip

[jovial mica]

Sorry to dig this up, but how can you replace the model without reverse engineering the XOB to keep the remaining LODS and colliders? Wouldn't that violate the EULA of the game/tools, regardless of the license of the particular mod? Or did you ONLY take the XOB? Also how did you get the XOB? Wouldn't that be reverse engineering the .pak file that the mod is distrusted with? As far as I am aware there isn't a way to copy an xob to another addon. Can anyone provide clarification on this? This would have implications for purchased 3d model licensing if people are allowed to pull apart your xob, and if the XOB was not pulled apart then my understanding is it is against the EULA to reverse engineer things in able to obtain the XOB. Did I misunderstand something in the conversation?

https://reforger.armaplatform.com/eula

For example, I cannot do anything with this locked XOB from vanilla in the workbench. If I were to extract the pak file (is this considered reverse engineering?) of vanilla content, then I could import the XOB.

[burnt haven]

I didnt make the addon.

You would have to reach out to the creator.

I was informed everything was done in workbench.
Either way it doesnt matter we completely remade it anyway

[paper prawn]

Sort of matters in some sense, and is a question I asked myself. Just means folks have to keep an eye out on whether similar things will happen...

[glossy depot]

You can definitely get xobs and such out of a mod without reverse engineering.

[jovial mica]

how?

[glossy depot]

I'd rather not say here. I'll be on here soon if you'll be around.

[nocturne crown]

<@&105623147411202048> if any admin could reach out to me, I would like guidance on how to file a proper report in regards to Arma reforger. I’d appreciate any reply, thanks!

[vivid wave]

Check channel description

[nocturne crown]

Perfect thank you 🫡

[zinc wing]

Would this mean that valve assets could be used in a reforger mod?

[faint nacelle]

I believe so and such has been done

as long as no money is done on any step of the way

of course. if you want to be sure, you ask valve 😄

[zinc wing]

Ok thx I saw a really cool m249 model from cs and wanted to make sure it's allowed

[faint nacelle]

I would ask Valve to make sure

[zinc wing]

Ight

[faint nacelle]

also cant take someones mods or anything like that

[zinc wing]

Yeah that's what I read online from what other people said

[faint nacelle]

👍

[reef lily]

Not 100% sure if this is the right place, but I was wondering if anyone had looked into this 'Mod', which is charging $30 entry fee (for server and mod) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atEw9RRismE

This has come up before, previously with A3L, who allegedly stole $90,000 from players who paid for entry and usage of the mod.

They are ripping a number of models from other games, which caused their original post on the BI forums to be taken down for violation of community rules.

[royal stratus]

Would using a model from another game in a private mod be considered an IP violation, or does it vary depending on the IP

[faint nacelle]

yes

private mod is no excuse

and its not even private when you share it with friends

[royal stratus]

Alright

[faint nacelle]

or make screenshots of it

make things. dont take things

[royal stratus]

Does this vary from IP to IP or is it generally consistent

[faint nacelle]

consistent

[small stump]

Yeah it's the same people as A3L

[reef lily]

I thought charging players for entry to servers as well as in game content was against BI's EULA's?

[small stump]

At this point I can guarantee every single modded life server has content ripped from other games and ported into Arma and they will be no exception. Watching their stream for two seconds I saw someone with Hitman Absolution and some simulator game mounted on different drives, which just jumps out to me as "I'm using a cracked copy of this game and ripping things from it"

[reef lily]

See the difference between Modded Life Servers, and these guys. Is that these guys are charging for access to the mod and the server itself, while other servers would let you download the mod, and play on the server free of charge.

After the previous debacle with these same guys, I would think that BI would be a lot less lenient considering it tarnishes their reputation.

And looking at their videos, it looks like they are using many of ArmA 3s default assets, aswell as other community assets which they 'claim' to have permission for.

[bronze anchor]

http://www.bistudio.com/monetization From there "Limiting access to only paying players is allowed"

But you aren't allowed to "affect gameplay" with donations

[reef lily]

But its the mod they are restricting people from accessing

The server technically anyone can access, but without the mod they can not

[bronze anchor]

I'm not sure then but they have been approved for monetization so who knows

[reef lily]

Well as far as I know, there is nothing stopping people from ripping this mod from their server and using it

[reef lily]

Just found out they stole GTA IV Police Radio Sounds

[analog canopy]

I'm now updating all future and previous updates to our mods and content and specifically saying they cannot use the content for any reason, in our license. Sad it has come to this.

[molten kraken]

Changing the licences now, doesn't change the rights they got with the old licence on the old content they downloaded at the time....

If you had licensed your mod under APL-ND or something similar, then gave them authorisation you could go and say that they don't have authorisation anymore and must stop using the content

[analog canopy]

This in no way is protected by copyrighted concepts. No license can offer the use of these concepts. A DMCA can be filed at any time. Also... the license specifies this section:

For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop distributing the Licensed Material at any time

[molten kraken]

Did you offer it under separate terms or conditions?

[analog canopy]

The breaking of the license applies to two things. The use of legally protected concepts and these guys updating licensed material and re-releasing it under a different license, which immedaitely breaks the terms of the license we released.

I did update the license with specific language to make it as clear as possible what can and cannot be done. This is basically as friendly of a way to warn.

I'm not particularly fond of the way the DMCA system works. I was immediately doxed and the DMCA that was filed on me was a false flag, as I can prove. This itself is a massive break of the terms of service on steam. Steam should take this stuff more seriously.

[molten kraken]

I'm only talking about you updating the licences, not them breaking it as I don't have your mod or theirs under my eyes

[analog canopy]

Yes, the license is updated. Nothing was changed, simply put... we put clarified statements that the faction concepts, logos and scoring systems are legally protected. It's a simple disclaiming warning, which is being ignored.

[molten kraken]

Steam does the minimum requirements they have to, to be "clean" in a legal way. It might not be nice to the creators though

[analog canopy]

It doesn't help that they use the name of the brand to advertise their mod. It's a pretty clear cut case.

[elfin heron]

sigh

[molten kraken]

Was all your work (including, logos, concept, scoring system) under the APL-SA? Was your concept registered in a patent?

[elfin heron]

this isnt the place for witch hunts nor reports

in the case of a false dmca, get a lawyer

otherwise submit takedown notices

[crimson ingot]

can always discuss first then report afterwards

[molten kraken]

Well, give them info on "how to not reproduce the same mistake"

you know better than me on the subject

[elfin heron]

get a lawyer

its very simple

youre not clearing your name youre wasting time on discord

[analog canopy]

Yes indeed.

[elfin heron]

go get a lawyer if its that bad

[analog canopy]

This is the #ip_rights_violations tab, after all. 🙂

[elfin heron]

if you need to name individuals this is not the place for it

[coral compass]

From what I've seen around the community recently the share alike license's content doesn't quite match its perception - I think the expectation is that people can use your mod as a dependency, perhaps make a retexture, make some config edits, give proper credit etc. When really it's carte blanche to take and use the contents of the mod however they like

For any mod they doesn't want to just give away all their content the default state has to be no-derivatives

[analog canopy]

Not everything in the mod is APL-SA. The GitHub specifies. Only certain sections were licensed this way. The use of the content such as models or textures is far less concerning than the re-licensing of the updated version of the content.

[coral compass]

(to be clear I'm not blaming you for this situation - just highlighting that it's fitting into a pattern I'm seeing)

[analog canopy]

Re-licensing updated content can't be allowed, this means no licensing has legal value

[analog canopy]

@elfin heron you are right. Will deal another way. I continue to see people post violations here, thought that was okay.

[elfin heron]

please sacrifice a goat on my behalf

[manic laurel]

hey, don't threaten moderators

[elfin heron]

i see the joke was not missed

[dark jasper]

@glass zinc Hey, you got some video / recording of the sounds in the mod so i can compare it to the GTA IV Police Radio Sounds?

[dull moon]

also the rescue heli in the video seems pretty familiar. looking like content from yurapetrov, but i could be wrong...

[reef lily]

Yea sure 1 minute sorry

The Rescue heli was a model apparently that was bought

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxk0Yw7mqXQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwEek0181Wc

First is their mod example, the second is the GTA IV Police Scanner Audio

[dark jasper]

@glass zinc thank you very much i will check it out

[reef lily]

No problem

@dull moon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXaDSWqmZoM This is the Jayhawk

But yea it does look like a port of the Arma 2 one by YuraPetrov

@dull moon In hind sight, I have found this which I believe is where they have gotten all of their coast guard models from https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/weapon-military/vehicle/machinery-of-the-us-coast-guard

[dull moon]

might be possible

[brazen trellis]

bruh just report your life

[stiff jasper]

most brilliant Arma franchise enjoyer

[ebon sand]

God damn, a random reply to a 2 year old comment... do you spend all day on discord just looking for stuff to get butthurt at?

[manic laurel]

that's your first message here. good job!
now try and contribute in a meaningful way this time. welcome (back)!

[dark jasper]

@glass zinc We have removed Project Life from our approved servers for monetization. Thank you for bringing the issue up.

[reef lily]

Thanks for acting sir. Really glad that action was taken. It came to my attention last night and I was instantly worried.

[tender hawk]

If the model was indeed bought and not Petrov's then I can't yet hold the Jayhawk against them despite the resemblance, although if other issues were found and verified by Bohemia...

[reef lily]

The Jayhawk is uncomfirmed, as to whether it is owned by a previous modder, or a 3rd party, but the dispatch sounds have been verified.

[tender hawk]

Hence my wondering re: any others besides the sounds -- and of course if the dispatch sounds are enough for Bohemia then I have no rebuttal, I just don't want anyone who may read this log in the future to misinterpret what went on re: whether outside models are OK for use in Arma. I'm relatively certain that at least one Arma 2/3 modder made his name on well-regarded configs paired with outside models that were authorized for noncommercial reuse in Arma... (That should not be read as a pejorative or slight against said modder either.)

[reef lily]

I believe IP wise, purchasing models/textures from websites, and porting them into the game is okay. But, that is only if those models/textures are not under a license restricting the reselling/modification. It is generally frowned upon by the arma modding community to purchase models as it is unoriginal and misleading.

Not to name names, but there were a number of large Arma 2 and now Arma 3 Modders who use models from external sources. There is no legal problem with it unless it is licensed under specific conditions.

As far as I know these sounds in question are property of the development team behind GTA IV or Rockstar, meaning that this content is under their EULA's and the ripping and redistribution (With money exchange) of said property is an issue.

[neat anvil]

@midnight compass Not sure if this is the right spot but I reported a mod weeks ago, actually multiple mods by the same author that intentionally crashes workbench and is utilizing code from another mod but trying to hide it by making it not open in workbench.

[ruby halo]

This stuff is still up

[elfin heron]

cool, report it to the email in the channel topic

or file a dmca if the content is yours

this isnt a reports channel

[ruby halo]

I have

[elfin heron]

cool, doesnt need to be here then

all you do is draw the wrong attention to it

[molten kraken]

Send a DMCA to the hosting platform, and not through the workshop, it might wake them up

[leaden cipher]

This is the Reforger workshop hosted by BI 😉 so he took the right steps.

[molten kraken]

So it's BI not doing the work on it's end?

I'm not on reforger, so I don't know how it's workshop works. However it seems to start having the same problems Steam's workshop has

[elfin heron]

yeah BI tend to not do jack shit until they need to get their thumb out their ass

so just go to the hosting platform

aka their service provider

if the content is yours ofc

[elfin heron]

BI are yet to DMCA things emailed to them 6 months ago

If they're still unresponsive, contact the ISP

This is the same for any hosting company

BI is not immune from this just because you're emotionally invested in their franchise

[molten kraken]

It's called escalation, like you would do for other rights you want to enforce.

Though you need to be in your rights if you don't want it to come back swinging

[soft egret]

@shut wasp A video advertising cheats? You put this at most into a private feedback tracker ticket.

[shut wasp]

No i wasn't advertising cheats I was just bringing awareness to the situation
Where can I properly report this issue?

[soft egret]

private feedback tracker ticket.
https://feedback.bistudio.com/
There is no need though, the people who need to know already know

[vagrant stag]

I just saw this video about paying for mods for arma 3? this cant be legal? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atEw9RRismE
and ofc its caiden that make this

[reef lily]

If you read the previous messages, they were concerning this mod.

It has been removed from the approved monitization by BI

Question @dark jasper , Since Arma 3 Project Life has been removed from the approved for monitization list, does that mean that they must immediately stop receiving payment for their server, as well as refunding all of the money that has accumulated up to this point? My friend looked into this last night and said that they had to give refunds to all those who had previously paid for this. Is this correct?

[vagrant stag]

Lewis? are you PsiSyndicate?

[reef lily]

No Haha

His first name my last name Haha

[vagrant stag]

okay XD Well isint there possible to go with legal actions towards caiden?

[reef lily]

Well, rumour is that he already has warrents out, but since when he stole the $90,000 at A3L, and at the time he was 16, he was not followed up on or something like that.

But, from what I have read from BI, if they do not refund the accumulated payments to their consumers BI has the right to take legal action against said party to refund those consumers

Then again, there is also the fact that Rockstar (Creator and Owner of GTA IV) could also take legal action, being that the issue was concerning ripped sound files.

[vagrant stag]

okay

[proper isle]

but realistically, will they?

[vagrant stag]

i hope soo

[reef lily]

It depends

On whether or not the accumulated funds is significant enough for them to want to take aciton. Either way they aren't allowed to make money from this.

[vagrant stag]

Im sorry but this caiden guy and the life mod is pissing me off

[reef lily]

They have definetly rustled some jimmies

[vagrant stag]

Yes

Well, lets wait and see what happens

have they got reported to rockstar too?

[reef lily]

I am not sure what action BI has taken so far other than removing them from the list

[vagrant stag]

When they get removed from monotizing list, do battleye also get disabled on their servers?

[reef lily]

I dont believe so

I also just found this, http://puu.sh/lOAd7/977f44e69b.jpg

Purchasing of credits to be used for purchase of ingame items

[vagrant stag]

That is illigal too? if it is i think im about to explode

[reef lily]

Illegal no

They claim that it is for cosmetic items ingame. Under BI Rules they cannot make a transaction in which the donator or payer recieves benefits that make them better in game. But this is hazey, because if someone is to purchase camo clothing only avaliable to that person who purchases credits, they are gaining an advantage over other players.

[vagrant stag]

That is true

btw: Are you a develeper of any mods?

[reef lily]

I was head developer of CQB-Mod, but we had halted development for a number of reasons.

[vagrant stag]

sorry never head about that mod

[reef lily]

https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/179939-close-quarter-battle-mod-cqb-m-wip/

[vagrant stag]

Nice :)

[reef lily]

But yea I think those Project Life guys are looking at some road bumps in the future

[vagrant stag]

im sure they will find new ways to make money of it

[delicate hamlet]

Hi, I contacted Crowbar Collective via a ticket in order to inquire about their licensing and if they are actually governed by Valve permissive eula regarding porting their assets. I got back good news from them, to whom I could provide this info for proper update in wiki?

[elfin heron]

#community_wiki

but also lou is the one who usually does that page

[reef lily]

According to the A3PL developers they are being added back to the approved list?

[vagrant stag]

Are you talking to them right now?

[reef lily]

Twitch Stream

Someone asked them about it

and they said that they had dealt with it

[vagrant stag]

but... they are charing money for ingame acces

do you have the twitch link?

[reef lily]

http://www.twitch.tv/a3plofficial

[vagrant stag]

ty

[reef lily]

Did you see that teamspeak message?

About how "People think that getting removed from BIs list is the end of the world"

[vagrant stag]

did not see it

[nova crag]

@echo orchid star wars causes problems legally for reforger, correct?

[vagrant stag]

lol

i asked if they charged access to the mods :P

[echo orchid]

yes, anything disney basically

[reef lily]

Hue

[nova crag]

I'll DM a link I have not identified the date nor the name

[elfin heron]

email in channel topic for reports

not that itll get listened to

[loud shell]

If you are talking about Galactic Forces, they are a custom sci-fi mod with inspiration to stuff like SW or Halo. Ultimately it is its own IP essentially (just judging on mutual servers)

[nova crag]

No I'm talking about the guys using clone wars assets and posting it on tik tok

[loud shell]

Oh them

[remote rivet]

Someone make a steamboat Willy mod

[crimson ingot]

Steamboat Willie is public domain now, assuming it's the Mickey version

[thick sequoia]

https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/car/suv/niva-car-f0e348fa-fbeb-46b7-a7eb-f209c21ce6b1 - anybody want to buy the niva model from DayZ?

[elfin heron]

reports go to email in channel topic

really not hard to grasp this

[faint nacelle]

You can be nicer about this. This channel is where people come to see what to do with things they find.

[coral torrent]

We have forwarded it internally and will have a look thank you

[lapis quiver]

So people flex now with arma modding on tiktok ?😂

[jovial thorn]

@Lewis "Well, rumour is that he already has warrents out, but since when he stole the $90,000 at A3L, and at the time he was 16, he was not followed up on or something like that." Very incorrect, he has taken the money when he was 19 and is currently living in the USA with a girl who encouraged him to take the money and start up Project Life. No one is chasing him up unless some company wants to pay for a hefty legal case to recover damages which he'd not have enough money to pay.

[peak wyvern]

Hello all, looking for advice on how to file a counter-claim to a false DMCA report, just got notified today. Or ideally if there's any other solution available that does not involve me having to hire a lawyer - just looking to resolve a false DMCA report through the help of Steam or BIS staff.

[reef lily]

k

[peak wyvern]

One of my unit aux mods was taken down from the workshop just today on the grounds that I supposedly repacked a mod and renamed it (entirely untrue if you look through the file contents of the PBO).

The person reporting my mod claimed that I repacked and renamed their original work. The pbo in question is a config file coding for custom units for usage in Zeus/Eden. No model ripping, no texture ripping, etc.

NONE of the dependencies or assets needed for the units' loadouts to function were repacked into the PBO, the PBO only contains the faction config file as it was a faction made using ALiVE ORBAT Creator.

Apparently just having similar acronyms/naming conventions of a PBO file was enough to warrant the takedown of my mod even though the unit loadouts are completely my own original work and none of the gear, uniforms, etc. were not repacked into the mod. This is like reporting someone's faction mod for having a similar name to a pre-existing faction that was already uploaded somewhere else on the workshop on the grounds of something like being named O_CUP_RUSSIA somehow implies that it is a repack of a faction that might be named O_Russia_CUP.

Can I resolve this issue through Steam Community Support or would I have to actually file a counter-claim DMCA filing?

[peak wyvern]

I have counter-claim evidence such as PBO content and in-game screenshots rebutting the reporter's claims of repacking/renaming their original work as my own that I can attach in an email to BIS legal or a message to Steam Community Support as needed.

[coral torrent]

If you have recieved the DMCA from Steam then you need to file your counter there.** Our legal department** is not involved in that process. Steam community support or customer service will not deal with this. In the email/notification you recieved there should be information how to file a counter. That is often replying to the email itself or sending one to a designated legal address at Valve. Maybe some of the veterans here can shine light on how counters work on steam. You do not need a lawyer for it. Though be advised, that if you make any untruthful claims it is just as illegal as filing the original takedown was. If you are 101% positive that everything you uploaded on the workshop item was produced by your OWN hand (do not trust any friends who claim - yeah i made this myself - they are often lying), then you have nothing to fear.

[peak wyvern]

Got it, the DMCA notice I received was from the email address, [e-mail]. On the notice emailed to me they didn't list any other valve emails, and they also listed the complaining party's contact info.

Do you know if Steam workshop addons that are removed due to DMCA claims can be reinstated if the original complaining party retracts their DMCA claim without me having to formally file a counter? Provided that I give proof of the complaining party agreeing/deciding to retract their DMCA complaint?

I can reach out to the complaining party on Discord or email to explain to them their mistake and amicably resolve this without having to involve potential lawsuits.

Because once again to clarify the issue at hand, they claim that 1 PBO out of my entire mod uses repacked content such as texturs and p3d models from their original content without their permission on the basis of the PBO file name being very similar to the original PBO files on their original workshop addon.

[faint nacelle]

you can of course talk to the complainer

your workshop is pretty sus though. 😅

[peak wyvern]

Idk what parts of my workshop is sus, edgy yes but not sus.

I mostly make custom faction files. If I make any sort of utilities/repacked addon I'd include credits to the original authors.

I make custom faction mods using ALiVE ORBAT

[faint nacelle]

aftermath related stuff, uploaded music, big ass edgy mods that might just well contain stuff from questionable sources. so you are not unfamiliar to the ripping mods that are banned

little doubtful 3gb is needed for alive faction mod

[peak wyvern]

Yes like I stated, the mod itself IS the unit aux mod. The complaining party is taking down the entire mod over 1 PBO on facetious claims of it containing repacked models and textures.

[faint nacelle]

anyway. people will check those out to see if their content is in there

[peak wyvern]

Back to my qusetion though.

I'd like to know if there's been any previous cases where the complaining party retracts their DMCA complaint and the affected mod got reinstated on the workshop.

[faint nacelle]

there are yes

if mistake has been made people often are reasonable

[peak wyvern]

Because filing a counter means I'm liable to having to go through a legal battle.

[faint nacelle]

indeed

[peak wyvern]

So in the event the complaining party retracts their complaint, do I just contact Steam Community Support requesting a reinstatement of my removed workshop mod? BIS has nothing to do with either processes, whether I resolve things through a counter or through the DMCA claim being retracted, correct?

[faint nacelle]

yes all dmca related things are handled through valve

[peak wyvern]

Got it, thank you both.

[faint nacelle]

boy you do use a lot of ripped content in your pictures

[peak wyvern]

I'm not the one who reuploads the Fallout mods on the workshop

[faint nacelle]

sure sure

[peak wyvern]

https://tenor.com/view/oj-simpson-just-saying-im-gif-21815845

[faint nacelle]

if the glove fits

riight right

[peak wyvern]

oh quick question I see some people ping Dwarden for certain issues, is he the main mod for IP related questions?

or is he just enforcement on in-game cheating

I saw his name pop up a few times in this channel and was curious under what circumstances I can ping him

[faint nacelle]

DM might be ok, if you have something relevant to ask

[peak wyvern]

will it ever be relevant to DM him regarding reporting copyright infringement mods?

or is it only relevant to DM him regarding cheaters in like an offical public server?

[coral torrent]

No, again BI could not help you here even if we wanted to. The DMCA process is between you, Steam and the filer. Nobody else than these 3 parties can do anything about it. I would say reply to the email you got with your counter claim statement at the very least. If you find an additional place to submit it again that is more proper at least a reply will not hurt.

[faint nacelle]

where do you include the credits for the packs youve made btw?

[faint nacelle]

and Id suppose this 20gb upload is not full of aftermath and fallout ripped content?

like wtf man

and im sure these guys dont allow reuploads either

[soft egret]

Might mention.. We don't tolerate content theft.
So if those reuploads stay up, you'll be lefted from this discord

[peak wyvern]

Would be in the workshop addon page's description where applicable. And whenever needed I can always bring up receipts of said authors giving me permission to include their content within any of my mods, whether that's through Steam messages or Discord. See attached example.

[faint nacelle]

seeing you hid these offending entries now you should know the workshop moderators can still see them

[faint nacelle]

id like to see you prove Temppa for example gave you permission to reupload his maps

or bethesda for all the fallout 3 stuff

[peak wyvern]

We can go back and forth about witch hunting Fallout stuff but at the end of the day I'm not the one who reuploads the Fallout mods.

[faint nacelle]

but you are

😄

I subbed to your mods and looked

man you dug yourself a deep hole

like here

see

[peak wyvern]

Yeah ORBAT faction mods, which do not contain said assets

[crimson ingot]

[faint nacelle]

well you can DM dwarden for sure

Dont expect your stuff to stay up though

[delicate hamlet]

oh wow, why would someone dig their own grave like this

[paper prawn]

Heh, I would note that they still have the Operation Anchorage AI Pack on the workshop. This includes a rip of Lambs_danger.fsm mod which, while under a GNU license, has a specific exception forbidding reuploads to the Steam Workshop

[faint nacelle]

[mossy shale]

I don't think I've ever seen someone get themselves banned this way.

[raven glade]

Really opened up a can of worms and lost complete control 🤣

[native narwhal]

very rarely you see a good story like this

https://tenor.com/view/grave-my-gif-24188992

[mint glade]

I've never seen a Discord Janny be such a bitch before ngl

[echo orchid]

!ban 1151011412643156039 60d moderator personal attacks = buh bye

[edgy coral]

*PewPewPew!!*
RIP @mint glade
punished_max#0000 now has 4 infractions.

[native narwhal]

People be throwing themselves under the train left and right lol

[manic laurel]

Next!

[faint nacelle]

Might add me being moderator has nothing to do with what I said, I would have looked into the guys workshop anyway.

[thorn tartan]

Right now theres a STAR WARS mod on reforger thats got a decent amount of attention and rumours have it that BI are looking at the mod to see if its allowed and some have said that its been given the OK.

From what ive seen BI don't allow star wars mods at all.

Has this changed or is it still a no go?

unless disney have given the ok

[elfin heron]

its not BI that dont allow them, its disney. it does not have the ok

[thorn tartan]

Yeah, i should have worded it better. But yes I know its disney who do not allow it.

[faint nacelle]

use of starwars IP is a no no

[thorn tartan]

Ok, so im going to assume the rumours are just exactly that and BI have not given the OK on a star wars mod.

[crimson ingot]

BI just want to avoid any lawsuit

[wheat hazel]

Honestly surprised there's people still trying to make SW mods for reforger, surely everyone knows this by now?

[elfin heron]

BI's OK doesn't mean shit, it's Disney's OK that matters here which does not exist

[thorn tartan]

Right, which is why I was confused

[soft egret]

Are you sure its a star wars mod?
I haven't heard of one? I only have heard of Galactic Forces. Which is NOT star wars. Do you mean a different one?

[inland crane]

Yeah he means galactic reforger

[soft egret]

Last I've seen they are making it abundandly clear that they are not star wars.
But just a scifi/space inspired mod.
If they don't come near any of Disney's trademarks, and they are not star wars. Then there is no problem.
Making up your own scifi genre is just fine.

[inland crane]

Yeah I am apart of the forces mod but the other one is directly ripped from starwars so was confused

[chilly silo]

Unless its Rebel moon and then it just sucks... 😉

[thorn tartan]

That would be Galactic forces

The mod im creating

Theres another mod, with genuine clone trooper armour

Called galactic reforger

[soft egret]

really?
People made galactic forces and someone else made galactic reforger? 😕
How creative

[thorn tartan]

Yea lol but we been making our mod now for just over a year so

[proven linden]

yea but theyre mod also takes designs straight from star wars example theyre main milsim armor armor design (color design) is basically exactly like a star wars legion, and they also took color designs from phase 1 ranks as well so while they are making their own their tryna be subtle with star wars content, even one of their classes while bein called specialist is basically the same looking as BF2's specialist class while bein their own design

[faint nacelle]

if its their own design then its their own design.

but if it is actually same just named something else that maybe be problematic

[faint nacelle]

well while it sharers similar look and colors, it is pretty much fully different

[proven linden]

so basically stealin color design choices is ok?

[faint nacelle]

yes you can use same colors

only if its some very very unique color that could be trademarked

[proven linden]

glad BI's rules are so lax with taking unit designs from star wars is fine

[faint nacelle]

but red and white is not anyones property

[faint nacelle]

now you are flaming the matter

[tulip meadow]

When you look fine enough basically most colour choices have been used by somebody.
Is every green tank the same just because of the colour? Every black gun the same?
No.

[faint nacelle]

the armor is easily its own design

so my question here is, what are you after right now?

[tulip meadow]

Also, the world ain't black and white. There is an unlimited amount of shades in between.
Hence, when there is a supposed issue, we'll look at it and decide on a case by case basis, as that's the only thing which makes sense.
Therefore making generalized statements like "glad BI's rules are so lax with taking unit designs from star wars is fine" are simply incorrect.

[proven linden]

they also have phase 1 clone ranks, Seargent (green), Lieutenant (blue), Captain (red), and Commander (yellow) with the same design scheme a slight line following the visor and a thick line down the arms which is exactly the same the colors are the same in the mod

[inland crane]

Mate …

Look in game at the renders

Not as close as you make them out

It’s a brick red not maroon

It has plenty enough differences to be considered safe from copyright

[faint nacelle]

I would have left the fin off the helmets

you do want to be original design after all right

[proven linden]

yea the fin is clearly phase 1 i dont think ive seen any other fanchise use a fin like that tbh

[inland crane]

Tbf tho the fin is only used in phase 1 and arcs it’s not necessarily a rip off

That’s where design inspiration can be used as starwars doesn’t hold the sole design of having fins on helmets

[tulip meadow]

I personally rather have an issue with the textures (at least judging by the picture) looking too flat rather than there being a potential copyright infringement.
I'm on phone though, so that could be potentially count into that.

[inland crane]

They’ve been around since the Greeks had their golden fins and plooms ect

[elfin heron]

you have the same role colour as me its ip theft

[proven linden]

color is different from unit color design (key word design) you can use any color you want just dont make the design of it where it looks almost identical to a Unit from star wars or rank (from phase 1 armor)

[elfin heron]

bro is making up talking points

[inland crane]

Even then that’s a stretch

[elfin heron]

there's no ip rights violation here

[soft egret]

I do see a similarity.
But I do not see it being the same, at all.

To me it looks like a porsche vs a mercedes amg.
Sure similar, they're both cars (scifi space soldiers) afterall. But thats it.

[elfin heron]

just go to sleep dawg

[inland crane]

I feel like he just doesn’t want the mod to be up and that’s about it

[tulip meadow]

Ladies, feelings don't matter here.
Facts do.
So let's please keep the topic on those.
Cheers

[inland crane]

Fair enough

[humble jewel]

So the fact is Galatic forces is and will forever be a Sci Fi inspired Mod cheers for that

[inland crane]

Well said

[proven linden]

another fact is taking unit designs with the corresponding colors together is another fact tho

[inland crane]

But isn’t a violation so your point?

[humble jewel]

More like reaching for something that isn’t there

[tulip meadow]

The fact might be that it is.
But you can never be certain about the future.
Hence the second part of the statement is getting denied

[humble jewel]

As someone who is part of the project and the things that are coming its night and day difference and that’s a promise

[tulip meadow]

Fact:
Using similar colour schemes (at least to my knowledge) ain't copyright infringements.

[tulip meadow]

I trust the future when it is the present. Not before that.

[humble jewel]

More than Fair enough

[proven linden]

how is taking star wars unit schemes not copyright but star wars mods itself is, like what is this gray area

star wars is star wars

[humble jewel]

You just said it ngl

Star Wars is Star Wars

[proven linden]

yes and u took a STAR WARS unit scheme and the phase 1 ranks

[humble jewel]

Took a color and ranks that’s used everywhere

[tulip meadow]

To my knowledge you can not copyright usage of colours unless it's a specific colour code like for example the Starbucks green in combination with some mermaid spreading her legs or whatever the logo is.

[proven linden]

are u dense? u guys have the basically the exact ranks from phase 1 with the color scheme LOL

its not the color but using the colors in a design from star wars

[humble jewel]

Color ranks are a thing in IRL military

[tulip meadow]

Besides dense meaning that he ain't got fat but more muscles which could be considered a compliment, please don't get personal.

[proven linden]

yet ur design of the ranks in ur mod are the same from star wars

[faint nacelle]

ok so before you go further, you can send Disney email about your concerns and they can look into it

other than that

this conversation needs to end

since it is pointless and has gone from polite to rant

Im hoping this is clear enough

[humble jewel]

Yes please Christ almighty this guy has been attacking our mod team the entire time in our discord

[tulip meadow]

That's a you issue, not a here issue.

[humble jewel]

Already been taken care of there just sayin if he comes from there to here oh lord

[tulip meadow]

Doesn't matter where it comes from or where it goes.
We only deal with here.

[proven linden]

i was left that discord like months ago but ok

[tulip meadow]

Something something cotton-eyed Joe...

Nevertheless, we shall respect the 🐐.
I wish y'all a good evening.

[humble jewel]

You too

[proven linden]

i forgot to ask where exactly do you go to do this? like whats the email

[faint nacelle]

dont know. youll have to check their website for contact info.

[proven linden]

ok wasnt sure, cuz i wouldnt think it would be the email for chris holm

[paper prawn]

Tbh, SW ripped the fins from Roman legions...

[paper prawn]

Just noticed your role Bob, missed that, congratulations! 🙂

[ruby swallow]

I think the criticism is more about that they did use a nearly 1:1 fin shape that is used in SW rather than coming up with their own design or leaving it out. The rest of the armor's design feels unique enough.

[paper prawn]

True, I wonder whether there is some loophole when you do do something unique but have something that's like a hat tip to your inspiration?

[faint nacelle]

its not a loop hole. its making something new and being inspired by something youve seen

[paper prawn]

No, I meant only on the fin as a hat tip to inspiration, nothing else...

At the end of the day we are talking about a stupid fin on top of a stupid helmet 🤣 😛

[delicate hamlet]

on a stupid mod that takes inspiration of a stupid franchise.
It clearly just beef, although inspired they are not star wars and thats what governs the conversation

[pliant obsidian]

at this point we could argue that some of the Helldivers 2 armor sets copy star wars in general which they obviously aren't

[faint nacelle]

Let's not continue the argument further though.

[lime cypress]

Regarding ip usage, how is Bethesda able to allow users to make and download mods on Xbox that use other ips likeness? Does this have to do with their workshop being on pc as well or am I missing something?

[manic laurel]

ask them, not us

[lime cypress]

Got it

[pliant oar]

anyway the final authority which deemds if someone is breaking rules is us ... and you will hardly abuse stuff in MP w/o players on server (rofl)

so w/e excuse the violating party has ... can't save them .... when we swing the mighty-o-server-uber-thor-ban-hammer ... it's game over

[hidden linden]

I was woundering. I think the dayZ soundtrack is pretty LIT and think it would fit quite well into some scenarios of Arma as well. If i would make a Mod and import the dayZ soundtrack, would that be a No-No?

[faint nacelle]

would be no no unless explicit permission from BI were granted

[hidden linden]

well, who from BI would i need to ask for explicit permission then

[paper prawn]

You can use the old DayZ Mod soundtrack under ADPL-SA... It's in the ARMA 2 DayZ Mod Licensed Data Package

BI Legal would be the only people who can give permission to use anything from DayZ SA in ARMA though...

[coral torrent]

If you are referring to the latest soundtrack that comes with the current update then the answer is no, we do not allow them to be reuploaded anywhere, not on youtube, not as part of other mods. If you refer to dayz mod soundtracks they are released under ADPL-SA which allows what you want to do https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/licensed-data-packages. You are most likely looking for these

I just checked the data package myself since I was unsure if they were in it or not. You can find out more about the license here: https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/arma-and-dayz-public-license-share-alike-adpl-sa
Legal team will give you the same reply as I did.

[hidden linden]

Thanks for the detailed awnser. Apprechiated!
o7

[crimson ingot]

wish BI would release DayZ soundtrack on Steam like Reforger

[ocean cloud]

Has anyone seen Dwarden lately? 😟

[paper prawn]

Yep

[paper prawn]

Interestingly those of us who bought Livonia DZSA DLC are getting the Livonia DLC OST for free

[ocean cloud]

I have some workshop links that need to be removed. I'll try to DM him again. 😸

[elfin heron]

dont

email them to the channel topic or dmca them yourself

very simple

[echo orchid]

@pliant oar - have a look here: http://arma.network/forums/index.php?/topic/611-server-monetization-rules-and-perks-to-be-approved/

no one fucking gave them permission to use RHS for any sort of monetization of any sort

[pliant oar]

then report it

[echo orchid]

where?

seems they are in the precess of getting "monetization" from BI

[pliant oar]

@echo orchid [e-mail]

[bronze anchor]

Can't see why'd they get approved using the Altis Life framework http://www.altisliferpg.com/topic/11884-monetization-rulesguidelines/...

[echo orchid]

cheers

[hallow glen]

it took two days for Valve to remove a reported workshop item.
Why not go directly to them as far as A3 goes?

[reef lily]

So many life servers, so little time.

[bitter kernel]

Hey @echo orchid I noticed that on the Intellectual Property page from BI, it shows that Fallout is not technically allowed, so I was wondering how the Fallout mods on Reforger, such as Operation Sunburst and Fallout 2280, are still on the workshop? https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Intellectual_Property

[coral torrent]

That is is not an official approval or denial list. It is a guideline for modders of known third party ips where no consent will be given by the IP rights holders for direct usage of their IP. Saves you the time to reach out to their legal departments to seek permission.
Reports on the workshop (A3 and AR) are to be made by the IP right holders. So the only legal entity to take down such mod is us if we see that they violate our EULAs or workshop terms, or the holder of the IP that sees their work infringed. Reports issued by community will be reviewed but in case of doubt if something is an infringement or a legal lookalike it is up to the "real creators" to decide. So it is always best to ask the legal departments of the suspected right holders if they want to act on it or not. This is a rule of thumb for all well known IP.

[bitter kernel]

Alright thanks for the info

[ocean cloud]

Because they'll either send a fake counter DMCA or just re-upload the content. They need to get banned from the workshop. 😉

[hallow glen]

Will see what happens. As of right now, the mod is off the workshop

[ocean cloud]

It's mainly one user that I'm having trouble with. You delete one workshop and they reupload it again. I've spoken to Dwarden and he'll take care of it.

They don't even try to hide it anymore. 😹

[hallow glen]

At least gave credit

[ocean cloud]

It is better than threatening people with bogus legal warnings as they did before. 😂

[hallow glen]

It's funny though. Our add-on appeared reuploades as part of bigger pack ~10 hours after publishing. They are fast.
They almost most probably miss the important updates
Will be fun when they come complain that it's broken

[ocean cloud]

Yes, hiding things in bigger packs is how they try to get around people taking down workshops now. 😩

[marble coyote]

Or just sharing the data somehow else like this server with Taviana who made his servermod with the map inaccessible.
https://www.battlemetrics.com/servers/arma3/21148774

[ocean cloud]

Oh yeah, that's another thing that I need to check out and forward to Dwarden. 😹 Thanks for reminding me. 🙇‍♂️

[paper prawn]

Worse, most of it happens with DayZ ports so, honestly, BI should be involved in protecting the integrity of an APL license!

Otherwise their licenses are useless (hint: their licenses are useless 😉 )

But back in ARMA 2 days no one really considered that...

Which is the reason stuff was licensed under APL in the first place...

Because it really didn't matter without workshops and other RV games

[pale leaf]

lol

[bitter kernel]

?

[faint nacelle]

no spam here tnx

[pale leaf]

How is lol spam?

[faint nacelle]

it has nothing to add to the conversation

[pale leaf]

Alright noted, thank ya

[faint nacelle]

this channel specificall gets all kinds of unnecessary stuff.

you guys at sunburst should be aware of IP issues

[pale leaf]

We very much are, which is why I replied to him since he was sunburst and that was the first thing we discussed before we even starting making the mod

[sacred sedge]

Just to clarify Fallout is now a Microsoft IP and falls under MGCUR same as Halo. Herc knows this he was in our team he just left on bad terms and I guess has some bad blood.

[manic laurel]

Just to clarify Fallout is now a Microsoft IP and falls under MGCUR
did you confirm this information with them?

[sacred sedge]

No response from Bethesda themselves. But the MGCUR is pretty clear that the IPs they own are covered and Microsoft supercedes Bethesda.

If this was pre BGS acquisition it would be in the grey area but they are fully owned by MS

[manic laurel]

(MGCUR? Microsoft Game Content Usage Rules?) ☑️

[bitter kernel]

No I did not know, I left before I know, if I did then I will just target u sunburst and ask about IP long long time ago

[sacred sedge]

Microsoft Game Content Usage Rules

[sacred sedge]

Lol

Okay

[manic laurel]

anyway, better check than assume it's OK

[bitter kernel]

thx dude that's I was doing ☺️, Ps sorry if I do not make sense sometimes

[sacred sedge]

Did the Halo crowed check? Or assume the MGCUR applied? It's the same rules for both IPs.

Anyway Microsoft reps said yes falls under MGCUR that's good for me

[paper prawn]

Ah, so much looking forward to the bright DayZ-esque future of modders doing dodgy things reporting other modders doing dodgy things ❤️

[faint nacelle]

Halo has enjoyed that priviledge from days before Microsoft

lets not do any they do it, I do it

[manic laurel]

yep - who cares if they assumed or checked.

if it sounds sketchy to Bohemia, it has full right to throw it away without justification.
if you can provide evidence, it's all benefit to you.
if you don't get permission / confirmation, then it's forbidden.

[sacred sedge]

Uh halos been a MS ip since before 2001 and falls under MSGCUR.

Fallout is also a MS ip

MS States all owed ip is covered unless published by 3rd prty publishers. BGS is not a 3rd part as it is owned by MS and mees the criteria

[manic laurel]

please confirm 🙃

you know, it's not the joy to bonk you - if you provide evidence it's OK, you open the gates of Fallout modding and we shalt stay away, and gladly I must say

[sacred sedge]

These Rules apply to all games and Game Content published and owned by Microsoft Studios and for which Microsoft owns the copyright, trademark or other intellectual property. The only exception is Minecraft, which has its own guidelines here. Note that we can't give you permission to use games from other publishers, or Game Content where Microsoft doesn't own the intellectual property. Sorry, but you'll have to contact the other publisher or intellectual property owner for that. This is important to keep in mind for some games (like Forza Motorsport or Xbox Fitness, for example) where use of individual vehicles, tracks, exercise videos, or other brands and logos in these games may require permission from their manufacturer or owner.

MSGCUR website.

[manic laurel]

have you considered that Microsoft owns Bethesda, and that Bethesda owns the rights to Fallout, not Microsoft Studios?

so please, confirm with their legal service so we're in the clear - you'll be golden with an official paper

[paper prawn]

So everything has been done from scratch by the mod devs? You can't reverse engineer our games to access the assets or otherwise do things that the games don't normally permit in order to create your Items.

And you have the Blender models, etc. to show BI to prove that?

[manic laurel]

let's hope so, otherwise it's a nuke to the face… appropriate in Fallout lore

[paper prawn]

Also under the rules you can't buy models from others to use in BI-game related mods since monetization is prohibited under the rules...

So any bought model would be illegitimate...

[manic laurel]

well, you can buy models to insert in Arma
you just can't make a business in making Arma-ready models (p3d, etc)

[paper prawn]

Oh I mean, Microsoft stuff: Except as described here, you can't sell or otherwise earn any compensation from your Item, including through advertisements in the Item. This means you can't charge money in exchange for your Item, post it on a site that requires subscription or other fees to view the Item, or post it on a page you use to sell other items or services(even if they have nothing to do with Game Content or Microsoft). You also can't use Game Content in an app that you sell in an app store. So if bought models are used then those sold models are prohibited and break the agreement

Everything in a Fallout mod (DayZ or Reforger or elsewhere) would have to be made by the mod team or donated for free by the creator of such an asset...

[manic laurel]

oh, noice find

[paper prawn]

I just read the agreement 😛

[manic laurel]

outrageous!

[paper prawn]

https://www.xbox.com/en-US/developers/rules

Funnily the rules don't really seem to be aimed at content taken for use in other games, but that's on MS to fix, not us...

[manic laurel]

hence why confirmation is requested ¯_(ツ)_/¯

the legal mumbo jumbo coupled with the distinctions/junctions/crossroads of everything make it clearly a huge mess to the average person

[paper prawn]

Well, sort of important for BI in Reforger... You're not Valve and are legally liable in the end if a big corporation wants you to be...?

Micro$oft: Well, that's a nice game and workshop you've got there... 😉

[plain rivet]

OPTRE and A2 exists because of the GCUR. Of course all our models are custom made and if any public models are used, they’re extensively checked before being placed in. We’ve also had acknowledgment from 343 on us being able to exist. We even have our own halopedia page found here https://www.halopedia.org/OPTRE

Certain titles have more generous devs than others and can operate because of that

[paper prawn]

Love that 343 even gave you a shout out 🙂

[pliant jolt]

The other issue is that Zenimax's ToS contradicts this completely

"You acknowledge that You do not have the right to create, publish, distribute, or create derivative works from or use any software programs, utilities, applications, emulators, or tools derived from or created for certain Content (such as Game(s)), except as authorized in writing by an authorized ZeniMax representative. You may use the Software to the extent expressly permitted by these Terms of Service and any applicable EULA." - Zenimax ToS

Does the GCUR apply as a EULA? Probably not. The GCUR also says "These Rules apply to all games and Game Content published and owned by Microsoft Studios and for which Microsoft owns the copyright, trademark or other intellectual property". Does that mean the content has to be published and owned to fall under GCUR? If this is the case, Microsoft is not the publisher of Fallout, Zenimax is, and Zenimax's ToS say no. But because Microsoft owns Zenimax, does that make them the publisher via ownership? Moreover, is this sentence a checklist to meet the criteria of "owned by Microsoft, published by Microsoft, and the IP owned by Microsoft?" Or when they say "and" would the word "or" also be applicable?

I've been trying to get a straight answer out of both Zenimax and Microsoft support for about 2 months now, and I can't get a straight answer that considers GCUR correctly, that said, I did get this response.

"Greetings,

Thank you for contacting the general information email address for Bethesda Softworks.

In response to your inquiry, please be advised that all of the content including the names appearing in our games are the copyrighted property of Bethesda Softworks LLC and any use thereof is unauthorized. We are not looking to license the rights to any of our copyrighted material at this time.

Thank you for your interest in Bethesda Softworks.

Kind Regards,
Bethesda Softworks"

Which to me, seems like it's a no overall, but as was said when I published this message, you'd probably be okay if you didn't use the same names as Fallout and changed designs so that they were different enough

[tulip meadow]

Dear man and gentleladies,

I have no clue why people keep discussing the same old topic over and over and over and....
When you want to recreate something that falls under IP you can either:

1. Choose IP which IS free to use like Steamboat Willie 🐭
2. If the IP is not free to use:

• 2.1. Get the permission from the IP holder that you can do it and then proceed.
• 2.2. Create something which is inspired by the original IP but has to be different enough to not count as a copy and hence as IP infringement.
• 2.3. Don't do it.

What does not matter:

• what other teams did
• what a random tells you on the internet
• what you believe is correct in terms of ownership, MSGCUR or whatever.
• [insert whatever nonsensical pseudo-argument]
  --> Get the facts! If you want to believe in something, go to church.

Also, technically this conversation should have been in #other_ip_topics as it's not a violations report but rather an inquiry on a topic with a following discussion.

Thank you for coming to my Tad||pole|| Talk.

Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion, not legal advise and mostly based on experience and logical thinking.

[rancid pine]

so with this being said would the fallout Mods be safe until the IP holder would report us? Im trying to understand why Halo is okay but fallout isnt when under these circumstances. Ill do my best to reach out to there legal department but i dont see an issue to remove mods based on what you've said. I know I've seen some going back and forth with other BI reps in this chat but in all reality its not been an issue in any other games. I understand BI wanting to have a stance on this I'm just curious what we can do to help remedy this situation as I have personally modded Legal assets for Fallout servers out of passion.

[scarlet gyro]

The issue is usually never the actual ip holders but BI taking down the mod instead.

[coral torrent]

A mod that does not contain infringements is safe, anything else is not. Simple as that. Again rule of thumb: If you ask about something which you know might not be allowed, you force the other parties hand in giving you a negative reply. We would much rather focus on game development than dealing with unlicensed usage of third party IP. You can create a mod that is close enough to a known brand but not containing any ripped content or trademark infringements.

[soft egret]

Halo has new releases from after microsofts license was written and while Microsoft owner the IP.
So very clearly their license thing applies to that. (And I think to remember that halo guys specifically asked too, but I might very well be mistaken on that, been a long time).
Stuff from Halo 3 might be questionable, but halo 4 and beyond is not.

Fallout is an (old) game, from a different company, that explicitly forbid such usage. Where the company was later purchased by Microsoft.
It is very much not clear if Microsofts license applies, when Bethesda's license that says "no" is still up and that ownership relation wasn't at all a thing when the game was released.

If a new fallout game releases, that is not under Bethesda's "you can't use this" license, then things will be different.

Of course fallout people wish to assume that the license applies and that Bethesda's license for Bethesda's game is all of the sudden null and void.

[faint nacelle]

One example of allowed IP use is the Command Conquer mod where Sentry found a representative of the IP owner who were able to say it was ok to make the mod for Arma in the Tiberian Sun theme.

It may be hard to find a such representative in other cases though.

And like it has been said before Halo IP has enjoyed the fan work allowing rules for long time from the developer side which is another rather rare case

[manic laurel]

The issue is modders working on IPs on which they do not have rights or permission*
FTFY

[rancid pine]

So I guess why take it down if we’re not being hit by an infringement? BI has seemed to tolerate it until a flustered ex dev of a server started saying something?

I’m actively working with Zenimax and Bethesda to try to find any headway we can.

[faint nacelle]

the thing is, that permission needs to be obtained first

and the content you had was ripped

which would have been a no no anyway

if you get the permission, then no issues

and yes attention to the issue was brought by public

BI dont tolerate it, they just dont always know about it

knowledge -> action

you been around the block arleady you know these things

[rancid pine]

Nothing I have uploaded has been ripped. I can’t speak for every fallout mod however. My point is that if everything is legal what can we do to remedy this. And if it is a permission thing what time frame can we have to obtain it?

[faint nacelle]

you as in the sunburst mod, not you personally. I belive you do work with them and were talking about them

for your thing you did not credit the original author of the vertibird as he asks in his original reveal of the model

and it is unknown if you have permission from him or a third party in between

[rancid pine]

It is in there just look harder. It’s credited in the description on 1.0 and it hasn’t even been updated since before you guys looked into it. from the dawn of America mod studio which is who owns the asset. Regardless if we do our diligence to ensure everything is legal which to my knowledge is. What else do we need? Just the permission

[faint nacelle]

https://www.artstation.com/artwork/6bkBNW

this is the original maker

[rancid pine]

Yes it was made for the mod studio dawn of America. Which they would own it.

I have to credit ownership is what I’ve been told before

Not the one commissioned

[faint nacelle]

Since its a mod and fallout things cant be made on commision the author owns it as far as I know

[rancid pine]

From my knowledge I have to credit who owns it. Dawn of America owns it

Is there a clarification article on this from BI I can reference because it wouldn’t take me more than a couple days to gather permission from him if that’s the case but I would like clarification.

[faint nacelle]

no. do you have something that says the mod owns all the rights to it

he definitely does not mind, judging by how its been given to be used elsehere too. but like it would be proper to mention him

[rancid pine]

I’ll get it for you, also if there’s no document stating the black and white of this rule how do you guys enforce it? Like what’s the precedent I need to be aware of for this specific ruling?

[faint nacelle]

what he writes on his nexus release.

[rancid pine]

That’s a texture replacer

Is that from his original link?

[faint nacelle]

link to his nexus release on his art station

[rancid pine]

Again I’m asking what is the black and white rule for this is there a link to that that we can refer too?

[faint nacelle]

no

its just what he seems to ask

[rancid pine]

I don’t understand so we can be enforced on something that has no rule?

[faint nacelle]

are you being enforced somehow?

your mod is up

[rancid pine]

I suppose that’s a fair point. I’ll get in touch with Dawn of America and get the necessary document needed or refer to him if it becomes necessary as well. I’ll also be working to continue the contact with BI, Microsoft and Zenimax to try and resolve this.

[sharp void]

It would appear Goat is telling you what you should do to remain respectful to the author rather than threatening with an action.
E.g. "Hey you should do X" rather than "You should do X or else Y"

[rancid pine]

Thank you for your time Goat!

[rancid pine]

No fair point completely

[elfin heron]

if there is no license either than the authors requests are the rules

[vagrant stag]

I dont mean to judge but do all life servers break copyright laws?

[queen wing]

@dark jasper @pliant oar just got a notification that this guy is streaming (i follow his twitch channel) and the title of the stream said: making medical uniform for Arma 3: Project Life. Link: http://www.twitch.tv/kiory123/v/28887773 not sure if this falls under IP violatons, but i thought so since its for Project Life

[dark jasper]

@queen wing not really sure how that violates IP.

The guy seems to be making his own texture / model.

[queen wing]

@dark jasper oke, yeah i was not totally sure, but i noticed the Project Life, so i thought it would be best if it got checked out just to be sure

[dark jasper]

we are currently still investigating the numerous copyright violations regarding Project Life.

[reef lily]

@queen wing Kiory is a very respected content creator in arma 3, they have most likely hired, and or added him to their team. He makes great models and textures so I am sure he fine.

[vagrant stag]

I still worry that Project Life would find new ways to cheat in new systems to earn their cash.

[queen wing]

@reef lily i know, thats why i found it odd, and yeah it makes sence that they would hire him. I love Kiory's APEX Drakon,

[vagrant stag]

btw: Project Life changed their homepage but they are still charging money to get access for the "pre alpha"

[queen wing]

@reef lily i wanted to make sure it wouldnt be a violation, because it would be a shame to see him get in trouble, for a violation, he was not even aware off

[reef lily]

I dont think he personally would get in any trouble

As far as I know he is just contracted work, so depending on what happens with BI, he may not get paid.

[dark jasper]

Looks like they have hidden that they are charging for access on their whole site

[reef lily]

So in other words they are attempting to misguide you guys to think they are no longer charging for it.

Do they not also have to refund all of the previously accumulated funds?

[dark jasper]

afaik @vagrant stag has account on that site. Would you be so kind sir and see if there is still a thread on their forums about charging for it?

[reef lily]

They have updated the rest of their site

But they still claim http://puu.sh/lQfcB/0c30beb026.png

Which is misleading and untrue

[storm cliff]

Just look at how much manpower/time is being wasted by this one project. Maybe monetization applications should cost a pretty penny in order to offset that....

[dark jasper]

That is misleading

[reef lily]

Narr, this is a single issue.

[dark jasper]

Its my lunch break currently so no manpower wasted! :)

[reef lily]

There are many good outcomes with monetization

this is just one of the down sides that some people like to take advantage of

[storm cliff]

Are there any well-monetized servers then? I've had a look at the monetization list but how many of those actually do monetize?

[reef lily]

Most of them I believe, its mostly for donations etc. to keep the server running

where as in this case they are attempting to take money to profit over and above what the server and work costs them.

From what I have seen they do not have dedicated 3d artists, 2d artists etc. working set hours to require a payment.

[storm cliff]

Oh, yeah, I can see one of the life commuities offers custom clan (company/gang) skins, that's actually a really cool way to monetize.

[reef lily]

Yea that type of thing goes towards ensuring that the server stays up for a longer period of time, where as just donations are unreliable

[vagrant stag]

@dark jasper Yes, will do when im back on my PC

[dark jasper]

Awesome, thank you very much

[vagrant stag]

Sent on private message

[dark jasper]

Thanks

[dark jasper]

Anybody has IP adress of their server?

[vagrant stag]

I dont think they have any servers yet

From what i have heard the pre alpha will get released 1st of January

2016

[south trail]

Now that the fallout IP is safe I suppose that the Pandora’s box of fallout modding has been opened

[rustic copper]

Well, it's still as closed as it was as before. Aka still not allowed without explicit permission from Bethesda (who owns the IP, and not YeniMax or Microsoft)

[south trail]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1225702151020609607/1245472819609997332/Bethesda_Support_-_Google_Chrome_5_29_2024_2_41_49_PM.png?ex=6658e073&is=66578ef3&hm=6f6178cdebc9363ba149363f84db9e3ab6aa1acdeda485b7f4b232bf06a9daef&

Does that not make it open now?

[rustic copper]

Do you not see the bold text "fan made assets"?

That still doesn't allow you to use the IP, but only content based on the Fallout world.

[south trail]

Ah well close enough

[rustic copper]

pretty big difference though

and it can still mean, if the fan made content is breaking IP/Copyright, it will also affect you (even with permission from the content creator)

[echo orchid]

it isn’t

[echo orchid]

close is the furthest word from reality i would use…

[sacred sedge]

All of our asset are fan made. They just said no ports.

[hallow lark]

But did you purchase any of those fan made assets?

[faint nacelle]

it does not still answer recreating things from the game which is unfortunate

even if the assets are self made, can they be "same looking" as the original

[sacred sedge]

They where told we are making a Fallout mod on another game, we asked if this was okay. They said as long as it's not game assets from their games aka porting and we use fan made assets we are good. That is pretty clear cut. If they didn't want the IP used they would have said no you cannot.

[sacred sedge]

Idk where yall are getting the don't use our IP from. When a game asset refers to the actual model or texture ect.

[manic laurel]

an intellectual property is exactly that: an intellectual property

you do not get to create Star Wars/Star Trek/Batman content without the express permission of the IP owner

[sacred sedge]

And they just said if we are using fan made assets we can make our mod

[manic laurel]

some may allow a personal permission-less usage through a public statement, some require you to contact them, some refuse entirely

[manic laurel]

please confirm by asking:

can you confirm that us the modding team can create a Fallout mod from scratch in another game that allows modding?
then you will have your permission from them (well, once they answer positively that is) - without that, it's by default forbidden

[sacred sedge]

Bro that's what I did. "I am making a mod on another game based on fallout and was told by a community manager to reach out via support ticket for more info. As long as i fallout(typo follow*)the community rules and use only fan made assets am i aloud to make my fan project?

No BGS assets used, no money made."

So you want me to ask the same question in a different way over and over. I'm beginning to think no answers I get you guys they will not be good enough for you.

[manic laurel]

their answer is not "legally" clear, at least to me. a full, 100% non-twistable answer would be ideal, for you as for the project (and us)

[sacred sedge]

Pretty clear to me. ive asked for clarification even further.

[manic laurel]

thank you, it's worth what it's worth but I am telling you we want you to be able to make said mod; we just want extra confirmation to be 100% in the clear - really.
we don't slam mods down for fun, hopefully

[elfin heron]

pretty clear to a person and pretty clear to the law are often two different things too

[paper prawn]

It would seem that they would have to be loosely based on Fallout assets, not derivatives for one.

How the assets were developed will be one of the key aspects here I suspect

Saying "based" on Fallout and copying Fallout would be one question I have...

And BI being a game development studio that strictly enforces their IP rights, even between different games produced by themselves, are obviously going to be wary of allowing anything that might threaten another game studios IP rights btw

[sterile panther]

Justifiably so too.

[tulip meadow]

To have it stated, I personally, not as a BI employee but as a modder, very much appreciate that you are properly following up the topic and getting actual information rather than talking nonsense out of your 🍑 and wasting everyone's time.
A behaviour like yours actually brings us as well as the discussion forward.
Thank you for that!

[sacred sedge]

If only it felt like all this effort was worth something.

Thank you though

[tulip meadow]

It never feels like that.
Welcome to life.

[fair aspen]

Yeah, if only Kiory was getting all the money they made. ;)

Sadly they'll probably only hire him for things they can't rip or download themselves like RTM's and correctly skinned clothes.

[sacred sedge]

Sorry for ping stand by

[rancid pine]

Victory 🎉

[manic laurel]

now seems clear enough to me 🙂

[rancid pine]

This is a rare occasion to be fair that a company gives a green light lol

[crimson ingot]

quic lou update the biki regarding the ip

[faint nacelle]

👍

[sacred sedge]

Even the community manager I have contact with said this is unprecedented

[manic laurel]

https://tenor.com/view/toad-mushroom-scared-running-run-for-your-life-gif-17715105

[crystal geode]

https://tenor.com/view/weekend-party-champagne-gif-18280013

wE LIVE

[sacred sedge]

https://tenor.com/view/south-park-bell-gif-27646997

Me vs yall persistent asses lol

[manic laurel]

ye but see, we're not against proper IP usage 😄

thank you for that and for the Fallout communities - and let's hope Bethesda won't backpedal on this one

[manic laurel]

updated 😉

[south trail]

https://tenor.com/view/beyonce-beyoncelemonade-flood-when-i-walk-in-the-bar-gif-5381809

[loud shell]

Whats the wiki again

Nvm

[loud shell]

Any way the SCP part can be updated? (Taken from their Licensing Link)

https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/licensing-guide

[manic laurel]

uploading it to Steam makes it restricted, therefore not CC-BY-SA (afaik)

[loud shell]

What about uploading to Bohemia Reforger Workshop if it is APL

Thought on Reforger you can add a custom license

[manic laurel]

no idea

[loud shell]

Seems you can

[manic laurel]

you can what?

[loud shell]

Add a custom license for a mod on the Arma Reforger workshop. Meaning you can add the required license for an SCP Mod (CC-BY-SA) on ARW (not steam)

At least that is how I am understanding it

[manic laurel]

ah yes, from what I understand too indeed

0.001s attention span Lou 😂

[loud shell]

Would it be possible at some point to have the SCP Section updated to reflect this? Something like “Allowed on Arma Reforger Workshop with CC-BY-SA only” or something like that? Unless you guys need more proof or something of the sorts. I would say their Kosher Guide is pretty straightforward

[plain rivet]

Fallout fans rejoice

[faint nacelle]

just word of caution. Most if not all "free fallout models" on the web are in fact ripped. so dont fall into the trap of using those

[manic laurel]

done!

[loud shell]

Thanks man!

[plain rivet]

Goat Lou

[delicate hamlet]

now THAT'S a massive W for the IP topic. great work Mark

[delicate hamlet]

This table was last updated on 2021-12-18 and may be obsolete at the time of reading.

[paper prawn]

Reforger workshop is as "restricted" as Steam's...

In both cases you have to have the game to download unless I am missing the download link on the Reforger Workshop webpage

But personally I wouldn't say that either is what the license calls a "technological" restriction

But if you think that Steam is restricted then the Reforger Workshop is too

I mean there is no 6(d) restriction because the IP owner has given implicit permission if that's what you meant...

[manic laurel]

fixeded :p

[manic laurel]

I don't remember if it was that or that Steam added its own "don't share the files" shenanigans or so
I won't dive into it for now though, it's nightmarish enough to me 😄

[paper prawn]

Hmm, maybe the parts that are still restricted in SCP? Honestly don't know enough about that, just no obvious difference noticeable to allow Reforger but forbid ARMA 3...

That said, there are ARMA 3 SCP mods 😉

[midnight compass]

Revert it back, until I confirm this myself. A screenshot of a supposed confirmation should not be taken as proper proof.

Same for the pin @echo orchid 🙇‍♂️

[echo orchid]

true, done

[midnight compass]

@sacred sedge @rancid pine Not on the green yet at least on the workshop. But good initiative on asking first 🙂

[rancid pine]

Okay well it’s not just a supposed confirmation, it was atleast a confirmation by a rep which I’m not sure how it’s not legit. I don’t understand. And I’m starting to become concerned with how this is handled internally at BI if this is being doubled back on why didn’t other two know this wasn’t good enough but gave us confirmation?

I’m trying to be respectful here but this is getting ridiculous. Can I please have the black and white rule from whatever rule book this is interpreted from @midnight compass like the rule book BI has this set from?

[midnight compass]

It's second hand information for us if presented as screenshots and such.

[rancid pine]

So what do you need?

A transcript or something

[midnight compass]

Also, making sure that you are in the right with IP Rights is your responsibility, not ours. We should not be expected to check that for you, we will only enforce it when found out in the wrong, reported or spotted.

I am doing a favor here making sure to ask myself.

[midnight compass]

I will ask a representative.

[rancid pine]

I mean we asked which other than that unsure what more we can do because with that logic any modder that gets permission on there own isn’t approved than? So what black and white rule do you guys have that I have a screenshot of states how it’s enforced?

And can I have a copy from the BI rule book as well as what constitutes legitimate proof and not second hand?

[midnight compass]

If it's true then why is it a issue that I need to confirm before we as a company tell others that is okay to use another IP in the game?

If the provided screenshots are truthful then you should not worry.

And would get what you expected to know officially from us.

[rancid pine]

No I understand that and that’s fine we’re not worried I’m asking can I have the copy of the rules in which this is dictated by? From BI?

[midnight compass]

This has nothing to do with some internal ruleset, it's proper management of providing official information on something. We can't state that you are allowed to do X unless we get first hand information about such thing ourselves, or if the other party (IP rights holder) makes an official public statement.

[rancid pine]

Okay I’m asking can I have the internal ruleset that you guys would enforce off of?

[coral torrent]

It is simple, if we put something on a page maintained by us it becomes official information. We can not say to people "oh this is allowed" based on thrid party evidence. We have to confirm it outselves and make sure that we stand behind the info. If it is marked down as "no permission" it is less of a problem since no damage is done should that info be based on a misunderstanding or lies, since then no IP rights were infringed anyway. You seem to want to imply that somehow these screenshots give you permission to do something, so in that case that might be fine for you to know for your own sake, but not for us to put on the wiki. As Mario said, we will follow up on this and update the site when we hear back. Your info collected helps everyone to some extent already

[rancid pine]

240524-004709 is the reference number to ours you guys can have them reference.

And that’s fine I’m asking can I have the internal ruleset for how this is enforced

[coral torrent]

If it could be damaging to us or community if we make a false statement = We need first hand information, potentially confirmed by our own legal department. If not, that is not required.
That is the simple rule

[rancid pine]

Okay I understand now but can I have the internal rule set for my reference. Of where it states these sort of things.

[coral torrent]

I just told you the rule

[rancid pine]

That is out of your rule book?

Like the black and white BI document for the enforcement?

[delicate hamlet]

The rule in this context is basically:

Unless BI confirm it legally, through actual consulting means, they cannot endorse it

[rancid pine]

I get it I’m asking for the actual black and white rule not hear say

Like they must follow some type of rule book that dictates what is and what isn’t acceptable and what not. I’m just asking for the section for my reference

I’m not going to court I just want it for my reference lol

[delicate hamlet]

happened something similar to me recently actually, I got permission to use stuff from a game, but when asked for a legally binding statement to actually be included in the wiki the game company backpedaled on the previous statement

[midnight compass]

One will be provided in the future but this is out of the scope of that

This is just basic proceeding for a company to ensure safe and correct information

[rancid pine]

I assume there probably isn’t a public black and white rule set of how this works than beyond “this is common sense business”

Considering I’ve asked several times over several different situations for BI’s rule sets and get nothing

So I suppose it would be safe to operate that there isn’t one

[coral torrent]

Lets wrap up this topic please. You got your response from us, there is nothing else to say about this subject or the original subject.

[rancid pine]

That’s sort of proving what I just said but okay sounds good

[pliant jolt]

It does seem a bit unfair that someone finally got an answer and have been told it's not good enough and BI have to confirm themselves, when BI could've just put in an effort to do so in the first place, without the community having to do so just to have it thrown back

Especially when there's no real clarity on what would be good enough as evidence from the community

[rancid pine]

That’s why I’m asking for the black and white rule here but as you can see it’s the precedent to be set is that they simply don’t have one

[pliant jolt]

100% empathise that you want to get absolute legal coverage before making a statement, but the treatment here seems a bit rough

[midnight compass]

Issue here was it being updated on the wiki, and such presented as official information from us

[rancid pine]

The problem is and why I’m asking for the legal ruleset they follow because this looks like a situation that they all don’t seem to be on the same page as and it doesn’t look good seeing this happen.

[coral torrent]

I told you to wrap it up. I will mute you next if you continue.

[rancid pine]

Fine Arkensor if that’s the response I’m given from BI on this

[pliant jolt]

Okay pivoting away from that, if someone makes a Fallout mod that falls under the guidelines mentioned by that representative, will BI still take it down without it being reported/DMCA'd by the IP owners? As in as if thought it fell under the previous understanding of Zenimax's no-derivatives rule?

[midnight compass]

I close it here but I do not see the mistreatment, I just told @manic laurel to revert the change in wiki and @echo orchid to remove the pin. As if we do that then we need to know from first hand information ourselves. And that I would make sure to contact a representative and ask so that it can be added officially what the result is.

[rancid pine]

Well I’m not gonna comment further I don’t want to be muted for having a calm conversation please let me know what you find @midnight compass

[manic laurel]

for information - hence why no green light in the table

[coral torrent]

If we know for certain that an IP holder generally allows usage of their IP (designs, trademarked names etc) and as long as the expression is made by themselves (e.g fan made models, not ripped from original game) then we as BI have no interest in the subject unless the IP rights holder (and ONLY them) finds that something is infringing regardless because e.g. commercial use that was prohibited. I suppose that is what you wanted to hear.

It surprises me personally that Bethesda in this example would imply such permission, but perhaps they see any fan content made, even if it is for other games, as good marketing for their own games. They will most certainly not allow any commercial usage of the name "Fallout" or any of the visual designs they have registered - neither for real life objects such as mugs, tshirts etc, nor for other games. Keep this in mind with monetization of your mod. Right now in AR we do not have such program but that might change in the future. So then your mods could likely not be used by any server who wants to montize their community (e.g. paid whitelists to join, cosmetic items etc etc).

[rancid pine]

This is separate I promise but to your point here? I thought monetizing in BI’s eyes atleast using there stage is against terms or are we speaking generally here?

But you make good points with this I can ensure you I definitely don’t want to monetize anything but to your point I am honestly surprised as well a rep gave us a tentative green light

[coral torrent]

I said that right NOW you can not at all in any way in AR. But if a team is working hard on a mod project they might want to know if we do introduce similar policies like we have in A3 and DZ, that the response from Bethesda posted here does not cover that (it was asked for noncommercial use only) and that from experience it is unlikely any IP holder will give you commercial rights unless you have a contract with them.

[rancid pine]

Yea understandable, would be interested if BI will update some of it when in regards to no IP’s like this but just more normal gameplay situations and mods

[coral torrent]

I do not understand your question, what exactly do you want to know?

[rancid pine]

I was just saying to your point I’m curious if BI will make adjustments to its monetizing regarding AR at some point.

[pliant jolt]

Thanks for the clarification Arkensor. Off topic, but is there any more info on future plans for mod monetization?

[coral torrent]

Oh well we are certainly evaluating it. There are some things that did not go well with the policy in the past so we are checking if we can take a better approach. In general it is our goal to support server owners and also modders in their hobby. And we are not oblivious to the fact that some might want to seek some financial support for their efforts in providing content and servers. We will give some update on this in the near future, it is an active topic in our company. It takes time because we need to walk a very thin line between fair rules and bad actors who exploit it to try and cashgrab something. But we have some good ideas how to balance the interests 🙂
Because it is a hot topic in gaming in general and I don't want people to think we are going in the wrong direction: Paying to get access to mods is not part of any planning.

[vagrant basin]

should see gta fivem mods lol would hate for arma to turn into that sorta thing ever

[coral torrent]

Yeah there are many good reasons why commercial usage is very limited with out games and entirely banned for our tools. Either way, I know it was somewhat related to a follow up question on IP rights, but this channel is likely not a good place to talk about this and until we share any news on potential policy updates there is no point in talking about hypotheticals.

[elfin heron]

so to clarify, permission from ip owners is useless unless it is directly given to our overlords at bohemia?

[coral torrent]

No. The discussion was about the Biki page and known wildcard permissions. If you have permission to use something then they won't file a takedown for your mod and then there is no issues.

[elfin heron]

so the community wiki is not a community wiki or something any more?

[manic laurel]

nothing changes
just that for us to write it on the wiki (even though there is a disclaimer), it's better we ourselves have confirmation

[elfin heron]

if the concern is its officially from BI does that mean we can get rid of that silly code negation page then

[rustic copper]

It's a community wiki, meaning BI is not (fully) responsible for its contents (albeit maintained by BI), hence the massive disclaimer.

And as with most wiki's it should contain accurate and verifiable information, which in case of legal advise should come from legal representatives (and not a support employee).

So the wiki page is just a guideline (not legal!), and can be used by the community (and BI) to get an idea on what is or isn't allowed. However explicit permission from the IP/Trademark/Copyright holder, or legal representative, is and will always be needed.

[elfin heron]

if you actually read the disclaimer you would see it says its not legal advice

[echo orchid]

@bronze anchor - lol, yeah they have been approved: http://arma.network/forums/index.php?/topic/611-server-monetization-rules-and-perks-approved/#comment-6649 | whoever reads these should read the fucking EULA of the addons they use in their packs just as well

[manic laurel]

read his message again.

[elfin heron]

And as with most wiki's it should contain accurate and verifiable information, which in case of legal advise should come from legal representatives (and not a support employee).

[manic laurel]

So the wiki page is just a guideline (not legal!)

[bronze anchor]

...what a joke

Looking at the list of approved servers I see more than a few that use and break Tonic's EULA

It's pretty ridiculous that the burden is on the content creator who has to track down the infringements themselves.

[elfin heron]

oh wait youre reading as legal advice should come from legal reps of the company not BI as that message says

[bronze anchor]

It should be the complete opposite, the server requesting monetization should have to provide the corresponding usage or permission for each addon being used. Which then should be verified by BIS.

[echo orchid]

i still can't fucking believe someone actually read that

i am so pissed on the situation at the moment that i would rather

simply block any further RHS public updates until this is solved\

[bronze anchor]

I can't believe a simple "yeah RHS gave us permission" by the sever operator allows for use with monetization

[echo orchid]

there was no such permission given

[bronze anchor]

Exactly

So I can just say "Yeah Call of Duty said I could use all of their guns" and have to provide no proof of such a statement

Obviously that's an exaggerated example

I don't understand how there is not more due diligence with something that can be such a legal mess.

I have no idea how you'd go about it and if you even can but wouldn't breaking the license allow for a DMCA takedown?

[echo orchid]

yes of course it does

no matter what Bi says

i have reported it to BI as @pliant oar instructed

and forwarded the server monetization report towards infrigements just as well

i hope they'll actually have a proper reply and a swift action

otherwise i'll push towards a DMCA and contact my lawyer

even if non-willingly and simply out of a mistake

[bronze anchor]

They also fail to mention the usage of Jonzie's cars (I saw them in as of a few days ago) which also carry a non commercial license

[pliant oar]

@echo orchid what you mean condone ?

you do realize we do more than we should right ?

[echo orchid]

maybe wrong word for this particular one

[pliant oar]

technically , we could just care nil about anything not our problem right ? so ye, better wording next time ;)

[echo orchid]

especially knowing the amount of time you personally put into this

but this is exactly how it looks

@pliant oar - i am certain that you are not the person to be blamed on this one

[bronze anchor]

There really need to be legal repercussions for these kind of things, it's just a kick in the face for content creators when Bohemia approves of people to break their licenses

[pliant oar]

@bronze anchor but that legal parts lay in hands of the IP owners ...

[echo orchid]

that said, please explain it to me how that sort of thing is actually possible

human error?

[pliant oar]

what sort of thing ? stealing stuff ? exploiting stuff ? happens all the time on internet in all forms, shapes and shades of gray

[echo orchid]

no dude

allowing monetization on this shit:

http://arma.network/forums/index.php?/topic/611-server-monetization-rules-and-perks-approved/#comment-6649

[pliant oar]

maybe they change stuff compared to the approval check state

[echo orchid]

does it work that way then? because everyone on that list here: https://www.bistudio.com/monetization/approved/arma3 seems to have the perks and addons used up and front

so, without taking this the personal way, what would you do if you would be me?

stop all progress. block any further updates until this is solved

because an outsider would say: fuck RHS, i know they takedown everyone who uploads on steam

and they have the heaviest CC license of them all

but since BI simply allowed someone else who has no IP or permission

to use their addons for monetizations

superseeding their own EULA

[pliant oar]

ic , don't worry this will be sorted swiftly ;)

[echo orchid]

why shouldn't i do the same

[pliant oar]

anyway for cases like this, there is the "report it" button and contact email

[echo orchid]

i did both of that

[pliant oar]

be it human error or they just omit the 'detail' about mods used

[echo orchid]

hmm....

i dunno how this works, hence why i also asked here

because every other server that is aproved need to have this sort of perks and license clearly visible

and linked to that particular page

[pliant oar]

BI allowed server monetizing, the server is in breach of the rules, you reported it, BI will take it away after investigated as true and tear the approval ... or something along the lines

[crude trail]

so
if I get express permission to port FO4 assets to arma 3 from microsoft, is it ok?

[manic laurel]

if

[crude trail]

ye lol that's why im asking

might as well try because microsoft is usually ok with porting assets

[pliant oar]

in short no point to continue on the drama , it will be resolved as it should be

[echo orchid]

fair enough then, my bad then

[faint nacelle]

wont happen. in the above it was already mentioned they do not allow use of the game assets

your time is better used in Blender, learning to model and do the stuff you want to see

[echo orchid]

there was no drama really, i was a bit enraged and puzzled

[crude trail]

we will see

mainly curious because if they say yes and give me permission, then that would set a precedent for permission being obtainable for basically all of Microsofts stuff

[echo orchid]

but fair enough, take the condone back then, thank you for the explanation

[manic laurel]

that would certainly not open the gates for everyone ripping assets without permission
if you ask for permission and get it, then yes go ahead

[crude trail]

I said permission being obtainable lol, did not mean ripping without permission

[manic laurel]

(I agree with you, I just underline that)

[crude trail]

(ok sounds good)

[raven glade]

Why rip assets even with permission. Why not learn to create your own. Your own imagination is 90% of the fun.

[crude trail]

Because I do not have the time to learn how to model completely, I do textures mainly lol

Ok, so I haven't gotten a formal written statement from someone but from talking with support and discussing it, it breaks no TOS for Microsoft

[faint nacelle]

the previous representative already laid out the game assets cant be used

[crude trail]

can I have a link where I can read this?

[faint nacelle]

#ip_rights_violations message

[crude trail]

ok, so using the IP is ok but not using assets?

[hot mural]

A general question, if or can BIS know what mods are running on a server through BE? And if that server is monentized, then should particluar mod owners been notified? This could be automated too?

[paper prawn]

As I pointed out before, Microsoft says: You can't reverse engineer our games to access the assets or otherwise do things that the games don't normally permit in order to create your Items.

[faint nacelle]

seems to be the case

[paper prawn]

#ip_rights_violations message

So you would have to learn how to model completely...

[faint nacelle]

or join with the other fallout mod makers in one team

[crimson ingot]

and coding if you want to put it in arma 3

[paper prawn]

And PhysX 😜

[crude trail]

issue is the only fallout mod for arma 3 was just ripped assets so not like there's one around

[crimson ingot]

make one, be the leader

[crude trail]

i work on optre so ive been picking up a little bit of the config and coding and stuff like that

perhaps

[crimson ingot]

those from Optre may lend a hand if you start your own team on a new project

[crude trail]

prolly not they like halo stuff lol
but yeah thanks for the answers yall

[pliant oar]

1. q is what was there listed when the person checking it visited it 2. if something as there did he knew or remember what mods don't allow monetizing 3. human error

in short that's why the post-mortem report contact exist to fix those or deal with IP abusers and those who break good behaviour in Arma 3 server hosting ;)

goes to charge Thor-server-mighty-ban hammer

@bronze anchor btw. didn't tonic allowd monetizing recently yet again http://www.altisliferpg.com/topic/11876-releasing-the-flood-gates-monetization/

yes, i'm reading the chatlog backward ;)

anyway @echo orchid for sure know we/i deal with violators if we can

@hot mural wip, maybe, no eta, will see, more tears of baddies soon(tm)

[echo orchid]

yeah i know it

but i also know that you are NOT in charge of monetization scheme :P

[hot mural]

No problem. I appreciate the work that you guys (BIS) is doing. It is a very interesting side affect of the ARMA series success!

[pliant oar]

but i had quite some say in way how it's getting 'less overcomplicated' in past years and the outlay of rules ;) i'm just not the one investigating each case until someone "'"cries"" (read files nonformal complaint) in some channel :)

[bronze anchor]

@pliant oar He only allowed it for Altis, that post specifically states that it can't be used for A3L or Takistan Life https://i.gyazo.com/dff0a0eb5db6386cd11e887a28df9247.png

[hot mural]

I am curious about this from a generic point of view. The future of modding in the game industry as this could be the tip of something bigger.

[pliant oar]

@bronze anchor feel free to use report button :) or infri email

[hot mural]

Not necessarily related to ARMA series.

[pliant oar]

SGTGunner we can't police everything or resolve everything, as we aren't the IP owners, we can just do what we can within our rulesets if there is enough evidence and actually someone reports it in first place

[echo orchid]

@pliant oar - LOL, very indirect, nicely played ;) next time i'll simply send you a fucking PM, i guess that'd be easier then sending 2 mails and a filling a report then :D

[pliant oar]

@echo orchid well it depends when you sent that email, if it was within this week then you need realize the guys doing it have more work than you can imagine ;) and i bet you have wide one

@echo orchid anyway take this with smile ;)

[hot mural]

@pliant oar I am not expecting you to. But you have some tech that could keep (proactively) mod owners informed. Right now, it is a black box and mod owners have to find out the hard way. case in point with RHS.

[pliant oar]

it's impossible to keep mod owners informed , especially if those abusers keep changin stuff on the fly, what was there last week is different next week etc.

we can't protect someone else IP, we aren't charity or endless force with unlimited lawyer army

[hot mural]

oh, so what is running on a said server is not know dynamically by BIS. IT is static from the server owner when submitting a request to monetize?

[echo orchid]

@pliant oar - fair point, i ussually and pretty neat going till i feel i am steped on

[pliant oar]

it's static from the form signed and the website shown ... if nothing pops, it looks clean and may get approved

[hot mural]

oh, sorry. That makes perfect sense now.

[pliant oar]

or do you think we go thru every trashbin near the server owner apartment to find his discarded files?

[echo orchid]

i have the feeling i need to spend part of my saturday reading that particular list

and going manually thought it :P

[hot mural]

My big mistake/wrong interpretation. I thought there was some telemetry sent back to BIS?

[bronze anchor]

@echo orchid I was going to do the same :P

[pliant oar]

one day, when there is perfectly working query, mod listing and big data statistics ... and unlimited amount of workforce

[hot mural]

@pliant oar I appologize.

[pliant oar]

ye then that will for sure be easy ;)

[hot mural]

BIS enters into the big data space. :-)

[bronze anchor]

Technically not getting permission for usage is breaking Bohemia's license...

"On my server I am using mods created by other people. May I get approval to monetize?"

[pliant oar]

more than technically ;)

[bronze anchor]

"You may, but ONLY if you have proper permission from all of the authors of such mods. Monetizing without it contravenes our licenses."

[hot mural]

@bronze anchor The difficulty is policing it. Which is not very immature at the moment.

[bronze anchor]

I just don't get why the burden is on the content creator to track down improper usage of their addon

[hot mural]

It is manual and requires human eyeballing.

[pliant oar]

it's same as with uploading to steamworkshop, you need to have written, verifiable approval you can do so from legal IP owner

[rustic copper]

Why so people think Fallout is owned by Microsoft? They do not own the IP...

Zenimax (parent company of Bethesda) owns them, and even though MS owns the company they don't owns the IP at all.

So make sure you contact the correct people, otherwise it's a waste of your time.

[bronze anchor]

Obviously people will slip through the net sometimes

[pliant oar]

no clearly ópen/blank license state or owner approval... well no $$$$$ zing

[hot mural]

I think the mod owner is responsibile now is okay. But there needs to be some way to idenitfy it in a automated way.

[pliant oar]

write server list and pull queries on all the approved servers ;)

[hot mural]

Steam workshop seems like an option??

@pliant oar yes on startup

[pliant oar]

anytime, do 24/7 monitoring, it's your IP, protect it

we try help but you can't expect us to solve all the problems of the digital economy world

[hot mural]

@pliant oar agree. noted. thanks.

[bronze anchor]

I just think it's way easier to filter what's put on the approved list

[pliant jolt]

My understanding is that because they own the company that means they inherit the IP

It doesn't explicitly say either way anywhere that I could find

[pliant oar]

@bronze anchor again impossible as there is unlimited amount of addons or missions allowing it and same goes for NOT allowing it

[paper prawn]

It sort of does... List of Zenimax trademarks in a Microsoft document from this year: https://assets.ctfassets.net/rporu91m20dc/7yAfa9otgVTFoJFvcyigmj/34b086699b7ac719f6a1e917540fa493/Zenimax_Trademarks_-_Effective_January_2024.pdf

[pliant jolt]

Oh cool

So yeah I guess it depends on the concept of ownership of the IP

The consensus seems to be that when this sort of thing normally happens, the accquiring company also owns the IP, but nothing officially states that

[paper prawn]

Given they own the trademarks still that would be debatable in this case. Only Zenimax or Microsoft can answer that question legally though

[pliant oar]

catch 22 neither blacklist or whitelist will work, unless you would ban monetizing for everything but default game state (no custom content)

[paper prawn]

Which takes us all the long interminable way back to the beginning of this channel's Fallout discussion where people were saying that Fallout was covered by Microsoft's EULA...

I would note that the Licensor in Fallout 4's current EULA on the Steam store is Bethesda and Zenimax

[bronze anchor]

Just put the burden of proof for permission on those applying for monetization

[pliant oar]

proof of what ? mods they didn't list when they entered the application process ?

[bronze anchor]

Well if they don't list it there isn't much you can do other than download their mods and look but that's tedious

[pliant oar]

also how the person doing the application process for server with 111 mods and 4000 scripts will verify all the true approval claims (rofl)

[bronze anchor]

In the post that PuFu pointed out they clearly stated they had permission for usage of RHS

When in reality they had no proof of that

I do see where you are coming at with a lot of mods and scripts

[pliant oar]

and it's PuFu or someone élse with conscience or knowledge with courage to report it

[bronze anchor]

I just think in blatant cases like this where the mod evolves around a framework they don't have permission to use and weapons they don't have permission to use

[pliant oar]

again you expect party X know everything, which they don't as that's humanly impossible ... for such reasons there exist so called 'report violation' ways

hint, if Google failed to sort violations on theirs services automatically in past 20 years, how you expect us solve it? (rofl)

[bronze anchor]

Obviously you can't know everything about every server that applies, I get where you are coming from

[pliant oar]

it's not just that, we can't know everything about all addons ...

you could build small blacklist of encoutered addons or whitelist of known allowed ones but that would not sort anything else

don't get me started about random updates, repacking or else

[bronze anchor]

Because I know what Tonic's framework looks like and that it's not allowed for monetization, I can easily pick out servers that violate it, which is where the report function comes in

[pliant oar]

within some game updates most of such db with addon signatures or hashes will be useless w/o constant updating it and validation aka waste of resources

[bronze anchor]

I understand that

[pliant oar]

so to cut it short, if you see someone violating the rules, report it ... it will be dealt with sooner or later (based on workload)

[vagrant stag]

But realisticly what will happen with project life?

[bronze anchor]

I just see it as you can only go off what they provide you for what addons they are using and in this case it is blatant they don't have permission

[pliant oar]

@jonas fill the report ;)

[bronze anchor]

They probably aren't stating 75% of the addons they are using and you can't know that without downloading the mods

[vagrant stag]

It was reported and evidence got sent to Legal Department ;)

[pliant oar]

then give it time ... there are many steps and legal timeframes for answers before you take actions

[vagrant stag]

What is the estimated time for cases to get handled?

[pliant oar]

then there are actions we can take outside the box :)

pats his deadly blacklist friend

aka gl monetizing anything w/o players

[vagrant stag]

Because like A3L they broke the rules, and again with Project Life and it is the same guy Caiden, i dont think he will stop of a blacklist, knowing he didnt stop after A3L and doing the same thing again

[pliant oar]

well ... will see, you can always report him for tax evasion and watch feds to have some fun

or just sue him for the 2 dollars damage per each item of yours , multiplied by downloads and visitors on his servers (rofl)

i'm pretty sure that final number will be more than the income

[vagrant stag]

I dont have any mods i have created yet but its the mods to other people in the community

and the fact that he charge money to get acces to the mods

[reef lily]

http://www.twitch.tv/a3plofficial

[gritty path]

is BIS willing to provide the details of offenders to content creators so that we can take that action?

[reef lily]

If anyone wants to obtain evidence with us

[pliant oar]

and that's the case where those who own the Ip must protect themself, like i said we can do something, we may try or already do but that don't mean the IP owners will do nothing

[hot mural]

@gritty path +1

[reef lily]

Check out their twitch stream where they will openly claim to still take money

[pliant oar]

@gritty path and how you come we know anything more than you do or can obtain ?

[gritty path]

because you have the approval process.

you have the opportunity to collect that data on the front end.

and it gives us, what we need to prosecute.

[pliant oar]

well if you the IP owner, write us legal request for such info , consult with lawyer or tell him to do so

you need to realize that collectign data, falls under certain laws and directives here

so handing it over isn't as simple either

but i'm sure if you have court order , it will be fine

[hot mural]

Court order from which country?

[gritty path]

i have an attorney. and he is IP/Patent in several countries, we've talked deeply about this. i've sent more than one letter already.

but, what you're saying is, if we do wish to actually 'defend' ourselves, we need to come to BIS at the legal level? a content creator can't simply provide proof of being himself and you in turn give the needed information?

[pliant oar]

w/e is legal

[gritty path]

because in most places..

a Name, address would generally be enough to get going.

see im really curious to know whether or not you guys are willing to give up that information. because to the best of my knowledge you guys could simply make it contractual that the information will be made public upon monetization approval.

[pliant oar]

again w/e is legal and right way may work , don't ask me ... not my call or problem to solve

[gritty path]

then we could defend ourselves without having 'track' pricks down. so who should i talk to? i'd be willing to have my guy call yours if needed. i think it's a legitimate and fair request/expectation.

[pliant oar]

[e-mail] you can always try to ask

[tulip meadow]

In case of ownership transfer of a company, the copyrights, trademarks etc usually remain with the legal entity it's signed under.

If I for example would own a company called "Murphy GmbH & Co KG" and would sell the company as a whole to an investor which has a multi-company-structure like Microsoft, any IP within my company would stay with "Murphy GmbH & Co KG".

Reasons being:

• All IP related contracts are under that name and would potentially need to be at least updated.
• Different companies have different IP rules. It is a legal nightmare to change IP rules unless it's going to a less restrictive one.
• If the IP would be transferred to the mother company, all the IP-related income would likely be going to the mother company as well, hence "falsifying" the yearly reports as it's less clear which investment directly the money is coming from.

Hence, unless a larger company is swallowing and dissolving a smaller company or deliberately buying IP rights, it's only very rarely transformed or adapted.

Once more, thank you to coming to my TAD||pole|| Talk.
Have a splendid day!

[echo orchid]

plesantly surprised:
*Hello Radu.

Thank you for the information. The monetization approval of the said community has been removed and I have asked them to remove all disputable mods.

Best regards.*
@pliant oar - did you put sticky notes on legal's doors? it took under 12h to have it down ;)

[pliant oar]

plays dumb rolling eyes pokerface

[echo orchid]

;)

[reef lily]

They are pretty good at this stuff :)

Too bad so many communities try to make money off of modder's content

[hot mural]

@pliant oar Yay! Great job!

[old mauve]

yeah so far out of the 3 servers i reported late last night, all 3 were taken off the list by BI this morning

Good job