ip_rights_violations

[queen raptor]

that makes sense

[gilded basin]

That ToU appears to be intended for graphical use (textures, models, clipart, scans, etc), not code. Is this just a generic example?

[midnight compass]

Read the whole reply again 😅

[gilded basin]

can I get a Cliff Notes version of that reply? 😛

[midnight compass]

No because people will read that and lack context, so coming from green name is better to not give summary of this

It would be a summary of a summary

[gilded basin]

Does that mean there's something more in-depth?

[midnight compass]

The link I provided is just showing an example of one of the many licenses or agreements that are passed to us and we must uphold

[midnight compass]

Yes

If you read the whole reply as a whole

Not skimming

It should be clear

[gilded basin]

Anyway to get a summary of the 3rd party license restrictions for community awareness? Feels like being a modder is like walking across a dog park without shoes.

[midnight compass]

Its the reason why we don't allow debin of assets

[gilded basin]

debin?

[faint nacelle]

Dont take data out of our game files.

Dont take data out of other games files

Make new original stuff is safest

[midnight compass]

This is why we don't allow people to reverse engineer binarized formats for assets

And we why we heavily enforce that on legal route too as infringement

Most modders don't even know that assets they buy in CGTrader and so also block this and forces them to make efforts to do it

Blocking it from our side already protects modders too

[gilded basin]

This will be asked, so might as well do it during active discussion: What about the Reforger 1.6 code on Bohemia's Github, and on their Doxygen...how can they be used?

[midnight compass]

It's the same as game data

Arma only

It's also covered by the reply

First sentence

[midnight compass]

!issuewarning 252510288530636803 Keep serious topics civil. If you have nothing to add then avoid cluttering the discussion and causing incendiary discussions.

[edgy coral]

Done.
dustybarz now has 2 infractions.

[gilded basin]

I will say this, it's disappointing and strange Bohemia is fending off AI like this (though I know they aren't against it, as Mario or Goat has said). Unreal and Unity are throwing AI as a selling point for their game engines (https://unrealai.studio and https://unity.com/features/ai). I'm not sure how their IP works, but as a modder it does concern me that Enfusion won't be as popular because of something like this. But thanks for elaborating, @midnight compass.

[midnight compass]

@mystic dragon It seems you missed the whole argument of the reply.

We can discuss in more detail on DMs tomorrow

It will be easier

[mystic dragon]

Hold on, can I say my piece or not? Turn off the slowdown and I’ll post it right away

[midnight compass]

You missed the point too 😅

We are not blocking AI

Nor are against it

Just certain usages we have to block due to restrictions

[gilded basin]

It really is hard to see through all legality in this, tbh.

[midnight compass]

Lets do on DMs because other people here will mix it with their own ideas

Then we can post here clarification on your case afterwards

I have to ask, are you using AI for these replies?. They seem too fast and missing the problem.

The problem is the derivation of content, through your tooling. Which is also subject of such problems.

[mystic dragon]

Dude, I spent the last 30 minutes putting together a reply and you won’t even let me fucking paste them without you yapping

[midnight compass]

I am just asking, you can tell me you prepared them.

It just seemed fast replies, so I wanted to know.

I want to know I am talking to you.

But I stated the problem, there is no argument for it.

Issue is on derivation and licensing.

The tool itself and what it represents is no issue

[gilded basin]

What is a legal way of using AI to work with Arma only, in regards to scripting?

[glossy depot]

There is none.

[midnight compass]

You can add this to your tool. Like how our tools do @mystic dragon

This on itself includes the clause for upholding licenses

Many other tools do too.

[glossy depot]

Unless maybe specifically from public documentation?

[midnight compass]

You are also subject to the licensing of any tool you use, let it be blender, substance painter, VSCode, etc

[gilded basin]

The mod in question uses Bohemia's Doxygen and Bohemia's GitHub.

[midnight compass]

That is not open source public use

It has restrictions

https://github.com/BohemiaInteractive/Arma-Reforger-Script-Diff

Its on APL

[gilded basin]

I see what you're saying, but it's awkward like getting a beer brewery tour and then being told you can't drink beer there. Bohemia should re-evaluate their stance on this, Unity and Unreal are going full speed with it and I get tired of their free training courses cluttering my feed...now they'll have AI with it all :/

[midnight compass]

Meaning you can only use it to generate content for Arma

which blocks using it to create tools based from it, that are not arma suite itself

[mystic dragon]

The most obvious problem here is you have no idea what an MCP server is or what it does.

The MCP (Model Context Protocol server) is a passive documentation layer. It provides structured access to public Enfusion/Reforger API docs for LLM context. It does NOT ingest mods, repositories, or third-party assets, does NOT process or validate outputs, and does NOT control downstream model behavior or user prompts. It is not a sandbox, enforcement layer, or execution environment.

Because of that, attributing “ongoing IP/EULA violations” to the MCP conflates separate layers: documentation retrieval, model inference, and user input. The MCP has no control over how an LLM interprets context or what a user supplies, which is identical to any general-purpose dev tool (IDEs, compilers, docs).

The argument also merges distinct categories like API documentation, third-party licensed assets (e.g. Textures.com), and community mods into one compliance surface. The MCP only interacts with public API documentation, not asset or mod content subject to AI or redistribution restrictions.

Within Bohemia’s ecosystem, license enforcement is not centrally handled at the tooling layer; it remains with content authors and distribution. Expecting a documentation tool to enforce downstream license propagation assigns responsibility that does not exist in the platform model and is not technically implementable at the MCP layer.

Finally, “enables violations” is overly broad. The MCP does not retrieve or analyze mods or restricted materials. Any misuse requires external, user-provided input, outside its design boundary. By that logic, all dev tools could be framed the same way, which is not a workable standard.

To be explicit: end-user behavior cannot be controlled, but that is not the MCP’s role. Its purpose is documentation-assisted mod development. If the concern is broader AI policy, that is separate; if there are specific technical constraints needed, I’m open to implementing them.

[midnight compass]

The reply addresses two problems.

Yours and what others raised

[mystic dragon]

No chance in hell you read that entire message in 15 seconds

[midnight compass]

The problem on yours is mainly this #ip_rights_violations message

Your repo is gone so I can't tell what else you added there

That is why it is locked

For investigation

[mystic dragon]

Okay so you’re just gonna not read what I say and then go on repeating the same broken points over and over again. Well how about this: I’m still going to distribute the tool, and you can sue me about it. I have offered to provide the repo several times to different Bohemia employees and have been declined each time.

[nimble gyro]

For context, it was reposted by Steffen when the account stuff popped up: https://github.com/steffenbk/enfusion-mcp-BK

[midnight compass]

Send it to me, not every BI dev is relevant.

[mystic dragon]

Sent

[novel goblet]

Maybe I am out of the loop, but I thought the tool was local only. But this sends (distributes) the material to Anthropic does it not? At least in suggested usage.

[mystic dragon]

It is dependent on the end users privacy settings, not something I can control. You can use it with any LLM you’d like, even local ones.

[midnight compass]

Yes, this is the kind of things I wanted to see

If that happens here, it's big issue

But it depends on what and how it does it

[nimble gyro]

Wouldn't these cloud hosted LLMs all be scraping this data from your public facing websites to begin with? I can make a command on any large LLM and gather any of this information minus the MCP.

[mystic dragon]

Dude you are passing judgement onto a tool when you fundamentally do not understand what it is, what it does, and how it works. Please look at the files and figure it out.

[novel goblet]

Well I think BI stance is that only local ones has any chance at all of satisfying their distribution and use limitations

So the suggested usage has a non zero chance of sending their IP to anthropic or others

[midnight compass]

Calm down. Your tool is not banned. The thread was only locked.

We lock threads when we need to investigate. Or confirm things.

In any case if there is some problem, we will just try to tell you how to solve it. Not throw the whole thing away.

Same as we do with mods and other tools before

[mystic dragon]

Well I DM’d you the files, and posted them above. Feel free to view at your leisure, I will reupload the repo, and appreciate your time.

Thank you, have a good day

[midnight compass]

I understand the frustration, there is no ill intention here.

It just got reported in mass, some things might be true, some might not. It needs investigation. That's it.

[mystic dragon]

Well it feels like you’re being arrogant and it’s only made worse by your refusal to even read my message which explains what it is, what it does, and how it works. That’s all I gotta say, and I’m done here

[midnight compass]

I did read your message, but I can't tell you anything unless I we see what the tool is actually doing and confirm.

As I said before

the tool itself and what it represents is not the issue

[mystic dragon]

If you read the message, you would understand that your investigation could already be finished, because it is that simple of a tool. All it does is provide an LLM with 3 things:

Reforger API via doxygen

Enfusion API via doxygen

Biki tutorials on scripting for it to reference

Everything else is just scaffolding and I have no control over anything the end user does with it, which is no more or no less than if they just actually read those publicly available resources themselves

[midnight compass]

If this is fed to claude in any form

It's a problem

But it depends how

[mystic dragon]

That’s on the end users privacy settings, I can’t control if they allow any LLM to be trained on their usage or not

If they do allow it, it is still not feeding the LLM proprietary information, just the same exact things anyone could find by looking at the doxygens or launching Enfusion workbench. There is no reverse engineering, no hidden scripts, no fancy mod stealers

[midnight compass]

That information is propietary

That is where the problem stems from

[novel goblet]

Well BI stance is that it is proprietary license information.

You are right that it can technically not send it to remote LLMs. But sure looks like the default "getting started" instructions does just that.

[midnight compass]

And if this tools acts as direct bridge to facilitate that to be fed to Claude, ChatGPT, etc, which it seems. Then it is a problem.

[mystic dragon]

Well I have bad news for you, you’re already hosting your valuable proprietary information on a publicly available website which your company encourages people to view

https://community.bistudio.com/wikidata/external-data/arma-reforger/ArmaReforgerScriptAPIPublic/

[midnight compass]

You are missing the point, I repeated this part multiple times already.

For that specifically too.

[mystic dragon]

And maybe you missed my point; I’m still gonna publish the tool and you can sue me about it.

I’m legitimately done with this conversation, goodbye

[midnight compass]

Something being hosted publicly does not grant rights to use that as you will

All that is asked for you, if you do provide this bridge is to just add the disclaimer for this to users

That is it

Then it's user's responsability and their own problem if they use it for the problematic aspect.

[mystic dragon]

Jesus Christ do you get paid to make things more difficult than they need to be for a living? Why not just start with that???

[midnight compass]

And your tool would be left alone, unless it actively feeds that automatically

[mystic dragon]

Actively feeds what automatically? Dude who is your boss, Ivan? I need to speak to someone with authority who isn’t you. Call me Karen but you legitimately are not the right person to make this call for Bohemia

[pliant oar]

your tone and using names of real employees isn't appropriate

[midnight compass]

I started explaining the issue

The solution depends on what your tool actually does

[mystic dragon]

My apologies, but I sincerely would like to talk about this with someone I feel confident is able to coherently answer it

[midnight compass]

If after what you have explained about what your tool is doing, if that is fully true then this is the easiest solution to it #ip_rights_violations message

[mystic dragon]

I have tried explaining what the “tool does” to you 15 ways from Sunday my man. I don’t know what else to tell you. You keep giving me conflicting answers and making this incredibly confusing for me to process

[pliant oar]

ugh, that url link isn't opening for me mario , what is this ... Discord !!!! ?? {goes to find hammer to hit the machine to start work}

[midnight compass]

It points to this

[novel goblet]

Isn't this the necessary disclaimer? #ip_rights_violations message

[midnight compass]

It depends what is in his suite

[mystic dragon]

Yes, I have no problem adding it. Done deal. So it’s a closed case, up until it suddenly isn’t again like just now

[midnight compass]

If what is in there is just what he says, then just the disclaimer for feeding into LLMs

If it does more, like how it was reported then also the content disclaimer

[mystic dragon]

This keeps repeating and I am pretty sure you still haven’t read my original message explaining what an MCP is and what it does and how it works, despite your claims that you have numerous times

[midnight compass]

The issue is that your main repository is gone and we can't corroborate what people reported right away

Some reported just MCP, other reported more robust tool to go into mods and so

[mystic dragon]

For legitimately the 6th time now, here is the repo. Several other people have have linked to forks from my actual GitHub repo.

[midnight compass]

Yeah I am aware

This won't be checked in a second

Only your thread is locked, nothing big has happened.

Your tool is not in an inmediate risk, nor you

[mystic dragon]

This message says more about the point I’m trying to make than I ever could with a million words. I honestly gotta leave this conversation because I can’t tell if I’m legitimately going nuts or if this conversation is nuts.

[midnight compass]

If anything, if something is problematic and can be good to somehow open for modding i will take it into account for the EULA changes

[mystic dragon]

Are you messing with me? Like if you’re sitting in your office laughing cause I’m falling for this that would be hilarious

[pliant oar]

one key word, 'bureaucracy' ... it drives mad everyone except the clerk and politicians 😁

[midnight compass]

Also you are talking to the person for this, that is why I am trying to help with it

[nimble gyro]

https://github.com/Rendszerguru/ArmaPAK-TC/releases/latest I think is where these claims came from in terms of PAKs and stuff which was openly distributed in your thread,.

[mystic dragon]

I have no idea what that tool is, what it does, who made it, and I have zero connection to it. I cannot delete or moderate what people post in this discord even if I really wanted to

[nimble gyro]

Just providing context is all, there was a few conversations about .pak unpacking and etc. So I assume some red flags went up.

[midnight compass]

I have only tried to give you information, please calm down.

We are not attacking you, your tool or so

Just trying to give some direction to keep it afloat if what was reported is true

Or to see what intention is, and if intention is good then we can also make changes on our licenses

Or provide tools for it to help community make such things

Try to see my messages on the trying to help light, rather than trying to block light

It is meant with the first

[mystic dragon]

I feel you man. The tool is one that is intended to help new modders learn the Enfusion engine and Reforger modding. It has no ill intentions, and does not ship with anything inherently malicious, but I cannot control if someone uses it in a malicious way. Thank you and I appreciate your time

[hallow glen]

when on the topic of threads, how about unblocking the crawler thread?

[midnight compass]

Is it still blocked?

I am sorry

I will unblock it

Opened

[midnight compass]

As Dwarden said, there are some publishing, legal and bureaucracy blocks

Some times they are just there from past old decisions and affect modding.

We had an instance with the script diffs for example

Before we distributed them ourselves. A modder tried to be nice and do it for community

and he was landed with C&D

Which was completely unfair, but it was due to licensing of the scripts

Now they are released with APL and that is out there.

[gilded basin]

idk what that thread is but I'm happy frog for you and happy frog for @mystic dragon. This was very informative tbh

[midnight compass]

Some things have to just be enforced, and if bad for community then we can change things. But it is a pain for us too

[mystic dragon]

Change is not always easy or simple, and one thing for certain is the future never stops coming at you. Improvise, adapt, and overcome brother. I legitimately hope that researching the MCP will let you all see what you’ve been missing on the AI train

[midnight compass]

Ideally for us we would want to have everything open, but reality is different and complicated.

[midnight compass]

Just deal with these situations more calmly, okay?.
We saw the unsavory message 😅. But we understand the frustation so we let it slip by. (The one that got you timed out)

[mystic dragon]

Let’s end this conversation here until you have finished the investigation. Thanks and goodbye!

[amber ibex]

not 100% correct @autumn glacier
if you got the content for license F
then license F will still be applied until you upgrade

not the live license counts, but the license you got the content with

[autumn glacier]

@amber ibex this only count if you was use a license before as far as i know. If you wasn't use a license in front. You can easly apply a license without any Problems.

[amber ibex]

no lincese => youre not allowed to use it in general

simply because it is practicly not your content

thus youre running in danger mode all the time in theory 😃

[autumn glacier]

intellectual property did i need more to say?

[azure galleon]

Hey there Mario! I want to weigh in on this for a second. This conversation should NOT be held in DM's for the sake of transparency and community feedback. We all know AI is the future and with some LLM's being open source (OpenClaw), it should be discussed openly. I come into this discord and see stuff like message I am replying to and I will be honest, from a Public Relations standpoint, it is well and truly awful that we can't have civil discussions here in the discord.

Thanks for your time!

[amber ibex]

still, in the end it means: you got content without license? well ... it will remain without license forever
unless you get an updated version with a new license

[autumn glacier]

If he is the creator and was not apply a license in front. The Content still stay as intellectual property as long as he can proof that he is the creator. So he can apply a license and take down his old stuff if he want to do so.

[amber ibex]

thats what i said

as no license is also a license 😃

and youre not allowed to change the license backwards unless you explicitly say so in the license itself

and even then youre not allowed to do everything with the changes

[tiny stratus]

Your stuff is already scrapped if it's on the internet, I do not know if you track bots scrapping data but it's been relevant for more then a decade. it shows that you have no knowledge on how scrapping or anything in the modern age of Bots/LLMs etc work.

I wish you luck trying to sue anyone scrapping or using your API in the methods that Stoogie is even if someone uses outside ur EULA you will NOT win that in any court of law in the US atleast.

This conversation is embarassing for Bohemia and they really should get their staff to hold their tongues because this type of stuff is legally damning in court, like the lack of knowledge on the topic being discussed by Bohemia Staff is actually mind boggling

[wicked spoke]

As someone who is familiar with such law in the US, I disagree with you, and saying its embarrassing for BI is insulting, IMO.

[tiny stratus]

We can agree to disagree

[azure galleon]

There is a disconnect here.

Im not a schill, just let me explain.

We, on the end user side, feel frustrated that we cant use these tools in its current state. I get it. I understand.

From a business perspective, they no longer have control of their tools if the property (the games code, Enforce Script, etc), which is locked behind a paywall, is given to LLM's that can reproduce their proprietary assets or software. They want their money. That's all. It stands to reason that competitors can steal their stuff without paying.

Based on all the talk and feedback the MCP has generated, I would assume that they are updating their EULA to catch up with technology but in a way that serves both the end user, and the business model. Such that they can protect THEIR assets, but allow for AI to help us expedite OUR modding within the Enfusion engine without it unpacking their files and possibly unknowingly distributing their assets without pay.

https://tenor.com/view/money-is-a-very-strong-motive-charles-haden-savage-steve-martin-only-murders-in-the-building-s209-gif-26546510

[tiny stratus]

I can't get into Enforce because of the layers of getting into it. I code in SQF all day long, but enforce being locked into the tooling owned by bohemia so any product you make in the tools is owned by Bohemia (My knowledge might be old BUT this is what I know over although that was year+ ago maybe 2) I can't get behind that. The problem is suing the user and not anthropic is what I have a problem with, most users who use AI have no knowledge of the scrapping technics and such that companies like OpenAI use. It's hella murky water and I'm definitely yapping a bit.

[sudden girder]

I don't think it's ever been so that anything you made was "owned" by BI.

[tiny stratus]

I heard that a while back not sure if its true, hints why i added the ()

[midnight compass]

Its never been true

We made a post a while ago to explain that

People confused the game eula with tools eula

There is a clause on game eula targeting content creators (like streamers) saying that we can use content

[tiny stratus]

ok thanks 👍 i appericate that and the immediate answer is good 😄

[midnight compass]

So that we can use their content for some editorial purpose, a showcase., presentstion, etc

Modders 100% own their creations and we will never take ownership of it.

[midnight compass]

https://reforger.armaplatform.com/news/eula-faq

[azure galleon]

You'd have to chellenge in US and Czech courts I believe?

[wicked spoke]

Do you understand how subject-matter jurisdiction all works in this area of law? Or just guessing?

[azure galleon]

It was purely a guess. If I am wrong, then I am wrong and hopefully I can learn something. (genuinely. I like learning about this stuff)

[wicked spoke]

There is way more complexity, especially relating to treaties governing IP law in international trade/commerce.

[azure galleon]

Roger that. Well I'll definitely read into it! Dm me references!

[wicked spoke]

Law school would be a good place to start

[gilded basin]

There's going to be a lot more AI use in the future, Bohemia needs to re-evaluate their agreements when it comes to modding. Other engines like Unity and Unreal literally have AI built in them now to assist with coding. Whether or not that's good practice is irrelevant, they're game engines that are very popular and if Bohemia wants to compete they must adapt.

[worn thicket]

the problem with AI tools is they're only as good as the person using them - providing AI to a modding space where people are unlikely to have any experience with coding is how you get dysfunctional slop

a very identical argument can be made with unreal/unity - people with little to no experience use it because it is easy to access, but due to that lack of experience they create content that is subpar and gives the engines a bad reputation

[frigid heart]

Thats a completely unrelated message you are replying to, its about who owns what you make with the tools

Your feelings regarding AI usage are unfortunately not relevant to agreements we have with other services that we have to follow and enforce
regurgitating that we have to adapt and that other parties are doing something differently won't and can't change that

as mario said

We are not blocking AI
Nor are against it
Just certain usages we have to block due to restrictions

If this is not one of those cases/usages I'm sure it will get resolved

[gilded basin]

The message was responding to is in regards to the tools EULA in general that can be modified like Mario said, not the context of the current discussion. I'm also saying this is not the last AI-related thing Bohemia will have to deal with after Arma4 is released

[gilded basin]

Those engines also make bank for the companies, they are a business. They prepared for AI stuff well in advance in their products and legal.

[worn thicket]

Not denying that, it is true, though that does not make it any less of a problem for the end user, ai is a great tool when used correctly. Correctly being the keyword and unfortunately not always true

[faint nacelle]

maybe one thing to note is that both those engines are developed as engines to be licensed out

the engine itself is the business

as to what people do with Arma is mod a game

not develop their own game on an engine

[gilded basin]

what about DayZ and PUBG 🙂

[frigid heart]

mod a game

[worn thicket]

the arma 2 "dayz" is technically a "total conversion mod", still not a game 😄

[faint nacelle]

so while there may be parallels between modding and game development, they are different things

[faint nacelle]

DayZ standalone is BI product as well

started as a mod for Arma2

but still a mod

[gilded basin]

Yes I know, not many ppl realize where PUBG and DayZ actually came from 😄

[faint nacelle]

PUGB started as a mod and then was made standalone game on different engine

but still they were mods, built on top of the game

which is why comparing engines like Unreal and Unity and making new games with them and their business model as engine developers and modding Arma is not entirely accurate

is what I was trying to point out

[midnight compass]

Unreal Engine also blocks it's source and technology to be trained on AI. See 6.e https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal

e. General Restrictions
You must ensure that your activities with the Licensed Technology do not:
result in using the Licensed Technology as a training input to any Generative AI Program or as prompt-based input where the Generative AI Program trains on input data. “Generative AI Program” means artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, neural networks, or similar technologies designed to automate the generation of or aid in the creation of new content, including but not limited to audio, visual, or text-based content; or
use, or permit others to use, MetaHuman digital characters and animation curves (or any rendered output thereof if crafted to replicate the functionality of MetaHuman) to build or enhance any database or training or testing any artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, neural networks, or similar technologies.

[gilded basin]

Yes, but they also allow AI things like this: https://unrealai.studio/

[midnight compass]

This is not from Epic

[gilded basin]

Yes, it's a 3rd party they allow. Epic has their own: https://dev.epicgames.com/community/assistant/unreal-engine

[midnight compass]

Epic can have it's own

[gaunt stirrup]

This ideology of “the future is now old man” and demanding people and companies just get with the program and give AI tools a blanket access all areas is a tiring rhetoric.

The logic would sound ridiculous in other contexts so why it’s spurted out again and again is beyond me.

There seems to be a web of legal issues that most people without training can’t comprehend (myself included) when it comes to the engine and the games content, this needs way more time to unravel and won’t be answered in a heartbeat.

While I agree that in the right scenario LLMs can be a good tool when used correctly, it really is the kind of thing that needs to be carefully used and implemented

[midnight compass]

But they block on their license 3rd party

The company itself is not subject to their own EULA.

EPIC is not blocking using AI with their Engine.

they are blocking people training AI with their engine licensed technology

It's the same deal with us

[gilded basin]

Yes, that's why I said they allow things like UnrealAI Studio

[midnight compass]

UnrealAI seems to be a breach

I do not see where they say they allowed it. or endorse it

It's just a tool created that is still out there

[gilded basin]

That is something their legal team deals with 😉

[midnight compass]

Even the tool itself on the footer says it is not affiliated or endorsed by Unity and Epic

https://unrealai.studio/

[gilded basin]

Neither of us are privy to their agreements or internals, so I don't see the point in going on about what we think about it

[midnight compass]

My point exactly

There is no information that it is allowed

Nor even a slight mention on UE website

It;s just tool out there existing that according to UE EULA it is breaching it

It's existence has no pointer to it being allowed

[gaunt stirrup]

When you say they allow it, is there a list you are referring to? Or some kind of official statement?

My point is that just because something exists doesn’t mean that its existence is permitted. Technically speaking it may have just not got through to unreal legal dept yet.

I’d say it’s akin to rips on reforgers workshop, just because they are there currently. Does not mean that they don’t break the Eula.

Again, I can’t speak for if they are or are not operating within the confines of the Eula exactly but saying a definitive as an example should be backed up with evidence.

[gilded basin]

No, generally. I'm pretty sure the legal departments for Unreal and Unity would have caught onto it a long time ago and filed a C&D if it was problematic.

[midnight compass]

Searching for UnrealAI on google only landed me 2 hits

it could just not be caught yet

But again, what Kenny and I mention should be how you see things.

Just because something exists, it does not mean it is not in breach

[gilded basin]

We're going in circles, so I'll say it one last time: Unreal and Unity have actual lawyers that take care of such things and know more than we do publicly.

[midnight compass]

Unity has also this blocked by default

https://unity.com/legal/editor-source-code-terms

2.2. Customer may not use Unity Source Code, directly or indirectly, for any purpose related to creating, training, or improving (a) any competing game engine, SDK, API, AI model, or development toolkit; (b) features or functionalities that replicate the capabilities of Unity software or services; or (c) any derivative works developed for other game engines, tools, or services without Unity's prior written permission.

[gilded basin]

I mean, there's a lot out there for Unreal AI: https://ludusengine.com https://www.tryaura.dev/ https://nwiro.ai/

Unity as well, including an AI MCP 😉 https://www.bezi.com https://github.com/CoplayDev/unity-mcp https://aichief.com/ai-development-tools/unity-ai/

[frigid heart]

Something existing != it being allowed

Everything you said is an assumption

Unreal and Unity have actual lawyers that take care of such things
So do Activision etc and model marketplaces are flooded with Call of Duty models ripped from the game
you can't enforce something you are unaware off, and with the rate of AI tools popping up its impossible to keep track of them all

that's why I said they allow things like UnrealAI Studio
complete assumption

[faint nacelle]

Im guessing there isnt anything more to say on this topic. So we can move back to channels actual purpose.

[azure galleon]

We've been running into issues here with IP and AI. Might be a good idea to create an AI discussion area/chat to address specifically these issues and how they relate to modding.

[spare quartz]

Actually a containment channel for a.i. stuff is a good Idea

[azure galleon]

Just cleans up the chat and puts that conversation in a designated place. That way this stays true to the channel name

[queen lodge]

You are being confused by semantics. None of those tools are "trained" on Unreal/Unity code.
They are just interfaces to some existing trained model like Claude or ChatGPT, but use vector embeddings/RAG or other tools to integrate search of docs to give you better answers.

[devout umbra]

Sounds familiar

[iron flame]

Alright cheers @autumn glacier @amber ibex

[thorn tartan]

what would the stance be if I was to add concrete walls to my game that featured graffiti on them that might contain copyrighted art work? (as in art work that might be from the Predator films or a movie)

my inspiration is that British apache teams would draw and graffiti on walls around the helicopters of there squadrons etc and do some kind of funny art work.

see examples below:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1032721278072782940/1491941236515274802/image.png?ex=69d9860d&is=69d8348d&hm=8f39c8106fa78abafdadffd06f4affb67beeffbba5fe274b831878d91d937348&

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1032721278072782940/1491941505244598362/image.png?ex=69d9864d&is=69d834cd&hm=74c509e9926739d5303c9275f479d21063c5c679d67f8fa941361b782ac7d9e6&

my question is would it be ok to add something like this even if as you can see some of the art work features art from movies etc that obvs are copyrighted.

[faint nacelle]

dont take any pictures off the interweb that you dont have rights to

[thorn tartan]

thats fair, but what if they were hand drawn and added?

[golden bay]

If you own the rights to them you can include them, otherwise don't

[thorn tartan]

well obviously I dont own the rights to Despicable me or Predator. But if an artist made art work that lets say featured stuff like that but worked with my mod would that be ok?

[faint nacelle]

well safe play would be no

if you got someone drawing for you, get something original isntead

[thorn tartan]

Okey dokey, was just curious is all to see how it might be seen under ip rights as its like "in game private use" kinda how like they used it on that military base in the images but then i guess adding it in game falls under it being published publicly

[faint nacelle]

game is not really private use

its private if its stays on your computer

[thorn tartan]

yeah sending it and re-reading it I realised

[devout umbra]

No one is enforcing IP rights against a T-Wall in Iraq or Afghanistan. Different rules here. Plenty of ideas to work off of that avoids all of that, pretty sure there is still a website on it with a lot of them cataloged. Would be super cool to have ingame

[limpid veldt]

just create new lore for the game

[wicked spoke]

To give an example of what we've done with our dev studio... We released the Toyota Hilix inspired vehicle. But its called Coyota Offroad, which actually is part of Arma lore and what the vehicle was called going back to Arma1 and Arma2 when it was an official asset too.

[mystic dragon]

Still eagerly anticipating the results of the "investigation" into EnfusionMCP, thank you

[knotty ember]

Hello everyone, is it normal for someone to make a map and not allow it to be used publicly, and to whitelist it and block its IP address? Please explain that for now, the map will not be made publicly available and can only be played on his server??

[novel goblet]

• normal for someone to make a map and not allow it to be used publicly: Normal as in statistically? Then no, I don't believe so.
• whitelist it and block its IP address: Its? IP of a map???? Do you mean a server?

Unless you are bound by some other licensing constraint from stuff you use, you are allowed to do that. Some of the data packs are under APL-SA I believe which may prevent you from doing that practice.

[coral torrent]

Our licenses do not contain any such clauses. If someone has downstream restrictions it must be a custom license.

You can say what ever you want in your license, but if you are able to enforce it is questionable. For detail see: https://reforger.armaplatform.com/news/workshop-licenses-and-ip-faq

[celest shard]

ya'll still losers

[echo orchid]

!mute 1117830333891612682 3d - spam and offtopic in #ip_rights_violations . Read the #rules

[edgy coral]

Silence!! ò_ó
...
I keel u, @celest shard!! Ò_Ó
skippy2952 now has 4 infractions.

[steep helm]

<@&105621371547045888>

[vernal cedar]

Its on APL
Meaning you can only use it to generate content for Arma
which blocks using it to create tools based from it, that are not arma suite itself

This seems like a new thing.
If I am missunderstanding, can you clarify that statement?

Reworded:
APL licensed content can only be used to create content for Arma, but not for tools that help in creating content for Arma, because the tool "is" not the arma suite itself.

So if I use these scripts, to build the neural pathways in my own brain. So I can use my brain as a tool for creating Arma content. That is now also illegal?

Also where in the APL license does it state as such?

Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:
produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for NonCommercial and ArmaOnly purposes only.

A tool, built based on the material. Should count as "Adapted Material" does it not? And the license specifically allows doing that.

By this "rule", all the community made "syntax highlighting" tools would also now be illegal?
SQF Syntax Highlighting in Notepad++, Visual Studio Code.
Enforce Script highlighting in Visual Studio Code.
Linting tools.
They are built based on existing script code too.

[vernal cedar]

But, It does
https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Meta:General_disclaimer

You may integrate content from this site in whole or in part into works you create or derive, as long as your content and any derived or included works remain licensed non-commercial.

You grant to all other licensed users of this site a license to:
make, use, copy, modify, create derivative works of such material solely for non-commercial entertainment use only,
Or does that not mean what it says?

[faint nacelle]

something hosted publicly does not automatically grant rights, a license attached to publicly hosted material can do so

[vernal cedar]

But that statement implies that rights are not granted and it was about content on that site, the site that says that you have the rights.
This seems unclear now. Is the documentation allowed to be used or not?

[novel goblet]

The second sentence makes it even more confusing, implying you can't really make something with it for others:

Your usage of any content stored, distributed, documented, or referenced through this site may only be for your personal, non-commercial entertainment use only.

[vernal cedar]

With that, how does

You may integrate content from this site in whole or in part into works you create or derive, as long as your content and any derived or included works remain licensed non-commercial.
Make any sense.
That you can create a work and have to license it, but if its only for personal use, you couldn't make it available and license it?

The "hemtt" project on GitHub has parsed the entire SQF wiki and created yaml files on GitHub
https://github.com/hemtt/wiki/tree/dist

That definitely is not personal use, and there is also no license on it that forbids commercial use.
But surely that is a good and useful project that should be encouraged? Just like the AI MCP?

I am worried with the statements made in here that useful projects like this could get struck down, to the detriment of the community.

[nimble gyro]

In the defensive Bohemia, they’ve simply requested that the clause added to the MCP, which states that’ll only be used for Arma specific actions. At least from the context that was provided above.

[unique fiber]

To be fair they also release COMREFs like these #community_wiki message periodically which contain the entire wiki. I really haven't read enough of all the MCP discussion in here to have an informed position on whether it should/shouldn't be allowed or is/isn't. My only real understanding is that Arma 3 and Reforger have always been vastly different. From my understanding (which could be wrong) Reforger has stressed much more strictly modern conflicts can't be depicted. Where as in Arma 3 (not sure if due to lack of enforcement, different policies, workshops, etc) it doesn't seem to be discussed nearly as much.

So I guess to me I feel like HEMTT doesn't seem like a great comparison but maybe I'm mistaken. Either way HEMTT is a gem and I spent a stupid amount of time introducing it into our repo so I sure hope nothing here jeopardizes it as a project 🥲

[nimble gyro]

The licenses are mostly the same for both games; the enforcement differs most likely due to the fact more litigation risk now lies on Bohemia running their own Workshop. They don’t have Steam as the intermediary, but at the same time; they have the ability to remove any mod from their workshop on steam at will.

So enforcement is the most likely answer, as Arma 3 and Arma Reforger is like comparing the Wild West and the Information Age.

If XYZ party uploads infringing content on the workshop, the legal entity that owns said content will then DMCA Bohemia and most likely threaten litigation as they are the one hosting the “copyright infringement”.

Bohemia now has less buffer to navigate as they aren’t dealing with Steam as an intermediary.

[plush slate]

Is Metro IP banned?

[faint nacelle]

One would need to seek IP use permission from the IP owner.

[regal scroll]

If a mod is dependent on an APL-SA mod, and it is APL-ND itself, does that override it to also being APL-SA?

[faint nacelle]

The adapted material stays APL-SA, but other non related material can be licensed differently. Mod content can have multiple licensing, but it would need to be clearly listed.

Just slapping on APL-ND is not correct.

[regal scroll]

Lets say hypothetically, someone is using spaccore, which is APL-SA and their mod is APL-ND. I can have my way with it, as long as I publish as APL-SA as well?

[faint nacelle]

Preferably the author would have to specify if something is actually original work covered by APL-ND and not APL-SA

its not cool to exploit mod author being dumdum with licensing

[glossy depot]

If someone is using SpaceCore and their mod is ND, anything that they alter from SpaceCore is still SA, the stuff that is original to the ND mod is still ND, if I'm understanding it correctly.

[regal scroll]

I'm not sure anyone really understands it. Im going to try getting AI to summarize it

[faint nacelle]

AI wont understand it either...

[glossy depot]

You can't use the entire mod that is ND as though it is SA.

[flint geyser]

Completely new stuff - your license
Modified SA stuff - SA license

[regal scroll]

[faint nacelle]

might be easier to skip the idea too

[flint geyser]

My Tank is SA. You make mod on top of Tank. You make Tank 2 - Tank 2 is SA. You put Plane in mod. Plane can be ND. But Tank 2 must remain SA.

[faint nacelle]

👆

[regal scroll]

but spacecore is... not a tank its bits and pieces of tanks...

[flint geyser]

bro 😭

[faint nacelle]

provided examples are just examples

not the whole deal

especially since you have not defined the real usecase

[glossy depot]

Anything built in SpaceCore is required to be SA. Regardless

[regal scroll]

I know its ammos and warheads and maybe a script for tracked vehicles or something, so thats all that would be APL-SA on the derivative work - wait anything, as in everything?

[flint geyser]

It is APL-SA, not APL-SA-SCRIPT-WARHEADS-AMMOS-ONLY, you might be extremely overthinking it

[glossy depot]

Anything that originally resides in a SA mod that is built up is SA as well.

[faint nacelle]

SPACECORE is all APL-SA

[regal scroll]

there is a tank that is APL-ND running on space core, I would like to tweak as much as I am allowed to tweak, legally of course.

[regal scroll]

I thought thats what yall were telling me. only parts that are APL-SA from the APL-SA original mod are free game, but not new content or idk, things used from RHS as another one its dependencies.

[glossy depot]

If that tank uses something that resides in SpaceCore then it is SA, regardless of the mod license as far as I understand at least. Because you can't make the license of that thing more restrictive because it's built up a SA mod.

[regal scroll]

perfect, thats how I interpreted the license, briefly skimming it and hoping for the best.

[regal scroll]

When that poll for modders came up last week I was asking about people I wasnt familiar with on their and when I asked about you, people told me that you answer stupid questions all day, the same questions, and you deservere compensation for that and now I understand.

[faint nacelle]

If there is a mod with poorly set up licensing Id like to get in contact with the author. Can you DM me the mod ID?

[regal scroll]

yes

[faint nacelle]

about 1/5 of mods on workshop use Zeliks mods as base too. Hes on the list for many reasons.

[glossy depot]

My original understanding was if you use an SA mod as a dependency you're required to release the mods as SA but, being the fact that we can license individual portions of our mod under different licenses, I don't think that's necessarily the case.

[faint nacelle]

correct

but that would have to be listed

[regal scroll]

I see zelik's name a lot and I have it familiarized with clothing and my time serving in Nam, probably wearing one his asian faces. I didn't really know how big he was in the community.

[glossy depot]

The question for me would be, do you release the mod as SA and then list the restricted portions or release as ND and have a disclaimer that the stuff from the SA mod is restriction free?

[faint nacelle]

Custom license might be in order

[glossy depot]

So my understanding is that Boblo is free to use said tank and alter it as it's actually SA as opposed to the author of said mod thinking it's ND?

[faint nacelle]

Mod authors intent matters. Right now it is unclear if there is something that can be ND licensed

[glossy depot]

If the "tank" uses a component from the SA mod isn't it SA regardless of author intent?

[faint nacelle]

that component is yes

[glossy depot]

But the tank is built upon it, is it not? Meaning it wouldn't function as whatever it's supposed to be without it

[keen obsidian]

question for that would be if APL-SA just deletes downstream restrictions on publication, or if it's a breach of license to try to APL-ND it without specifying non-downstream-restricted parts of the work (which would make it a "tainted work" how I see it, so noone can do anything until it's rectified)

[glossy depot]

From what I understand, SA prohibits downstream restrictions, meaning either A) the ND mod is breaking the license or B) the "tank" using the SA stuff is SA regardless of the intent of the mod creator. His mesh etc, would still be ND but the prefab wouldn't. And again, using someone's mesh and textures would still be protected. Meaning you just can't alter his mesh or textures. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. But the entire point of the SA license is to keep people from altering it and releasing it with another license.

[faint nacelle]

However the mod also uses parts from mods that cant be licensed APL-SA

so the whole mod can not be APL-SA

[glossy depot]

I do know that there is still a huge misunderstanding as to what the licenses actually protect from. I'd say Ark has explained in really well in this very channel though.

[faint nacelle]

true as well. For more control custom licensing is the way to go

[flint geyser]

Is APL still the default license in publish process?

[faint nacelle]

I believe so

[flint geyser]

idk if having the most permissive as default is a good idea

[echo orchid]

it is not

[fluid elbow]

Easiest is to make your own and at least you add dont fckn touch this

[ruby swallow]

This is very subjective though and a matter of whether you want to promote openness or closeness.

[honest blaze]

promoting OPENness in IP right violations? Thatll be a ban sir

[ruby swallow]

Way to take something out of context

[flint geyser]

You are welcome to think in such black and white terms if you want, but I would think something like a selection box with a brief explanation on what they are and links without pre-selecting a default license would work

[ruby swallow]

Agreed, that would be a possible compromise.

[thorn garden]

especially given the stipulation that you can't revoke those permissions even if you delete the mod and re-upload under a different license. at least add some notice indicating 'hey this part is very important.' I'm pretty sure right now the license part is just an inconspicuous drop down between 'tags' and 'version number'

[paper prawn]

That and the APL licenses dating from the days before Steam, or BI workshops...

[regal scroll]

Why yall so worried about that? Nobody releases their magnum opus as their first mod, and if they don't know what the licenses mean then I doubt they did their research to make a flawless mod worth hijacking on their first upload. But yes, it would be nice if there was a brief explanation or something... Thats goes almost everything in Workbench and on the wiki. I would love a description on a lot of things. Like...

[paper prawn]

I don't see the correlation between technical ability and understanding licensing. I mean, lots of very technical people think that I cannot take their APL-ND mod and redistribute it myself without changes... but I can under the fine print of the license

[sudden girder]

Not even just the fine print, it says in the first sentence of the summary.

[paper prawn]

Yeah 🙂

BI are having to care more about mod licensing now of course, but let's not forget that it's not been a priority... Remember when the Reforger Workshop was launched and we were told we had to use APL licenses not custom ones. That changed real quick, but the fact that they had to change it showed what they thought about it after all these years of IP theft and rips on the Steam Workshop...

For all those Steam Workshop issues ofc, they don't actually allow me to upload someone else's APL-ND mod without explicit permission (Steam Workshop EULA, clause 6(d)) - though, while BI honour that and will remove mods as a result, the APL-ND license should be all the permission you need.

[high smelt]

Could it be beneficial to create a video on the Arma Channel explaining each APL licence and tad about custom as well?

[faint nacelle]

Perhaps. But from decade of experience I can tell that no amount of explanation will reach everyone.

[scenic sonnet]

I think some aspects of the current APL licenses are a bit impractical for most modders.
For example, from my impression, many modders would be against (even unaltered) independent redistribution, but do not care much about adopted material as long as it still depends on their mod.
There is no standard license that cleanly reflects such a stance.

[flint geyser]

I'm more about not making a choice for the modder so that they are required to make one

[frigid heart]

Yeah being forced to choose one (and option for custom) sounds best imo
but then again a lot of people just click through popups without reading so it wont prevent everything sadly

[novel goblet]

Could link to https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses on form submission.

[faint nacelle]

could. but also what crumble said about people not reading

but yes I would prefer more notifications about it as well even if people dont read it

chances are higher that someone does at least

its just that there is no way to ensure everyone does

[novel goblet]

"you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"

If they won't read they won't read... I guess you could make a "questionnair game" upon first submission, where they have answer a few questions to suggest a license.

[faint nacelle]

😄

[novel goblet]

IMO, much of the confusion is not so much about what applies, but when it applies, and the vague phrase of "using". If your mod "depend" on something APL-SA (e.g. has a mod-dependency in its CfgPatches or whatevs) , but does not actually incorporate any of it, you very likely can license your own mod whatever.

[flint geyser]

Yes, but then it's 100% their responsibility and you don't need to care. As in there is no circumstance under which anyone would think that they chose this or that license because it was suggested to them/selected for them.

[high smelt]

I think it’s fine as is rn

[regal scroll]

Imagine if Bohemia had all their content set as APL-ND. This would be the worst game in the history of games, probably ever.

[hearty vault]

What do you mean, there’s tons of games out there that have zero modding support

[regal scroll]

There are also games that have more than 2 armored vehicles and 1 sniper rifle and scope per team.

[hearty vault]

So mod some more into the game.

[regal scroll]

Please dont make me explain the joke, its embarrassing for both of us

[hearty vault]

We have the option to add things that are not already in the game I don’t get the joke

[regal scroll]

Because they are not APL-ND, yes, I am fully aware how arma works thank you for explaining that to me. Biggest brain here. You deserve raise and promotion.

[hearty vault]

I still don’t get it

[regal scroll]

I am embarrassed for both us. Let's just stop responding before we get warned.

[faint nacelle]

Naughty @regal scroll straight to corner making bad jokes on serious channel

[pine smelt]

Hello, do I have the right to use bands logos for my blackhawks deliveries ? Or I'm not allowed because of copyrights

Would be awesome

[blissful thorn]

those would be copyrgihted by the record labels
i would suggest using fake band names and just make the min cool styles to get the same effect

[pine smelt]

I mean I saw some servers with custom helmet with music/cartoon logos
Would they really mind about a small mod like mine ?

[blissful thorn]

depends on the rules they have but youll have to check for every copyrighted material used what the rules are . some allow use some dont

[eager orchid]

if you dont own the IP dont use it

[steep helm]

Just do an alt history version in a similar font

STEEL
DAMSEL

[crimson ingot]

IRON
MAN.. oh wait

yeah make it different name, font can't be copyrighted right?

[faint nacelle]

Workshop TOS mention you need to have rights to the material you upload. So yes.

[pine smelt]

Ok ty

[echo orchid]

fonts can and are copyrighted

[sturdy ginkgo]

To clarify if we have permission from the company we are ok to use it ingame, assuming proof is needed if investigated?

[faint nacelle]

That is how things work yes.

[pine smelt]

How tf Imma ask AC/DC or Megadeth for permission

[faint nacelle]

realistically you dont

as realistically they dont give those out

theoretically you find contact info for their publisher or PR people

[sturdy ginkgo]

No it wasn’t aimed at you, it was whilst on the subject but not related to your specific case

[pine smelt]

yeah so how those vietnam servers got helmets with cartoon/musics etc

[faint nacelle]

people break rules

then they get punished for it

[pine smelt]

or ppl making porsches or TRX ? they don't got permission from them

[faint nacelle]

If you suspect someone is using questionable material you can send the info to [e-mail] or DM me

[pine smelt]

yeah nah i'm not gonna snitch but i'm saying, also I get it you don't want troubles but it's kinda sad. like i've sent the photos. it's a commmon thing to put stickers on those birds irl

[faint nacelle]

for vehicles, artistic representation of a car without manufacturer markings etc is typically fine

[faint nacelle]

[pine smelt]

https://tenor.com/view/druski-shrug-hands-up-druski-shrug-druski-idk-meme-gif-7093177929627107381

[real estuary]

What if the mod I linked was my own?

[faint nacelle]

I do advice modders on what they can and cant use in their mods if they ask.

[sturdy ginkgo]

Better to be safe than sorry

[faint nacelle]

When asking there is chance to fix issues.

If I find issues on my own there may not be such chance

[pine smelt]

What laws are we talking about ? our countries, poland or america ?

i've read something about "Fair use" as long as it's not inapropriate and it's just for tribute it's fine. The logo owner still got the right to ask the modder to remove it, if he don't, he owner can ask for a remove DMCA

The mod idea is a strictly non-commercial historical recreation. Logos are used minimally (engine stickers) and solely for the documentary accuracy of the aircraft like it's been alr made

[paper prawn]

That is very true, but not the use in, for example, a fictional band name? Otherwise this would very much have been breaking IP rules completely 😉

[stiff jasper]

Fair use does not apply to games (at least Arma games, if you make a purely educational game that would be something different I guess)

[paper prawn]

As noted here https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Intellectual_Property

[faint nacelle]

people quote fair use wrong all the time unfortunately

lot of misinformation about that

in the end we quote our TOS

[pine smelt]

what about the Tribute right ?

[faint nacelle]

does not sound like a real thing

[pine smelt]

it is actually, tribute right is a real thing, As long as it is approriate and the owner still got the right to ask the modder to remove it

[faint nacelle]

🤔

Youll have to find me some proof of that

and also we require you to have the appropriate rights to upload

if owner has "right to ask removal" it does not sound like there is genuine right to use the thing

So I am inclined to play it safe and say thats not a thing for mods

[paper prawn]

Sounds like the infamous lines in Steam Workshop mods, "I did not make this, if the original author wants me to remove it then let me know"... 😭

That ain't how this stuff works lol

[real estuary]

I've only ever heard of tribute rights in terms of bands and covers for songs.

[paper prawn]

Cover band stuff is complicated and, at the end of the day they are not allowed to use the original band's trademarks without explicit permission, just like for modding...

But, it would seem like having METAL VIRGIN written in the Metal Lord font would be an original idea...

[nimble gyro]

there is no actual tribute right in DMCA for clarification.

[paper prawn]

Band names and logos are trademarks... These are covered within the DMCA

[pine smelt]

so i have the right or not to do it ?

[paper prawn]

No, not even tribute bands can use the og band's name without permission. They would be sued for trademark infringement and deceptive marketing...

[nimble gyro]

^

[pine smelt]

ok ty

[nimble gyro]

There is some nuance with privatized communities and groups; there was conversation about this many moons ago in terms of unlisted/privatized communities etc. Do your applicable research, leverage tools/AI to understand the more legalized takes and follow the EULA for the workshop.

At times it can be like a bit of a maze to find the information, but most cases here have been spoken on and can be looked back at in the chat history; if you are asking something, most likely someone has already asked it and you can simply search for that result here. But understand none of the people here, are LEGAL experts or lawyers in anyway shape or form. So do your due diligence and find the answers yourself, if you need clarification; some of the people here can help you but don't take it as gospel.

[echo orchid]

most big / known brands are using their own made fonts, which you cannot license (in general are modified existing font types) for their logotypes. These are protected / copyrighted. Of course you can make something similar to what you posted without any issues, but that wasn't the question i was answering to.

[oblique mulch]

Can government officials request personal information about mod creators? (IP addresses, email addresses, messages, etc.) How would Bohemia respond to such requests?

[faint nacelle]

Those kind of things would go through legal department

dont do anything that would get you attention from goverment officials

[oblique mulch]

Is there anything I can read about this? About data sharing.

[novel goblet]

I don't think it is really nailed down to all possible situation. "Government official" is so vague, like if proper people from police departments supplied proper reasoning, they will likely get it. But if some Minister of Agriculture tries to request my personal info, I hope the response to him is to F-off.

[soft egret]

With a warrant, I'm pretty sure government can get any information the company has

Under the Czech Code of Criminal Procedure, legal or natural persons storing data (including traffic and location data) are obliged to provide it without delay to law enforcement authorities for investigation purposes.

Police can request, via a court or prosecutor, that data be produced (surrender of items or computer data) under sections 78 and 79 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

While the GDPR (and the Czech Act No. 110/2019 Coll. on Personal Data Processing) protects user data, it does not prevent companies from disclosing information when required to do so by law.

If you want to trust AI on that. But it makes sense. That's what I expect.

[novel goblet]

True, but that is for Czech authorities. If from some other country, there may be more easy or less easy inter-country paperwork.

[faint nacelle]

Dont recall anythig specific about that but for example from Reforger EULA
All parts of the license are valid to the maximum extent permitted by law and nothing in it limits any of Your rights set by the applicable law. The license is governed by the law of the Czech Republic, and any dispute arising here under shall be resolved by Czech courts.

so such things probably would have to go through court orders and official internationl agency collaborations stuff

Probably something you have to consult a lawyer with for deeper understanding though.

[devout umbra]

If you warthunder it and include classified materiel I can guarantee you'll have some visitors in suits at your door in short order 😂

[faint nacelle]

That can happen I suppose 🤔

[faint nacelle]

Hello. This is not a random discussion channel. Dont respond to old messages without very good reason

[white tiger]

Bro is about to turn the Arma Reforger discord into the next “ThugShakerCentral” 🤣

[white tiger]

In all seriousness, do NOT post any classified material on ANY discord server, or any other telecommunications software. Yes, BI, Valve, and Discord are legally required to release all info relating to your account via a warrant (doesn’t matter that BI is located in Czechia). No one should have to warn you to not fuck up your life over something as stupid as a mod

[tidal topaz]

SeaLandia Server hosting when?

[devout umbra]

@faint nacelle #enf_showroom message

Following up to this, there are tons of thumbnails out there that use generative AI to accurately describe the mod. Is this going to be an absolute blanket on using AI imagery for a thumbnail?

Many are tweaks, config changes and minor QoL that the actual creation of a thumbnail via in game imagery is not possible or a handcrafted image is not worth making.

[nimble gyro]

Moving this from #enf_showroom to avoid clogging that channel.

Not to rehash everything that was clearly spoken about earlier; but there is a clear disconnect between BI and the Modding Community in terms of TOS and Licensing because of how aggressively they are interpreting the legalese that is applied across the board on their website and TOS. The TOS Workshop mod letter went out nearly 1 year ago to date; and since then: Rapid changes to how these rules are interpreted are creating a maze of bureaucratic actions that must be taken to ensure your mod is up to standard on the workshop.

What needs to be done: There needs to be another clear update/set of intentions or scope provided to end-users of the workshop and more transparent ways to see how these rules are enforced such as a enforcement page or a list of clear readable and concise rules that creators can reference and follow, what I see consistently is BI team members link and reference these specific subsections of their TOS or legal framework that most end-users will not comprehend or understand fully as it so finely worded that it leaves a razor edge that modders must walk on to ensure they are not breaking rules.

It is creating a divisive rift between the BI Team, experienced modders and everyday users; as people are simply just not privy to these rules, policy changes or TOS which is hosted on a platform that must be logged into or actively seeked out to receive this information.

What do I think could help with this? Here is a list below that I think can quell some of the issues that Modders and End-users face on a day to day basis:

• Enforcement and Rules as stated above, need a clear/concise readable format in a open forum area that end-users can easily access; preferably a way to link the end-user of the workbench to the rules page prior to posting a mod, and even making them hit some sort of understanding check box on their first workshop upload.

• If enforcement and rules change, you have our information on file such as Email, Account UUID, and GUID; BI needs to be more transparent in sending out emails about these rule changes and enforcement practices, as from day to day; things seem to change in the TOS department or rules bend due to one mod touching on a grey area and the rest fall like dominoes with no clear way for the end-users to understand what happened other than some rage filled IP-Violations chat.

• @flint geyser brought up how licensing is abit of a bit of a red herring, and that by default the most permissive license is applied to each mod when publishing; when a end user first elects to publish, something like the idea I had proposed above about the check box; the end user should go through a very simple graphic explaining the licensing, instead of requiring them to seek out what each license means.

• Goat and the rest of the team seem to be very good at contacting via the discord chat, but this creates a mass pile on of randoms which notates and speaks on topics they aren't even included with; move these interactions into a ticket on the discord or on the BI website instead of an email, as time and time again; people state it's not getting to them and it leads to a fight in the channel about who did what.

• When stumbling across new grey areas and TOS violations that are pertinent to the community, providing a role which Modders and Creators can be provided notice about trends and etc that the team is seeing that need to be avoided/handled; allowing the ping to go out and notify the people who opt into the role about changes.

There is a few other changes I could list, but I am running out of text amount and I want to conclude in saying that there is definitely some changes needed as the community grows and the rules changes rapidly, it is becoming very hard as a creator to navigate the way you guys enforce the rules without notice and by providing context in obscure messages in chats they get buried a day later.

Especially in the showroom of all places, where there is a new post every hour. It was the first I had EVER heard about the image stuff.

And I also want to clarify, I don't think the enforcement of the rules is a bad thing; but I think since more folks were hired on to take on this monumental task, things have heavily changed; and on a day to day basis things may change actively and leave creators with changes they need to mitigate or never knew were actionable/violating.

[faint nacelle]

These are good points that we do want to address and are working towards that. Unfortunately the time between that is somewhat chaotic at times.

The #workshop_admin channel is actually where this conversation belongs to as it was created for communication purposes. (Just this serious kind) But I agree it is cumbersome in its own way despite offering more flexible place to post.

Since this long messages are already this can be discussed here for a bit unless actual channel related business comes up.

Work is underway for updated TOS etc texts but those can unfortunately never keep up with all changes or specifications that may be needed.

As @nimble gyro mentions grey areas pop up from time to time. Like the photo issue.

[dark grove]

Also, @faint nacelle while you are here, I was hoping you would be able to provide some clarification regarding the whole use of photos for mods. Here is my message copied from the enf_showroom:
I just want to double check how the new rule applies to my mods specifically.

For my mods, I only use real‑world photos that I have the rights to (either public domain or CC BY 2.0) and I always provide proper credit. The photos also accurately represent what’s in (or will be in) the mod; they’re just real photos of the actual equipment the mod is based on.

Is this still acceptable under the updated rule, or does the “no photos” guideline apply universally even when the images are licensed correctly and representative of the mod’s content? I want to make sure I’m following the rules exactly as intended. I'm willing to update the mod covers if that is required

[dire dagger]

And also, a modpack that have's a "community" photo and that photo was made in part with AI, that will be agaisn't TOS?

[coral torrent]

You don't hold the copyright on AI generated images. So you can't publish them.

[faint nacelle]

At this time the only exception we are ready to make is scenic comparison between real place and game terrain (assuming photo rights are in order)

[faint nacelle]

This is one of the main issues with ai pictures.

[coral torrent]

Besides often not actually having anything to do with the content in the mod.

[faint nacelle]

Thats another.

[devout umbra]

A hot off the press AI generated image is not owned by anyone. Why exactly is that an issue?

There are multiple avenues to an end state of ownership, is this going to be a blanket statement and ignore that or will there be exceptions to those relevant cases.

[faint nacelle]

Too soon to say.

[dire dagger]

And so, if i edit it with photoshop and i put some things on the top of AI, how you will know it is?

[devout umbra]

I use them as thumbnails for minor tweaks, minor additions that oftentimes do not have an easy to display ingame image. The alternative is a blank black image, why is that the preferred alternative?

[faint nacelle]

The ai Image line of questions can be looked into at later date when it becomes more relevant.

On the right channel.

[nimble gyro]

This is exactly case and point what I mean about the enforcement of the rules being so greyed out it is absolutely insane as a creator to follow them, the U.S. Copyright Courts have clearly deemed nobody owns the AI images unless there is considerable human input to place a trademark or copyright claim over said image, if the image doesn't contain somebody elses IP, why is this an issue?

We inquire about it, and we get two different answers; one from Arkensor and one from Goat: "The ai Image line of questions can be looked into at later date when it becomes more relevant." ??? What do you mean??? Isn't this the point of contention right now? That is actively being enforced on mods but we are being told that the questions need to come at a later date? "Besides often not actually having anything to do with the content in the mod." Why does this even matter? The description and the title are the area to convey the mod's description, and it's intent. Along with the title which actively tells what mod it is??

[faint nacelle]

I'll add to this that even though you might have say same gun model as in a photo, the gun does not actually look completely same. Using screenshot of the gun instead is honest preview of what is in the mod.

[nimble gyro]

Also, these rules seem to have appeared out of thin air recently with the whole AI talk that's taken place in here with the MCP and etc; where are these rules conveyed?

[dire dagger]

I have a question also regarding to "Honest preview of what is in the mod" Some of the community have a mod packs of variety, the need to put what in there?, their logo? a photo of all the things or wha

[faint nacelle]

There are no ai rules yet. But that is also something looked into.

[nimble gyro]

And another line of questioning: How do you even plan to enforce upon this? Manual whitelisting of each mod submission, a scan of each mod in the workshop? (Which would take probably months if not years, and if you are going to use AI to search these submissions what is your criteria as to what is relevant and what isn't?)

There is no real path to a clear enforcement on this, and it will appear as incredibly biased or targetted when these mods are placed here in wide view of the whole community to be chastised about how they've broken this brand new rule that was drummed up in some board meeting at BI behind closed doors but never actually conveyed to us in the community?

[faint nacelle]

Which one? Photos?

[nimble gyro]

Photos, AI Photos, the photo having 0 relevance to the mod.

[devout umbra]

Is that going to become a requirement?

[faint nacelle]

Methods of processing are not really for public consumption.

I would like to be somewhat fair with it that older mods have either grace period or are given ample time to react to notification about issues.

And newer mods would be expected to adhere to the rules.

[nimble gyro]

There is probably thousands if not hundreds of thousands of workshop submissions, let alone unlisted. I don't see how you go about doing this. Understanding the whole method of this stuff would be beneficial to the community to understand why these actions are being taken also.

[faint nacelle]

I would probably also not encourage community reporting on it.

[faint nacelle]

Methods don't have anything to do with why.

In short, there has been an increase in photos nabbed from the internet, unrelevant and even spammy content plus as Ive said before photos don't represent the actual content of mods at all.
Nothing of the actual mods content is lost even if you don't get to post some random dudes face on the preview. And people using mod might get actual preview of the content instead of something not quite like it.

[surreal plover]

I must ask, but when and where will this information be shared? Its seems to be a running thing where BI have been terrible at sharing quite important information within the community.
Here im lucky to have seen this early because I browse the showroom, and now im trying to search through hundreds of messages to get a basic understanding and even then im still scratching my head at a lot of this

[faint nacelle]

#workshop_admin message

[nimble gyro]

This is split between multiple different categories, and I'd say about 45% of mod submissions contain photos they either don't own or have no relevance to said mod. Does that mean that you will be actively moving to remove these mods? How do you contact each creator efficiently? How do you manage the massive influx of creators/regular end users who will be making essentially a queue to have this manually reviewed or get their permissions back to relist?

I just see this as an unnecessary campaign from BI to police things that geniunely have 0 effect upon the game and the workshop, are you actively receiving Legal Letters and DMCAs? Is this some massive initiative to cover the companies ass in terms of liability?

From the end-user perspective and the incredibly broad and honestly at times evasive sounding answers we get, it's impossible to understand the intention or the real enforcement variables that are at play here. It seems like you guys have a meeting, decide upon something and then enforce it without even a community input/reach out/general understanding with the larger base of your creators. This is exactly what drives people away from placing their content on the workshop, or they just find creative ways to circumvent the rules.

Edit: Only sent one of my photos, but the point is still there, go to the workshop and go through each category.

[faint nacelle]

Rule circumvention will result in bans.

Just to be clear about that if anyone gets ideas.

[nimble gyro]

I understand that, but this is the type of stuff that incentivises these type of behaviours.

[novel goblet]

Isn't this about photos? Hardly any of above are photos

[faint nacelle]

Looks like 2

One with z markings too it seems. That goes away in the morning.

[nimble gyro]

It didn't allow me to send multiple photos for some reason, I sent the ones I took as a quick example but you can easily go on the Workshop and understand the intention of my post.

[novel goblet]

The llama? might be one too, but yeah two is my count

[faint nacelle]

I'm sure those are enough of example

[surreal plover]

I feel my point still stands at where its shared, but thank you nonetheless 👍

But what about older mods that we cant update due to cloudflare issues, or people have lost access to those mods but still work in the current version of the game?

[devout umbra]

Surely you have the capability to just delete the images and not the entire mod

[faint nacelle]

The kind of indepth business reasonings and such you seem to be looking for are not something we can share.
So like asking those questions is mean as like you say it makes us look bad when we don't answer in super clear and indepth but it's just not something that is for public consumption. No matter how curious they are.

Your comment there already spun up rumour material that people will be copy pasting all around

[nimble gyro]

These directly translate into how you enforce rules on the community driven workshop, so you guys need to obviously sit down and figure out either a strategy or collaborate with your CM Team to figure out a way to convey these things to the community so they have a broader understanding of intent and what is and isn't allowed on the workshop. This isn't me being super critical about your platform just because; you guys opened these gates allowing community driven content on your own platform for cross platform play, but you guys are incredibly vague about how these standards are equivalated and used against us as Creators.

[faint nacelle]

With that said my time for today is up, I got to grab some food .

[jolly wind]

Tryna summarize, so we don't own AI photos and can't use them in our mods, pictures for the mod must be an accurate representation of the mod itself?

Is this only applied to whats seen in the workshop or stuff like loading screens also?

[nimble gyro]

My input is simply opinion, and seems to be felt by other creators in the space. I'm not asking for the world to be flipped upside down and the process you guys use to be entirely changed, but there needs to be more transparency on how these rules effect everyday users. Until you linked the #workshop_admin area, I never knew it existed as it wasn't on my channel list. These are exactly the type of things that make it so obscure as the end-user because none of this stuff is actually conveyed to us other than when it is directly quoted here in these messages which again; in about a days time will be like the sand at the Pyramids, gone with time. lol

[devout umbra]

There is no ruling on AI images yet, pictures cannot be real images unless its an accurate representation of the mod and must be accompanied with ingame imagery

[nimble gyro]

Or add clear UI/Guidelines into the workshop denoting what is acceptable prior to a workshop publication, boom done; never have to have this conversation ever again. lol

[devout umbra]

That post is 6 months old and I learned about it today. There are hundreds/thousands of mods that have RL images. Then again, id bet that less than 5% of workshop submissions are actually content submissions and not tweaks, edits, configss, arsenals or something similar.

[surreal plover]

Im 100% with you man, everything your stating ive experienced before regarding other issues. Besides I only know about this because a moderator said something about "Im gonna have you change this image" in one of the Dozens of channels in this discord and its all spiraled from here.

[jolly wind]

imo the broader wording of this stuff seems to make it come down to whats been done in bad faith vs whats accidental. If someone is reported or something in a mod is noticed then it's handled fairly well, sometimes starting publicly in here by Goat then taken to DMs with the mod owner. Ofc this doesn't help with the tens of thousands of other mods, but thats where the report comes in because some are clearly violating the ToS, its just, has it been reported?

[faint nacelle]

I will say that no matter where we plaster these things in the future, realism is that we will never reach all of you.

[novel goblet]

My simple understanding is since BI need to relay the data from workshop, you are implicitly granting them permission to do that. E.g. the website images, etc..

Since BI believes AI generated content IP status to be not existing or dubitable they don't want to accept it because they don't believe uploaders can guarantee they can give BI the right to even distribute. ignore for discussion

Photo exists in a similar place "in practice", that the uploader is statistically unlike to have the IP rights.

The image being inside the mod as a loading screen does not change this.

[faint nacelle]

The ai talk can be done later

[nimble gyro]

No, but waving the white flag and saying it's not possible without attempting is exactly what will keep this feedback loop going.

[faint nacelle]

Don't spin that up now

[jolly wind]

Need a whole new channel for AI

[faint nacelle]

I'm not saying we are not going to try

Now typing stops

[nimble gyro]

I have made my case, enjoy your step away time! You obviously have better things to deal with on your time. I didn't mean to stir up this hell for ya.

[surreal plover]

Twitter posts have been so helpful in the past to spread info, especially with the issues on xbox where we had very little or hard to find communications from devs, so I think theres channels which you can use to reach the most as possible rather than in here where people will struggle

[faint nacelle]

As this is getting out of hand

photo and ai topic has concluded for the night. Save your comments for later.

[loud plover]

@faint nacelle for modders is there general guidelines to be followed for custom licenses pertaining to restricting harmful or troublesome groups / individuals from using our content? Like how specific do we need to make our license and how much can / will BI go to help enforce our licenses?

[queen raptor]

DM me i can give you a little insight as far as conversations i have had about the licensing

[glossy depot]

Take all DMs from anyone that doesn't work for B.I. as hearsay.

[faint nacelle]

No currently we do not have any specific guidance on that.

It is unfortunately a tricky subject.

[queen raptor]

not hearsay when its coming from BI directly im just relaying the messages ive had privately with BI admins about the same issue to help with not having them have to explain it all over again

[glossy depot]

Messages get misconstrued the more they travel from person to person. It's best to let the people who make the rules explain them.

[queen raptor]

thats why its a screenshot of the entire conversation cant be misconstrued that way

but you are right Word of mouth can get twisted Very easy im only rellaying it to latina because ive know him for a while for his specific case it may be best to have 1-1 DMs with one of the workshop admins to get answeres for his specific case

[leaden cipher]

Even that can be risky, screenshots can also be edited, we actually had a case like that recently, not about this subject, but someone did edit screenshots to get someone banned on this discord as harassment, luckily things were cleared up real fast and the reporter ended up being banned.

[queen raptor]

jesus that takes dedication

[wicked spoke]

I and another member of our community had someone do this by frabracting screenshots to get back at us after we caught him avoiding bans with numerous alt accounts in his effort of stalking a woman who played on our servers. The situation was so bad it eventually resulted in his city's police department in Ohio going to his house. From IP information we had of the guy and shared, they got a warrant with thge ISP over the things and did a knock and talk and probably scared the crap out of the guy.

Glad to hear people realize this is a thing.

[wicked spoke]

@ebon jewel Figured I'd share here since it involves someone skinning your H60 and I think this is a no-go for BI as well. https://reforger.armaplatform.com/workshop/69376CDADAC87849-H60Skin-REDCROSS

[faint nacelle]

Red cross is a no go yeah.

[ebon jewel]

Not sure how I can help, it's not my mod that is doing it, I have zero control over mods that use my mod as a dependency - thanks for letting me know, provided I don't get in strife for something that isn't mine - I give permission to people to retexture my stuff with the specific caveat that no TOS is broken.

Hope they get what is coming to them is all I will say. I am respectful of the rules - others are clearly not so much.

[faint nacelle]

no worries, wont affect you. 👍

[blissful thorn]

Never understand why people need to change something . There is a reason Aussie made it green so to not have the issues with red cross. But then someone comes by and makes it red ether knowing its against the rules or not knowing at all. The whole thing around the red cross still is a joke to me as gamers have always known it as a good thing from day 1 (medkits and what not) but i get that they dont want abuse of it

[pliant oar]

hello dear creative content makers and users, we setup #a3-workshop_tickets and #ar-workshop_tickets channels using same ticket system as in #discord_tickets for reports related to workshop items, please do not abuse as it's WIP, also we do plan to link/integrate it with the new Feedback Tracker (now in public beta) at some point in future

[sturdy ginkgo]

Nooo I will miss reading this chat to see who’s been naughty

[pine smelt]

why would a redcross violate any IP rights

[blissful thorn]

because you cant use it without premision

[pine smelt]

they didn't invent anything, it's just a cross painted RED, i mean it's like saying ur violating an IP cuz u made a vehicle with wheels because you didn't invented the wheel.

[blissful thorn]

its protected under the Geneva Conventions...

[pine smelt]

is it that deep for a game, cmon a Red cross ?

[prime stratus]

Yes

I believe a few games (like stardew valley) have green crosses instead because it is indeed that deep

[blissful thorn]

because they dont want any miss use of it that can bring people off the idea that its a neutral symbol

even tho for most gamers we see it as health , revive whatever , they dont want it missused for every 1000 people using it correct 1 might use it for wrong doing . and yea they dont want that has been like that for a while

[pine smelt]

yeah so i'm right it's not that deep being all Black/White about rules is not a good thing.
A simple medevac bird in a game that has 15k ppl playing is not a a big deal.
The real problem would be to use it in real life

[paper prawn]

Meh, dead argument now and all that, but it's basically that Red Cross Canada did a post a few years back complaining about misuse of the Red Cross and pointing out that it was protected. No one really cared about games using it before that, now they do, especially a company like BI with good relations with the ICRC. However, while it doesn't matter, I have maintained that using a red cross correctly on military vehicles and assets (MASH tents, for example) is NOT a misuse of the Red Cross... But I lost that battle 😭

[sudden girder]

IIRC, there's even a form on one of the Red Cross websites for reporting games that use the Red Cross.
And I think using it without permission might also be a copyright violation.

[blissful thorn]

if you do it you break TOS of arma , so BI has the rights to ban the mod if its not changed

[pine smelt]

they have all the right i'm not talking about that, i'm saying it's not a big deal, and i'm right u can't just come and say that it would have any impact on the real red cross because a small mod that has 3 users used a red cross on a medevac bird

[blissful thorn]

its not as if 99% of gamers dont know the health symbol for good thigns but it the people that do bad stuff with it sadly

[blissful thorn]

i didnt make the rules around it dude . it not for no reason that they go after it

[paper prawn]

But BI are not responsible for what people do with UGC in game... otherwise a large proportion of the player base would probably be banned for in game war crimes...

[pine smelt]

i'm sure you can ask the organization and they gonna tell u they won't gaf about a 3 user model on a 15k player game

[blissful thorn]

BI has to follow the rules aswel ,they have the rights to use the symbol we dont even if its in the game itself . so follow the rules that are given

[paper prawn]

No, they will say it is protected and you cannot use it actually

[pine smelt]

u got what i wanna say like cmon a RED CROSS.
That's like giving a ticket to someone going 22mph instead of 20mph

[paper prawn]

Silly that we cannot port ARMA 2 assets and leave the red crosses on them, where they had them now though...

[blissful thorn]

this is the uk post from a bit ago

Even in peacetime, misuse can lead to misunderstandings and uncertainty. Uncertainty may put people who need protection at risk.

The names ‘Red Cross,’ ‘Red Crescent’ and ‘Red Crystal’ are also protected.

Unauthorised use of the emblems is forbidden in international and national law. The British Red Cross monitors unauthorised use or misuse (deliberate or accidental) of the emblems and similar designs in the UK.

The most common misuses of the red cross emblem are found on commercial packaging, products and advertisements related to health care, first aid and medical materials.

its not just games they will go after its everyting that uses it outside of what the actuall meaning is

[paper prawn]

Misuse being the key word. The RC Canada post that kicked everything off was all about misuse: Recently, the misuse of the red cross emblem in video games has received media attention. But I still feel that correctly using them is not misuse. But, that ship has sailed and nothing said here will change that

[blissful thorn]

as i sayd aswel 99% of the gamers will know its a symbol of health and whatnot . but its the issue of the missuse , warcrimes simulator basicly that fd it up

[paper prawn]

And the fact is that they are all protected symbols even the Red Crystal that BI used in ARMA 3 and the bloody Red Cross in Reforger 🤣

But BI probably has permission from the ICRC given their relationship in the past...?

[blissful thorn]

a lot of arma 3 mods also use the symbols that are actually protected ,incl stuff like cup . was recently replaying some older mod and i noticed they all use the crystal but that is infact also not allowed to be used in red

[sudden girder]

Yes (both times IIRC), which doesn't extend to modders.

[blissful thorn]

yea bi has permission to use it , but we as players and modder dont sadly evne tho its in the same game , same engine

[paper prawn]

CUP's stuff was ported in 2014/5 or so thus before this gained attention as an issue. They simply used the textures provided by BI...

[blissful thorn]

laws of war was made and raised 176k for icrc aswel

[paper prawn]

In fact, they even changed some red crosses to crystals in CUP because BI unfortunately said use the crystal instead 🤣

[blissful thorn]

ngl would love to see some more stuff like this again with the whole stuff around it . https://www.icrc.org/en/document/civilian-air-rescue-operation-wins-health-care-danger-special-award-arma3-contest

but to come back on the original issue
bi has the rights to use it and we dont . and people who use it risk to get bannend or atleast have the mod removed if they dont change it.

[paper prawn]

Yep is the rule now. Only exceptions would be those who made the mods with it before BI's explicit ban...

[blissful thorn]

what is older then reforger so simple to call it from there. 😛

lucky there is enough other symbols to use

[paper prawn]

I just wish that BI themselves used the green cross in game so their assets match with modded assets...

Maybe they will do so in ARMA 4 🙏

[blissful thorn]

i dont think so tbh as they have the rights to use it .

[paper prawn]

Yeah, just would be less glaring and more immersive...

[paper prawn]

Also note that there are no replacement symbols for military use in a combat zone, since the alternate symbols are about authorization in terms of correct use, not use in a milsim game

[faint nacelle]

This kind of reaction is not welcome or appropriate here.

And as people have stated, we care and don't allow red crosses in mods.

[pine smelt]

i'm not allowed to express myself and make a small joke ? i get you don't want troubles, i'm just saying it's not like your gonna get sued by anyone because a small mod used a logo or something. the goal a lawsuit is to win money, they won't sue except if they had something to win. it would cost more to press anything against those poor modders than to let them live

[pine smelt]

You are right and have all the rights, i'm just giving my opinion from my pov

[faint nacelle]

No, not in offensive way. #rules

[wicked spoke]

Yeah, I know you were good, just that it applied this violation on your asset mate!

[wicked spoke]

You could do the inverse of this other mod and make the vanilla vehicles have a green cross.... mission accomplished

[paper prawn]

That is a very helpful suggestion that I some how never thought of. Thanks!

[real estuary]

I did this for one of my mods that adds the USSR Ambulance to the US vehicle depot. Goat said when I asked weeks ago that mods weren't allowed to use the red cross, so I changed it to green because I was altering the Ambulance from vanilla.

[wicked spoke]

I don't think that would apply if you're only adding it to the arsenal itself and you're not editing the underlying vehicle

[wicked spoke]

@dark grove - Figured you want to be aware of someone reuploaded your mod and put it under APL too. https://reforger.armaplatform.com/workshop/693A97D5CCC7682A-Early2000sUSMilitary-Reupload

Appears to be from @olive sand if that helps bring the issue up directly.

[dark grove]

I'm fine with this, as long as it is not going against any of the workshop rules

[wicked spoke]

Well, used the very image for preview which is why I thought was your primary reason for removing. Personally, we are patiently waiting for you to get it back up. Was going to DM you as well as on another note, our dev team at Integrity Gaming had done some overrides to update some components for base game stuff to fix some items after 1.6

Wasn't sure if you could use a pull request if you had a repo for the project or not, or just send you some of the fixes directly, but not really for this channel.

[dark grove]

That is a good point, but I feel that this is a temporary mod, and was done so people can easily recognize it as my mod, so maybe once I get the mod back up, the modder who uploaded it should probably remove it (a showcase page on the server will be created, once I'm ready)

Also, the mod is going to get fully overhauled internally, so it will be good for the latest version of the game. I hope sometime before the end of May I should have all of the main mods back

[loud plover]

I have zero medical mods planned but I have heard about this before. If they have a red cross baked into an .edds and I just made that into a decal entity but uploaded that in my mod is that whats causing issues? Or is it uploading your own red cross.

[wicked spoke]

You're the one doing it though, so I suspect that's the issue still since its not Bohemia who actually has the ICRC permission

[olive sand]

I will for sure remove it after your mod is back online, just message me.
If you want me to remove it now i can also do that.

And i used APL because the original mod is gone - so i have no way to look up the original license

I hope you didnt take my reupload the wrong way.
I just reuploaded it because my server no longer started as it used the original as a dependency, and i could not find any other good looking DCU uniforms for my Al Hadra server.

[lilac bane]

Is there any sort of attempt to ban the use of registered trademarks on assets in the Workshop? A long time ago, I had a conversation here about not using original markings (HK in my case) and obviously I avoided them, but I’m now pretty tired of seeing one mod after another in the Workshop featuring markings from HK, Crye Precision, Eotech, Aimpoint, Schmidt & Bender, etc., whilst those of us who comply with the rules have to go and make our own logos to "parody" or reinvent a brand so that nothing happens to our mod, and there are a large number of modders who haven’t changed a thing and have been there for over more than a year (And don’t tell me to report it to BI’s email address and it will be dealt with, because I did that ages ago and nothing was done)

[echo orchid]

a note here, since @dark grove was really nice about it

1. always contact the author prior to using their mods, not after.
2. you cannot re-upload other people's mods, no matter of the reason, because the TOS clearly states you need to have sufficient permission to do that.
3. you also used a photography, that is also against the TOS and the main reason the original mod was taken down by the author

[echo orchid]

you can use #ar-workshop_tickets now as well

[olive sand]

Okay, so i guess i will take it down then 👍

But just a quick note from my side, i searched for his contact information, but did not find a single thing online under the name he uploaded the mod from, which is probably true for 99% of the mods online in the workshop.

So some sort of contact form would be nice.

I have removed the mod from the workshop.

[faint nacelle]

We dont require modders to leave contact information anywhere at the moment, it could be something to improve on in the future though.
But thanks for taking it down even though Eagle was nice about it now, you did go about it the wrong way.

though this place is where a lot of the modders do gather

I guess ideally every modder would be here and reachable

[olive sand]

Sorry for that, i hope that this situation is now resolved.

Maybe it will be possible to use mods that have been removed in the future?
Like make the server start and just load the mod locally, and send the mods to your friends?

That was the only reason i reuploaded it, because my server no longer started and i needed the uniforms.
Anyway, just a comment, this is probably the wrong channel for that discussion.

[faint nacelle]

depends why a mod gets removed Id suppose.

banned mods should not be used anymore of course

if author removes something

well I would prefer to respect the authors decision

some licensings might allow reuploading though.

[olive sand]

I would be of the opinion to use anything i want locally.
If i chose to infringe copyright on my own machine/server then i should be allowed to do so, and since it is not on the workshop BI is not liable for anything.

Just my 2 cents

[faint nacelle]

we dont want any infringing content used on the platform though

for example in your case its not private

since you run a server with people

[olive sand]

I ment a System like forge mods for Minecraft, which has no central Distributor, so the content would Never Touch any central Arma Platform like the Workshop

[faint nacelle]

its still in the game

used by people in the game

thinking we are ok with it

[olive sand]

I guess you are Right, this is a big game and the Developer will probably always be made at fault for anything the Users do 😅

[midnight compass]

The license of the mods also apply to players and servers

So players and server owners can also be actioned upon with moderation if they break these in a gross manner the same as modders in the workshop

Ideally, just do not use anything you have no rights to use. Avoid yourself from any issue.

We allow people to run servers with mods locally or without backend with the idea that it will be used with right intention, maybe our backends are blocked in your country or so

but if it starts to be abused heavily to circumvent these things in mass then we might just remove the option for it

[pliant jolt]

It is pretty silly that there's absolutely 0 way for players to contact a modder on the workshop

The only way to give feedback at all is a thumbs up and thumbs down

[golden bay]

Some modders do not wish to be contacted

[faint nacelle]

some do add their contact info on the mod description

[pliant jolt]

Yeah but the fact there's no official method seems like an oversight. I can't think of a modding platform that's as barebones as the Reforger workshop for communicating/giving feedback to a mod author

Having to @ someone in the discord feels hacky, especially when some modders have common names lol

[echo orchid]

while i personally agree that the workshop could use some love and work, i also think that allowing modders not to be contacted by users is not such a bad thing
If any modders wishes to be directly contacted, they can provide a contact information (atm anywasy) in the mods description (and a lot of people do that as well)

[echo orchid]

the best feature for steam workshop was being able to turn off the mod comments.

[paper prawn]

Ofc, the issue is always to avoid a modder being inundated with scam, phishing attempts and other such unpleasantness

[devout umbra]

This was the single best way of determining mod viability in mid-late stage ArmA 3, as well as a centralized game-driven avenue to communicate on the mod. Countless issues and hours were saved by the comment sections. I cannot think of a single mod distribution platform that does not have comment sections or integrated forums per mod.

The average person, who is the VAST majority, when given no obvious avenue is just going to DM you, or @ you in discords, because they do not care in the slightest that you don't want to be contacted. They sure are not going to read a bug tracker or github.

[midnight compass]

Comments are designed for A4, but i am thinking of making the comment functionality disabled by default unless the modder enables it.

[devout umbra]

Awesome. I absolutely get the reason for disabling it. I just think it pushes people to use other avenues of contact that may be more invasive.

[echo orchid]

i actually don't have the same experience. a lot of spam, swearing, wishlists and false-positive reports. i think proper reports were around 15-20% of the entire comments provided.
Again, i am not saying that there should be more features available for BI workshop. What i personally want is

• being able to create collections
• being able to see derivative / dependecy mods
• being able to filter correctly the existing mods (also a lof the mods currently have wrong tags, similar to artstation, where people pick all tags available just because)
• being able to directly link / connect social media channels / website / github / bugtracker
• being able to edit / add media directly without having to upload these from workbench
• being able to have forum based discussion (ideally that are not tied to comments like steam workshop is).

in any case, this is more related to #enfusion_workshop than this particular channel;

[spare quartz]

lets atleast make it obvious to the user(modder) where the option to enable/disable is

[wicked spoke]

"being able to filter correctly the existing mods (also a lof the mods currently have wrong tags, similar to artstation, where people pick all tags available just because)"

This annoys the ever crap out of me. Not sure what the best solution for this is.

[gaunt stirrup]

Maybe an ability for the community to agree or disagree with the relevance of tags? so when you hover over a tag on a mod it says:

Relevant?
yes / no

And then tags that get a high ratio like 9:1 of non relevant votes get removed from the mod?

Could be abused ofc but maybe an idea

[faint nacelle]

Id rather fix tags on moderation side when bad tags occur than leave it for community. The abuse you mention would be more a problem

unless we can track who abuses votes and ban them from game

[gaunt stirrup]

Yeah fair, steam has had to go the distance trying to stop review bombing - Maybe instead people can report tags? then it can be reviewed by moderation?

[faint nacelle]

that would be possible by just the normal report button.

[gaunt stirrup]

Fair point, I rest my case haha

[crude sinew]

Hello, I would like to ask for guidance in this channel before taking any further steps or emailing anyone officially.

I was previously listed under “Created by” on the Yugo Repack Steam Workshop item and contributed work/content, promotion, and community support to the project. After the collaboration ended suddenly, I was removed from the “Created by” section and left only in the description/credits.

I understand that the “Created by” section may also relate to Workshop permissions/access. My concern is that my public role and recognition were changed without proper agreement or professional discussion, while my work, name/tag, and reputation remain connected to the mod. This affects attribution, public reputation, and how my role is represented to the community.

When I raised the issue privately, I kept my communication focused on attribution, credits, and proper handling of my work. I did not insult him or ask for any harm to the project. However, the replies I received became hostile and insulting, and at one point I was told my content would be cut from the mod. Later I was told my content would remain and that I would remain credited.

To be clear: I did not ask for my content to be removed, and I do not want the mod, players, servers, events, or community harmed. I only want proper attribution, accurate representation of my role, and professional handling of anything connected to my work.

I would also like to ask how contributors can protect themselves in future mod projects. Should collaborators use written contributor agreements, permission records, clear credit rules, handover terms, or other documentation before working together?

What is the correct procedure in this kind of situation if a contributor’s work, credit, or public role is changed or misrepresented? Should this be handled through Steam, Bohemia/Arma channels, or only privately between contributors?

I can provide screenshots, Workshop link, changelog references, and context if needed. I am not asking for harassment or drama against anyone; I just want to handle it fairly and properly.

[faint nacelle]

I guess it depends a lot on what kind of agreement you have previously had.

But also what is in this "repack"

and are you even authorized to reupload the content?

The created by section is indeed connected to development permissions

so if you are no longer part of the team, it makes sense you dont have access anymore

[crude sinew]

Thank you, that makes sense.

To clarify, there was no formal signed contract. The collaboration and permissions were handled through Discord discussions, Workshop access/credit, project work, and the fact that my contributions were accepted into the mod and publicly credited. I understand now that this is exactly why written agreements are important.

I also want to be clear that I am not trying to reupload the full repack or redistribute content I do not have permission to use. If I continue any work, my intention would be to create a separate addon that uses Yugo Repack only as a required dependency, and contains only my own new content or content I have permission to use.

My own contributions include in-game content and config/gameplay work, not only promotion: a custom helmet, helmet variations/reskins, vehicle reskins, and config/gameplay adjustments.

My concern now is mainly about reputation, attribution, and community impact. The collaboration ended suddenly, without a proper transition discussion, while my work and name/tag remain connected to the mod. I want to avoid any situation where people are told or led to believe that I harmed the mod, forced content removal, harassed anyone, or acted against the community.

I have tried to keep communication professional, and I did not ask for my content to be removed or for the mod/community to be harmed.

A lot of players and groups use this mod regularly, including people who joined or continued using it because of my involvement and support. I want to handle this in a way that protects those players and avoids unnecessary conflict.

Since the previous agreement was informal and Discord-based, would the right approach for future mod projects be to use a written contributor agreement covering Workshop access, credit, ownership of individual contributions, permissions, and what happens if collaboration ends?

[crude sinew]

I honestly do not know how to interpret this behaviour.

This repack is presented as a community project meant to bring different creators’ work together into one usable mod, so different communities can play, organize events, and enjoy Yugoslav Wars content in Arma.

That is exactly why I joined and contributed. I believed the goal was cooperation, community support, and respect toward the people whose work helped make the project possible.

But after contributing work, supporting the project, and helping bring activity around it, I was suddenly removed from my previous public role, the collaboration ended without a proper transition discussion, and when I raised concerns about attribution and representation, I was met with dismissive and personally insulting replies instead of professional communication.

This included being talked down to, having my concerns dismissed as nonsense, and being personally insulted rather than having the issue addressed on the merits. That is especially concerning in a project that relies on creators and contributors trusting that their work and role will be respected.

That is what I am struggling with. If a project invites creators/contributors to help build something for the wider community, then those contributors should not later be minimized, insulted, or made to look like they are harming the project simply for asking that their work and role are represented fairly.

I am not trying to harm the mod or the community. I am trying to understand what the proper way is to protect attribution, reputation, and contributor rights in a project like this.

[crude sinew]

@faint nacelle Thank you for the clarification so far.

I do not want to escalate this unnecessarily over every small point. I mainly wanted to ask that the situation is noted in case it develops further.

My concern is that this kind of situation can discourage contributors, especially smaller creators, from helping community repack projects. People are invited to contribute work to a wider community mod, but if the collaboration ends suddenly and there is no clear written agreement, their role can be minimized, their public representation can change, and the discussion can become hostile.

I have tried to remain professional, and I am not asking for harm to the mod, players, servers, events, or community. If nothing further happens, I do not want to create unnecessary conflict. But if my work, credit, or reputation is seriously misrepresented or mishandled later, I may need to react through the proper channels.

For now, I mainly want guidance and a record that I raised the concern in good faith.

Thank you for understanding,
Niksonixs / Bubica

[faint nacelle]

Written agreements are usually most solid to cover this kind of situations. However most mod groups start as friends and with the assumption that there wont be issues withing the group that cant be solved by talking.

[elder willow]

nearly a year since i initially reported a server breaking tos and so far no answer or verdict even with mails pm more mails with received acknowledgments. they collect money over selling stuff and i know arma 3 is not really a priority anymore but its really a punch in the face to servers going by the rules and others do what they want

[lilac bane]

Is there any other way to address this besides the ticket system? (Thanks, PuFu, because I didn’t know about it and it’s more convenient) Since there are so many mods that have even been used to promote Armas content, photos on social media, and COMRADs, IP issues are ignored but then, if you ask about the issue to find a solution the response is even a bit threatening. I understand that, but then it’s not followed through on.

We know all too well what many of these mods are, yet nothing is being done about them

[faint nacelle]

Theoretically people might have received permission to use such markings from their owner. At least that is expected by the workshop rules (Both Steam and Reforger workshop).

However this is not always the case and in such cases we do have requested removal of those markings or whole mod.

[lilac bane]

Theoretically RHS just mentioned that they have licenses for some brands and parody the others (as we all should), while other modders have been asked about it in their showroom chat and have even requested that people avoid discussing the topic so they won’t get in trouble

[faint nacelle]

The IP/ trademark owner would be the primary responsibility holder to report such violations, but we do check up on permission to use such things from time to time

[lilac bane]

I reported more than a year ago a German mod with HK markings (They dont have license) and they still having that gear with all the markings and ever more new ones, nothing happened to the mod, this is a example of what I'm talking

[devout umbra]

A few big manufacturers allow free usage due to the positive outreach. That’s why you will often see name brands for optics in games/mods that otherwise parody or go generic.

[native narwhal]

in some cases brands reached out to us and asked to put their stuff in even

[lilac bane]

Few do that, and they have to be able to prove that the brand does so. Just because another game or mod does it and the brand doesn’t take action doesn’t mean they have permission to use it

[lilac bane]

Right, RHS is a good example of how to handle this: when you have permission, you use it, when you don’t you parody it or find a substitute. That’s how we should all do it

[devout umbra]

Quite a few do, and many have very easy processes for receiving permissions. Many of these companies want their products used in video games like this, as it’s free advertisement to communities that are more inclined to go out and purchase them.

[lilac bane]

Great, if those companies give them permission to use it, that’s all good. RHS has permission from HK to use it, whereas we were told they don’t authorise video game mods for that purpose and that’s fine. I’m happy for RHS for getting it sorted and we all enjoy that. But just as we were turned down after trying, there are plenty of mods that haven’t even asked for permission and are using it anyway – that’s the point I’m getting at.

Another brand, UROVESA (a Spanish brand whose vehicles we recreate in our Spanish Armed Forces mod), also refused, telling us that unless we paid for it, they would not grant us permission. There are companies that do not see the value in this form of advertisement , whether due to the poor quality of the modelling or texturing, or the inappropriate use of their intellectual property in the video game.

[spare quartz]

Yo it's happening in reforger too. I think they are only enforcing A4 stuff rn...

[steep helm]

a4 doesnt exist my guy

[raven glade]

It does. Just not for public use.

[mystic dragon]

@midnight compass alright it’s been almost a month. What is the state of the review into Enfusion MCP?(a codebase small enough for a dev to explore fully in about 10 minutes)

I have been patient, not said anything, and I can’t help but feel like nothing is actually happening behind the scenes.

I have re-released Enfusion MCP on a new GitHub specific to the project

https://github.com/EnfusionMCP/EnfusionMCP

[nimble gyro]

I would just continue your work as usual, and err on the side of caution by following Mario’s original request which was the disclaimer added inside the repo.

You were distributing in multiple places prior to this, if there was issues or claims that needed to be handled; they’d have reached out to you by now with clarifying instructions.

[mystic dragon]

I was distributing in multiple places?

I suppose a single GitHub repo and a single npm repo is considered multiple. It is worth considering that my original repo had ~30 forks

Regardless, I will get the disclaimer added tonight when I get home.

[nimble gyro]

LobeHub, GitHub, and Reddit all had files distributed of your work after the removal just for your reference.

Whether or not that was you or that was other actors pushing the distribution, it was still present and circulating even during your GitHub removal debacle.

[mystic dragon]

It’s an open source project. All of the code is right there. I have no idea what lodehub is, I am aware of at least 30 forks of it on GitHub, and the npm repo has been downloaded over 5000 times. I may have posted it on Reddit once when I first released it

[echo orchid]

Unlike RHS, where all content is self made internally from scratch (so there is access to raw files - models (lp and hp) and textures files, and there is a direct control over these things), the vast majority of mods out there are using content that was made by some else and was acquired from a seller.
These assets have all the real life markings baked down into textures or models. The license holders who acquired these usually make no model and texture changes, they inject it as they are.
This practice seems to be set to change considering @faint nacelle recent post around this discord

[lilac bane]

In our mod, we have a bit of both: for hard surfaces, almost 97% of the assets are our own, created by our team, but with soft surfaces we face more difficulties and sometimes we buy assets. Even if those assets have baked markings, we take great care to replace them in Substance. The thing is the vast majority of modders don't bother to do this or worse, they believe they have the right to do so because they’ve been doing it for many years in A3 and don’t intend to change now because no lawyer is going to come and take them to court (I’ve read this exact phrase last night).

[faint nacelle]

Well I mean mod uploader is responsible for the content they put up

no matter if its self made or bought.

It may not be immediately apparent to people unfamiliar with these things though so I try to be lenient and guide people to fix things

[echo orchid]

of course, i am pointing out one of the reasons behind it

[faint nacelle]

Yep. The practice of not sanitizing bought assets has unfortunately been going on for long time so Id expect it will take a moment before people catch on that its actually been wrong way to go about it.

[echo orchid]

never said all of it, i said the vast majority which is still true.

I personally model and texture everything using real world markings aaand made up markings and brands. So i have both options, in max/ substance is pretty easy to do that and switch between if required

[covert notch]

So these guys http://www.twitch.tv/statichotel blatantly said in this stream they've stolen my map pbo from my server

they're also archiving the stream and showcasing all their stolen cars currently.

theyre showcasing the Star Wars vehicles currently

http://www.rlgarma3.co.uk/

http://www.twitch.tv/statichotel/v/47706551?t=19m11s

I'm the Org community he's talking about. Anyone have any suggestions further?

[hybrid tide]

dmca when he uploads ur files for ppl to download

[covert notch]

its already been done. im filling out dmca with twitch right now

[hybrid tide]

il keep an eye on this one for our files cheers

[covert notch]

they have criticalgaming, citylife, EVO, star wars and stolen my map pbo so im sure theres more here for people to see

[hybrid tide]

u sure they got cl?

[covert notch]

I watched the stream and saw a few cars that were high quality but couldnt read out the names

[hybrid tide]

i got banned from his chat lol

[covert notch]

i already sent DMCA to twitch

and just sent one to Enjin

i didnt even go back

[ionic laurel]

That website is awful...

[covert notch]

He's monetizing too

or they i mean

Don't see them on the list for approval

[jaunty prawn]

Does anyone know if the Z and V symbols can be used on vehicles?

[hot rivet]

No

[pliant jolt]

No, that counts as a depiction of a group involved in an ongoing conflict

#reforger_discussion message

[jaunty prawn]

ok, thanks

[tender hawk]

If they're not on the list then notify BI on that 😃

[teal garden]

im kinda supprised that almost noone atleast i think wont notify about the A2 servers that are monetizing stuff but when it comes to A3 server there will be some friend that will do

[covert notch]

@tender hawk great idea. submitted that too.

[bronze anchor]

They were on the list at one point for Takistan but I believe PuFu had them removed since they were using RHS things

[jaunty prawn]

And can the cross be used on Ukrainian vehicles for identification?

Since Germany also uses it in some units, would there be any problem in using it?

[pliant jolt]

No. Same rule as above

[pliant jolt]

That would be fine since they're not involved in any ongoing conflict, it's also distinctly different from the Ukrainian one afaik.

@faint nacelle Could you use ZOV markings if the conflict being depicted was Russia vs NATO rather than Russia vs Ukraine or is that still a no-go?

[jaunty prawn]

This one? I searched and it wasn't on the list of official symbols

[pliant jolt]

Neither are the Z, O, or V markings

[crimson ingot]

ZOV markings are used in current conflict, so chances are also banned

[sturdy ginkgo]

I believe the + is also banned, I’d wait until horriblegoat replies to you before publishing your mod and risking a ban

[jaunty prawn]

ok

[faint nacelle]

No

[jaunty prawn]

ok

[echo orchid]

@faint nacelle ^^

[leaden cipher]

@golden bay we now have #ar-workshop_tickets 😉 saves a amount of backlash in this channel and for the reporters with these kind of reports 😁 As it can get disturbing from time to time with some reports.

[golden bay]

oops, want me to delete this and open a ticket ?

[leaden cipher]

Yea might want to do that 👍

[queen glade]

So with IP rights violations being more heavily enforced, currently I have a mod which does name a production company and their one of their products. Should I change the name of the mod immediately and if so, should I just keep the project name and remove the company name or should I change the item to an alternate name?

@faint nacelle

[faint nacelle]

If you don't have permission for the name etc then preferably yes you should fix that

[queen glade]

fixed

[faint nacelle]

[past notch]

@faint nacelle Hi, I have a question regarding the IP policy for Arma Reforger mods/projects.

Let’s say I worked as a developer on Project A and wrote code for that project myself. Later, I leave the project and create my own separate mod/project B, where I reuse or adapt code that I originally developed.

In this situation:

• Would my new mod/project B be considered an IP violation against Project A?
• Does the code I personally wrote belong to me if I can prove authorship and development history?
• Could the owners of Project A submit a takedown or IP complaint against my standalone mod/project B?
• Are there any official guidelines regarding ownership of contributor-created code in community projects?

I’d appreciate any clarification on how this is generally handled within the Arma Reforger modding community or platform policies.

Thanks.

[faint nacelle]

Depends what had been agreed to in the other project.

We don't really have official guidelines on how mod team should agree on things.

If there is something agreed clearly in writing that's often more easier to evaluate.

When it's people arguing, and leaving team, getting kicked out. It's often messy.

[past notch]

Thank you for the clarification.

In my case, I would like to avoid any conflict and make sure I do everything properly. If there was no written agreement stating that all code contributions become the property of Project A, and I can prove that specific code/features were written and commited by me, would it generally be acceptable to reuse my own work in a separate project?

Also, would it be safer to rewrite or refactor the code for Project B, rather than copying it directly from Project A, even if I originally wrote it?

I understand this may not be an official legal answer, but I would appreciate any guidance on how moderators usually look at these situations when handling complaints.

[coral torrent]

The rules are very simple. Any code or texture or model you create yourself is your IP. You could sell the exclusive usage rights to someone, this is what is in employment contracts if you do it for a company, so only they can use it, you yourself have no right to re-publish it anywhere then.
Unless you have signed a legally binding contract (between two real people, not some pseudonms/projectnames without addresses and birth dates) this does not apply and you are the sole IP rights author. This is the case for the vast majority of modding groups.

The next topic is the license under which you release something. You may be the author but if you published your parts in the group under a mods license like APL, then other group members can use the content under the license terms for ever, there is no revoking that or saying "i am leaving the group and take this code with me". They just need to keep the credits accordingly.

Now for your situation where you wrote it and probably not sign any contract about exclusive rights, you are free to share the code with other projects or republish it yourself - but of course only what you wrote, no the entire mod project.

If multiple people worked on the same files, you can only publish what was your contribution, not the whole file.

[past notch]

Great news, you are the best, thanks

[wicked spoke]

This is why our development studio has signed contracts that indicate all contributed work is the property of the studio. This just helps avoid issues down the road and ensure everyone is on the same page.

[eternal acorn]

Did I understand correctly that people sign contracts when contributing to modding projects for free?

[blissful thorn]

bigger mod projects defently do that , so if someone rages and fs people over or does not want to keep going on with arma or the project they can still keep the stuff that was made for it.

[faint nacelle]

There has been increasing amount of team breakups recently. Such contract does make it very clear who has rights to what parts if that happens.

[wicked spoke]

Yes, because it's a nightmare if we play the game of people coming or going over the years and pulling their little bit of code or work on a team project, etc. or using their bit to demand X, someone else demand Y, etc,. It's transparent though unlike the issues that seem to go on. The studio is controlled by the nonprofit which is a legal entity, so it's not with like an individual owner type thing

[eternal acorn]

I just wanted to clarify that I understood correctly.

[wicked spoke]

Been involved in projects in non-profit space plenty of times and this is common. Only in gaming is the lack of clarity seem to be so common place because people just make a lot of assumptions.

[novel goblet]

There is also "joint authorship". If people submitted separate source files they may be seen as combined work, and any party can withdraw further use. But if people worked on say the same file jointly, it would likely be seen as joint authorship and you can withdraw but not prevent use of the joint work by the remaining collaborators.

[wicked spoke]

This is where things get messy as a matter of law. Which is precisely why it is to everyone's benefit to have clarity in the agreements.

And when we start involving multiple jurisdictions in common law, it gets messy too.

[novel goblet]

Yes, agreement make it simpler. But often modding collaboration arise organically.
I imagine many collaborations would simply never happen if the initial "spark" of collab, one party brought up the "bureaucracy" of contract early on.

Though entirely separate, I believe common law is in the minorty, most US and UK.

[hollow hull]

Also, it can often be used as a form social manipulation or to take ownership over someone else work, in smaller start up projects where its not often seen as a project.

Its a double edge sword for newer people to work on something that they could lose owner ship of.
I am personally a fan of open-source/free-software when it comes to modding, at least for smaller mods and especially when the primary product is code.
Both parties and the community can never lose the contributions made.

[lapis quiver]

Little trick add water marks in your models textures like in the normals, base textures and unused UV

[gaunt stirrup]

Mod I used to work on modelled in a copyrighted logo into everything so they could DMCA servers that stole the content haha

The way I see it - If I make content for a mod, they can use it but I also can take what I made and use it elsewhere if I want to.

Essentially, they get a licence to use it and I retain the IP rights

[thick latch]

What can I do if I come across someone charging money to create mods for Reforger?

Such as this

[faint nacelle]

they are usually scammers

you can report them at #discord_tickets

[thick latch]

Even if they arent in this server?

[faint nacelle]

well. maybe not then. Not much we can do then but to ban them pre-emptively

just dont pay them

[thick latch]

Ah, shame

[thick latch]

Never intended to, i just wanted to get them to admit to charging money for reforger mods

[thick latch]

1415646894788579328
Heres the user ID

[pliant jolt]

$200 for a scope is fucking insane. God I hope people don't fall for this

[blissful thorn]

why even get it made if rayzi already has made most scopes 😂

[azure olive]

Are you asking him to only make the model/textures, because that is still allowed.

As long as BI tools are out of the picture

[azure olive]

It is a bit pricey but its still in the realm affordable, provided he isn't a scammer and provides high enough quality of a model.

[thick latch]

I only asked him to make him tell me his price, I have no interest in commissioning him for a mod, he seems super suspicious

[azure olive]

If you think he's suspicious then don't continue with him. Plenty of scammers in this discord

[thick latch]

Yeah I’m aware

[thick latch]

Not the SU-258 tho

[blissful thorn]

i mean he does have a acoq with a reddot on the top. basicly the same "{

[thick latch]

Not really, they look nothing like eachother

[hot rivet]

As someone harassed to death by @thick latch I can confirm the SU-258 (also known as TA-11SDO/MGO) is a different optic to other TA-11s

[thick latch]

I only pointed out the reticle was wrong 😭

[hot rivet]

I won't let this go too off topic but I can drop the TA-11F affinity files I have in my forum if you want to edit and make a submod for a true SU-258

[thick latch]

Sure, my DMs are open

[devout umbra]

Its not real. There has been a MASSIVE uptick in these scams across many arma community discords, like atleast 10-15 a day in some of the bigger discords. The 1 on 1 interactions are definitely scams, and id imagine the discord "shops" sell ripped content or are just more scams themselves

I responded to the wrong person

[soft egret]

There are a dozen discord servers that work like "Make a ticket". These are operating like call centers, focused on mass scamming. They make accounts en-masse, and send unsolicited DM's advertising their services, and telling you to join their discord to make a ticket.

And there are a few people who are more specialised (this seems to be one of those), some might even have real modding experience, who do it directly in DMs. But even if they do have experience, they just want the money and will ghost you after you paid.

[jolly wind]

It's comedic at this point, I have like 5 messages in my spam that are laid out exactly as you described.

[leaden cipher]

Please take screenahots and make a ticket in #discord_tickets so we can verify en if needed ban them as scammers 😁

[sacred sedge]

Its alot of old FiveM modders doing these scams ive noticed

[frigid heart]

FiveM modding has always been ripe with scammers and paid mods, with reforger we've seen quite a bit of those same people try their hand at scamming reforger players too

[leaden cipher]

Not only FiveM, it is rolling out to many other modded games from bellum (which als gets modding/if not already active) to farm simulator, forza and so on. If there is a market they will step in.

Besides that if we ban the accounts here they go on on other discords, gaming discords, but also spreading out to community discords, some already have "report scammers" channels in their discord.

[spare quartz]

how come i dont get any scammers 🙁 all i get is rp servers asking for things

[leaden cipher]

Well we have been dealing out a lot of punches, preemptive bans but also after reports, and looking at the amount of reports we have in tickets compared to 8 months ago that have dropped drastically (luckily).

[spare quartz]

hopefully they all focus on gta6 and its smooth sailing for you guys(and us) from here on out

[golden bay]

I get both... fml

I think the lifers are worse than scammers i won't lie

[jolly wind]

Cmon now we're not all bad

[queen raptor]

says they guy withBad as his server tag i swear you cant make this stuff up LOL

[jolly wind]

calm down there pal

[golden bay]

Those who do their own mods instead of harassing others modders are fine.

[granite marsh]

Hey, quick question about IP protection for mods. I'm working on a tool that helps mod authors protect their script files from being easily read if someone extracts the PAK. It doesn't modify any game files or interfere with how the game runs — it only processes the mod author's own source code before they publish. I've gone through the EULA, Workshop Terms, and the IP FAQ and didn't find anything that would prohibit this, but wanted to check with you guys directly. Is there anything in the terms that would prevent a mod author from using a third-party tool to protect their own scripts?

[frigid heart]

Sounds like you're talking about an obfuscator
#enfusion_scripting message

[faint nacelle]

yeah better to abandon that idea

[granite marsh]

I heard through our mutual what you said. Thanks for the heads up.

[queen glade]

I've been seeing quite a lot of the bigger mods using MCAM instead of MC for their camos. Does calling Multicam Camos "MC" come under an IP violation or is it just the modders personal choice?

[faint nacelle]

probably choice.

[fleet moss]

Also multicam, etc. falls under a very annoying amount of research to determine what usages are allowable and not. Crye owns two federal trademarks for the word mark “MultiCam”. While Crye has tried to register the pattern itself as trade dress, the USPTO has repeatedly refused because the design is considered “functional”. Crye holds copyright in the pattern itself but only holds word‑mark trademarks for “MultiCam”. The copyright/patent for the camo is specific, so if it doesn't infringe the patent (though Under U.S. law, design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture; they do not extend to disembodied digital images.), and doesn't scan a copy of the real life material into the game, then it may be considered fair to use (because it wouldn't technically be multicam anymore).

They are probably doing it to avoid ANY insinuation that their texture is somehow infringing rights. Though it is likely not necessary.

[queen glade]

Ok cheers. Just been seeing it around a lot more in researching other mods.

[faint nacelle]

I've opened up a license feedback thread here:
https://discord.com/channels/105462288051380224/1508775029897297930

No jokes, no arguing. Aim is to see what we can do to improve the modding experience.

[raven relic]

@faint nacelle Hello, i have a question regarding the Ip rights, if someone want to use a brand/group logo for their project but can't use it because of the Ip if 1 letter is changed for instance instead of Lockhead Martin, it's Lockhead Mertin is it Ok ? or instead of mercedes, mercades ?

just for a vehicle design purpose

[faint nacelle]

Logo would have to change too. Not just the name.

[frigid heart]

Not a question we can answer, it ultimately depends on what the company thinks is worth taking to court or filing a DMCA/C&D for
trademark law still applies if your name is close enough that people can get confused by it

[faint nacelle]

This as well

[frigid heart]

and context plays into that as well, you'd probably get away with calling a random something "mercades" but as a vehicle, no chance

[faint nacelle]

Yeah this. 👆 Generally speaking your imaginary product label etc should be different from what you mimic from real life.

[raven relic]

ok if i put a design on a helmet with a music band for example metalica so i take metalica logo and i change 1 or 2 letters in it does it work ? but it's the same font

[faint nacelle]

lets say dont and make up your own thing just to be safe.

as in we are not IP court so we play it safe

[raven relic]

and is it ok if it's commonly used logos everywhere irl like the ride the lightning for ex or Ace of spades ?
like this

[faint nacelle]

no

and I would advice against AI created text like this since AI is trained with all kinds of trademarked things

without consent of the authors or owners

so it is likely to infringe someones rights

and you would be held responsible for the content you upload

[raven relic]

if i do it by hand is it good ? photoshop

[faint nacelle]

if its original yes. if it copies someones logo, no

[raven relic]

yes it's kinda weird i don't really understand where is the limit where IP applies ? even when we change leters it's still IP ? i might be dumb

[faint nacelle]

design of letters can be protected for example

its not a black and white are unfortunately

[raven relic]

where can I check this ? to know if the band made a request for the letter design

[faint nacelle]

for this specifically I dont know. sometimes such things are mentioned in some form of disclaimer on the band/publisher website or in record cover art corner

it is pretty safe to assume big names like metallica have everything related to their brand copyrighted/trademarked

you can also always try to get in contact with their representatives

[raven relic]

https://www.mekiplaw.com/the-metallica-logo-guide/

https://www.mekiplaw.com/trademark-vs-copyright-an-easy-guide/
is it right ?

what does this mean ?

[frigid heart]

yes its probably not copyrighted, its trademarked... same difference for your case. you can NOT use it

trademark law still applies if your name is close enough that people can get confused by it

Your logo is explicitly made to look like metallica, hence falls under the trademark. just make your own name...

[raven relic]

ok and the font falls under that rule too ? just to be sure i can't wright NightHawk using anyones font

[faint nacelle]

youll want to consult IP lawyer for that

[frigid heart]

I dont know, im not a lawyer.
fonts are usually licensed tho so probably not allowed to use it either without a license

[faint nacelle]

or whatever fonts licensing you might use

[frigid heart]

easiest solution to all of it, just come up with your own brands/logo's that don't infringe on copyright and/or trademark

[raven relic]

i'll look at this , it might be a good solution because from what i've heard the rule is we need to not take it for a real band product ? i'll see what i can find about this

[faint nacelle]

is it really so important to imitate real band?

[raven relic]

it's hella cool, they used to put bands logo on military vehicles in nam and the 90s

[midnight compass]

Depending on what, derivation is also a problem

Taking the logo, and modifying it is derivation

[faint nacelle]

made up band would work just as well

[midnight compass]

To be honest just leave yourself of issues with your mod and make your own things. Even on this question alone I feel you have took a lot of time from your side that would have been saved by doing your own things. let alone of running the risk of your mod being taken down due to IP request

Easiest way to avoid problem is to just make your own things.

[raven relic]

mm idk it doesn't feel the same 🙁

[faint nacelle]

well thats all you can really do

[desert dust]

Couldn’t mods made in US stay up after dmca because of section 230 or since bi isn’t American it doesn’t matter.

[frigid heart]

Thats not how it works, Section 230 doesn't apply to copyright(dmca) anyway.
And we simply don't want infringing content on our platforms.

[faint nacelle]

no

[desert dust]

[desert dust]

Did you not want it in arma 3 either but you didn’t get bothered with dmca since steam hosted it so it wasn’t worth banning it

[faint nacelle]

may need some more context for this to make sense

[desert dust]

All the copyrighted stuff on steam workshop for a3

[faint nacelle]

no its not wanted there either

you can report stuff like that at #a3-workshop_tickets

DMCA is something owner of wrongly used content can make

[hollow hull]

Its been a minute, iirc the primary purpose for Sec 230 is that it removes liability of a public platform if someone misuses it.

For example, a person uses a distribution platform for game files to redistribute copyrighted content to others.
The platform would be protected from liability if they were sued for a user's actions

But as far as leaving the offending content on there, I dont think Sec 230 gives an exception for removing offending content / material.

[novel goblet]

Yeah, if they begin keeping some stuff up, they are in fact removing themselves as a 'neutral' third party just distributing and would lose the protection given.

[cerulean ridge]

Are we able to integrate parts of Bohemia created scenarios in our own maps/scenarios?

For example, the tutorial has various instructors for the training courses. If I wanted to make an Everon version of the tutorial for whatever reason.

Or create a modernised Operation Omega by overriding the prefabs for characters, vehicles, weapons, etc.

I'm not sure if this would be restricted or allowed under licensing/EULA and to what extent users are free to modify scenarios by Bohemia.

[echo orchid]

@bronze anchor - which ones?

[bronze anchor]

RLG http://rlgarma3.co.uk/forum/m/34440622/viewthread/26232588-how-to-download-takistan-life-official-guide/page/1, here is their repo ftp://212.227.92.104/. They are still using RHS stuff but aren't approved for monetization aymore

[echo orchid]

are they still selling shit

??

[short edge]

Well, they don't according to their forums, founder mentions that he can't monetize stuff because of exactly those reasons: http://rlgarma3.co.uk/forum/page/2/m/34440622/viewthread/26085084-donator-shop

[echo orchid]

ok

[covert notch]

Damn another place stealing my map right off my repo

www.infinityliferpg.com and cracked IPB

[ionic laurel]

what version ipb

ah it's ipb4

don't know any exploits for ipb4 :<

[drowsy verge]

DMCA them assholes @covert notch haha

[amber ibex]

@gritty blaze #general_chat_arma already raged about it :)
head over to there to do it ^^

[gritty blaze]

Yea, I saw. This is one of the only channels I actually like to keep up with and saw it psoted here as well >.<

[steep mulch]

@covert notch Went to talk to devs for fun and it seems they switched to Chernarus, just recorded trailer on your island

[covert notch]

Their whole story was fishy

[nimble fern]

How do you DMCA communities in case of stolen / pirated content ?

[tender hawk]

[e-mail] is one such route. Alternately, if they are on the monetization approved server list you can report them via the triangle-icon button: https://www.bistudio.com/monetization/approved/arma3
"*Use the “Report” button next to the server in question and send us a report and we will investigate the matter and take away the monetization permission if this report proves to be true. Don’t forget to include as much detail as possible.

This does not limit you from enforcing your copyrights yourself and forcing the server owner to stop using an intellectual property*."

[hybrid tide]

think he means when u contact the server hosts with evidence

then they deal with it

thats what we been doing

[pliant oar]

just use classical DMCA filling vs any web/server hosting company, same goes for STEAM Workshop or similar, but remember you need to be IP owner and be able back it

[covert notch]

the bigger server hosts are probably going to ignore you but the smaller ones that know how Arma works "should" help enforce like ArmaHosts

hiphip got approved for Monetization today hiphiphooray

[carmine folio]

^^ 😉

[shy orbit]

Hey guys, quick question: Are there any issues with desolation and IP rights violations or are they all good? I have heard rumors here and there that hey are stealing stuff etc, however I wanted to ask over here for a little bit more information 😃

[dull moon]

desolation is now clean. had a few issues with violations in the beginning but now it's good

[shy orbit]

Nice, alright I might give it a go then. Thanks for the help

[twilit patrol]

Is R0adki11 present in this chat?

or any Biforum admin able to be help me resolve one problem connected with IP rights?

[tender hawk]

Are you not able to contact them on the forums?

[carmine folio]

@twilit patrol send me a pm

[pliant oar]

@twilit patrol there is always the infringements email to send reports to

[twilit patrol]

Yes, and my grandfather said once to me that your feedback tracker was online 😄

I prefer contacting directly to somone that can help me rather than wait x weeks to solve the problem

[slender ridge]

Hey guys. I recently found a video on the ArmA reddit that would require a fix (it seems that players can duplicate gear, once the player disconnects and the body begins to fall below the ground) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfWVNEMsQcE

the issue is more between a hack and an issue, so not sure where to ask for this to be fixed.

[cobalt creek]

1. wrong Chan
2. onPlayerDisconnect -> delete vehicle blablabla....

[twilit patrol]

guys do you think these https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5zO-NUtwUQ models can be imported into Arma?

[dull moon]

nope

it's a violation

[twilit patrol]

ok

[slender ridge]

@Keeway Anything ripped from third party games (without the company's permission) is completely illegal. However, by all means, avoid 'facepunch' since all their dirty work is illegal itself..

[autumn cipher]

Well that's not very nice of them. You would never repack a PBO with a different name and obfuscate it with Mikero's tools right? You have permission for all the addons you are monetizing and uploading to steam workshop right?

@green moss where'd your message go?

[dull moon]

suspicious...

[autumn cipher]

Did you see the message before it was deleted? It was something along the lines of the RLG Takistan Life server has taken content from RHS and the Arma.Network Takistan Life server (pydrex's community) and repacked them with different PBO names and is monetizing them.

[dull moon]

that's right
01:17] pydrex: Hi, The website www.rlgroleplay.com has stolen assets from many servers such as Arma.Network / RHS Mods (Renamed them all) and many others. They're charging also for gang bases on the server under the radar which violates the obvious montetisation rules. A report has been filed to infridgement@bohemia but no reply as of yet. Also have filed DMCA with host (OVH) over certain files.

[green moss]

Ye, I deleted it and DM'd it direct. ty

[cobalt creek]

" Any applicable VIP perks are delivered electronically, your act of donating is your receipt of electronic delivery. "

http://www.rlgroleplay.com/communityrules

[green moss]

Thanks. Good spot

[cobalt creek]

Cup, HLC, Jonzie, A3L, ASDG, RH, RDS, SAB, Tryk, XCAM
wow, what a collection 😄

Ah, there is RHS

[green moss]

Yeah, I know the RHS guys complained about it prior but not sure if anything was done.

[echo orchid]

if you find rhs someplace please mention me via @

so i can deal with it

[echo orchid]

currently i cannot see RHS on their repro

will check manually just to be sure

[cobalt creek]

@echo orchid Yeah, seems to be taken out.

[echo orchid]

yeah i know 😉

[iron flame]

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=548271236

https://gyazo.com/11786fc68d5994cf86b8b10bf6798f83

@pliant oar can you...please explain? The rifle is a custom model...the message you sent...is well...odd..

Ryan left you a message on the dev section but I just can't wrap my head around it...how can you even remotely say anything in that mod is stolen? 😮

[fossil basalt]

🍿

[hybrid tide]

🍺

[pliant oar]

@iron flame and it will be sorted, so stop panicking

[iron flame]

@pliant oar Alright. I wasn't panicking however. Cheers.

[echo orchid]

these wankers are using a lot of mods, including RHS mods: http://ghostzgamerz.com/

they are monetized
aaaaaand...
check this shit out: http://ghostzgamerz.com/rewards/product-category/donor-perks/a-3/

full mod list shortly

@latent mesa ^

[fossil basalt]

And this right here folks is why most everyone despises "Life mods", because they are thieving bastards!

[steep mulch]

Went to talk to the admins of the community about the issue. I was expecting a bunch of ignorant asshats, but found genuinely nice guys that were willing to fix the issues. Based on what we discussed on TS, they're already sorting it out.

[steep mulch]

Of course, I can't know what they're actually doing. We'll see.

[strong adder]

http://rlgroleplay.com/home This community is not approved for monitization but hands out exclusive gang bases with weapons unobtainable to the general player to a gang who controls said base and has vests with a very high armor level clearly not cosmetic....that is also exclusive to that gang and must be paid for to obtain with no other way to get the rewards

[finite crescent]

thanks

for the information

[blissful plinth]

@strong adder BIS know about them already, but if you further proof might be worth passing it on. They have also stolen a number of other community's files.

[fossil basalt]

Don't forget, you can also notify YT of infringing content as well.

[gloomy quest]

You would never repack a PBO with a different name and obfuscate it

i am taking you out of context here, but there are no technical restraints on thieves simply renaming an already existing pbo. Thus masking it's origins. The nameOf.pbo has no bearing on the engine. For all practical purposes the name is ignored.

REpacking a pbo is a different animal. Assuming the pbo is obfuscated in the first place, it ranges between quite difficult to impossible to extract, thus repacking never comes into it for those wanting to make a quick buck from low hanging fruit.