#ip_rights_violations

1 messages · Page 69 of 1

heavy nacelle
#

Yeah that would be ideal

soft egret
#

Just make a steam collection.
Thats literally their whole purpose 😄

#

I guess you could register html URL's in launcher, and Launcher auto reloads it on every startup

rapid cypress
#

I'd be happy if the launcher didnt just seem to choose randomly when he does or doesnt save the currently loaded dlcs/mods and thus reloads them next launch

tall oxide
soft egret
#

That was an idea for possible future

tall oxide
#

ah okay

carmine folio
carmine folio
carmine folio
faint nacelle
#

You should be able to get the 3d sites. Hosting your items to remove them.

carmine folio
#

Ye, I've reported his account, I'm just posting it because I saw some other very familiar models.

faint nacelle
#

👍

echo orchid
#

https://twitter.com/rhsmods/status/1395280821653749762

rhsmods (@rhsmods)

We had to take down ripped content of ours that was sold on various websites by @Haytham_mkt, who also takes credit for models made by @ChamferZone on his twitter. All of it is condoned by a certain @Arma3official group this bloke is part of - @A3Devgru.
Well done boys /s

Twitter ·
#

the entire thing is a joke, please ping me if you see any of that pop up again

wheat belfry
# echo orchid https://twitter.com/rhsmods/status/1395280821653749762

Good job on calling it out but I think saying the unit condoned it is unfair as they only found out when everyone else did. When they found out, they reprimanded him for it. I'm not encouraging people ripping and selling 3D models that aren't theirs but I think the tweet paints the unit out badly.

echo orchid
#

@wheat belfrynope sorry, some of the people from that group were well aware from quite some time

#

which is condoning

wheat belfry
#

I wasn't aware of that, I'd seen the TSF model on cgtrader before hand but the owner had no clue afaik. The messages on the twitter thread indicate the owner didn't know. You have proof that they knew?

echo orchid
#

USP does

#

i had a report about it but didn't get the chance to look it over

wheat belfry
#

Were USP models taken too?

echo orchid
#

from beggining of the week

wheat belfry
#

Ohh Zee

echo orchid
#

in any case, the report didn't came from USP, it came from someone who also notified that particular group

wheat belfry
#

Yeah that'll have been the TSF guys

echo orchid
#

also, considering the way my request was handled (all things considered regarding discord privacy settings) when i asked very politely in their discord about this particular bloke didn't make me think there was anything else but protecting their own

#

anyways, i say it as it is, not as they wanna make it look

#

the guy is also a complete fraud
example

i mean he did try to hide it by removing some of the etching, but even the first 3 digits on the sn are the same

Haytham Mokhtari (@Haytham_mkt)

3D Model of the M1911A1 handgun also known as the Colt 1911, semi-automatic, magazine-fed, recoil-operated pistol chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge. It served as the standard-issue sidearm for the United States Armed Forces from 1911 to 1985.
#3D #pistol #M1911 #gun #Blender

Twitter ·
ChamferZone - Colt 1911 Government

Hi everyone! This model can be purchased at the following stores:

https://gumroad.com/timb
https://cubebrush.co/tim
https://www.cgtrader.com/chamferzone
https://assetstore.unity.com/publishers/21564

For the latest news and community:

https://discord.gg/sAkTtKG
https://www.facebook.com/ChamferZone/
https://www.youtube.com/chamferzone

soft egret
wheat belfry
echo orchid
#

lol

#

not in my books

soft egret
#

no difference between posting screenshots of ripped content and condoning/promoting ripped content

echo orchid
#

the main difference is that if you sell my work i can definitely sue for monetary damages besides moral damages

plush citrus
#

this entire mod

#

second link is a screenshot of all the pbos

#

just reauploaded from a plethora of other mods

dull moon
#

already on our list

quiet finch
#

Its funny as he gives credit to a bunch of people but are these in the modders?

cedar flint
cedar flint
dull moon
#

nobody gave permission. most of the credits is a simple c/p from CUPs about page

cedar flint
fierce prawn
# echo orchid https://twitter.com/rhsmods/status/1395280821653749762

@soft egret so that's the main reason why I got warned for posting screenshots with some equipment that was ripped from COD?
Or was something else? (Like the SPS JPC vests, weapons, etc)

I would be grateful if you could answer me that question so I correct it for future screenshots.
Sorry if I violated a rule but I don't know which mod it was specifically, I am new to the game and I did not expect such legal problems regarding the content in the Workshop
(Sorry for the pin btw) doomguy_ping

soft egret
#

so that's the main reason why I got warned for posting screenshots with some equipment that was ripped from COD?
No thats unrelated.
The reason why you got warned is because you posted screenshot(s) of ripped content

fierce prawn
#

Only uniform?
Not helmets or vests?
Ok, thanks. I'm gonna see what mod is that and take it out form the modlist

soft egret
#

uniform is the only thing I know of for sure.

fierce prawn
#

Let me check

#

cuz I got: VSM all in one collection, USP mods, CUP units maybe some of those have the uniform

merry kestrel
#

VSM has the ripped models (last that I recall)

fierce prawn
#

Oh shit

merry kestrel
#

yeah it was the reason it was taken down and the maker left the Arma community

fierce prawn
#

oh ok
thanks for the info

soft egret
#

The new VSM should be fine, atleast as far as I know they said they removed the ripped stuff

#

But the new VSM was also renamed, I think its called MSO?

fierce prawn
#

That's the only VSM stuff I have

faint nacelle
#

if you have the old VSM stuff you should delete it

merry kestrel
#

MLO is indeed the name

fierce prawn
runic wraith
#

VSM had the battlefield G3 model, the one in your screen is the COD G3 model. So you must have forgotten to mention one of the other mods you have loaded, maybe something along the lines of FLB or TFL

fierce prawn
#

Ok
let me check for the second time

#

Maybe is this

runic wraith
#

Nope, not that one

fierce prawn
#

I deleted a TFL Modpack
Maybe that shit have the cod stuff, cuz I don't have more uniforms or clothing mods

carmine folio
runic wraith
#

Bingo

carmine folio
#

A question regarding Leviathan, vests/backpacks are clear for posting in this discord? Since AFAIK they dont have any ripped shit

runic wraith
#

I'd say that depends on the loadout you are using, since some of those do contain assets from USP

carmine folio
runic wraith
carmine folio
runic wraith
#

NP. That's part of the fun when you use content from authors who only steal it from others, never know when your pics using it can get you banned.

fierce prawn
#

I got the fuckers, both gone. Thanks for the help everyone
TFL_VESTS
tfl_g3

vivid wave
scarlet patrol
#

do licenses cover texture inheritance?
for example if I made a box that inherits a wood texture from cup, hence making it a dependency for said box
could there be any issue with that? (cup was just an example I'm speaking more generally)
my mod doesn't contain that wood texture afterall, it just a path

vivid wave
spiral cape
faint nacelle
#

@spiral cape context?

spiral cape
#

Vests are ripped I believe

cedar flint
spiral cape
#

yeah definitely not "Legitimate"

cedar flint
#

Currently waiting to hear back from a CAF / TFC admin disregard. Nothing is property of TFC

#

Unsure about the other 2.
Though config on the SPOILER_Dog_AVS mod, (which is a load of faces mostly)
Has

        dlc="DEVGRURS";
        author="Natan brody";
#

With Walker mod belonging to SanctusQuoPeccator

spiral cape
stiff jasper
wheat belfry
cedar flint
wheat belfry
cedar flint
#

Link would be helpful

wheat belfry
#

It's not on the workshop anymore

fallen viper
cedar flint
fallen viper
#

FFAA mod, Spain 2035, R3F and KAs stuff from what ive seen

#

The first two I know for sure dont allow reuploads

cedar flint
#

Downloading, to rip open and see

fallen viper
#

I'm also seeing Guardia Civil and CNP Mod stuff there as well, unknown if they allow reuploads

cedar flint
#

9,402.6mb

cedar flint
#

jesus fcking christ.

#

CBA. FFAA. HLC. MBG. MGSR. PLP. R3F. SAB. XCAM. And a bunch of building mods.

#

I cant open most of the POPLIFE_ pbos they've been obfuscated. so god knows what files are inside those too.

fallen viper
#

yep, most of them are unopenable

#

and my game seems to crash whenever I place any unit on the editor, so I cant check the contents that way either

tall oxide
#

ace compat bundled and reuploaded

#

again a serverkey workaround

serene current
#

If I'm not mistaken ACE is open-source under the GNU General Public License so I believe they can do this

cedar flint
#

https://github.com/acemod/ACE3

"The project is entirely open-source and all contributions are welcome. Feel free to maintain your own custom version, so long as the changes you make are open to the public in accordance with the GNU General Public License (GPLv2).

The mod is built modularly, so almost any included PBO can be easily removed from the configuration. This way, a team can maintain its own tailored version of ACE3 by simply excluding any components they don't need, or those possibly in conflict with other mods. Modules themselves, e.g. the medical system, also include various customization options, allowing mission designers to tweak the overall experience."

slow agate
#

(Armaholic shut down and they are "open for enquiries and offers" )

echo orchid
#

?

autumn glacier
carmine folio
#

i mean, is he getting money from it?

faint nacelle
#

it is not

#

money or not money

slow agate
cedar flint
autumn glacier
cedar flint
stiff jasper
#

as we know all the FLB, TFL, along with ripped content, star wars and such mods are bannable and illegal in Arma 3 environment, but what's the legal point of view on mods that have that bad content as a dependency? Let's say I've found a mod that creates a new faction - so it's just a pure config file - but it needs a modification with ripped The Division (or anything else) assets to work. Is creating and uploading that faction mod to Workshop punishable just because of the dependencies, or not?

I don't really get the intellectual property violation edge when it comes to situations I described. Technically the mod doesn't contain anything from the forbidden X mod, but it's related to the X content with config that uses X's classes. Can this be considered as, I don't know, inducement to piracy of some kind?

faint nacelle
#

probably not a violation in it self. but bit scummy to make a faction out of sketchy content

dull moon
#

since this question came up on the CUP discord, imo selling the database filled with NC mods kind of violates the arma 3 and tools EULA
https://twitter.com/Armaholic_com/status/1397600044187066373

thoughts?

Armaholic Official (@Armaholic_com)

The Armaholic website is now closed!

When anyone is interested to continue the website and wants to have the database please sent enquiries and offers to info@joocoo.nl
We are proud of what we have achieved since 2006. Thanks go out to our loyal visitors!

Twitter ·
tender hawk
#

The link just redirects to one's own 'homepage' if logged in

dull moon
#

sorry, fixed

strange elm
#

Yeah id say selling the database would be pretty criminal, i mean that's a lot of mods, so that would be a pretty penny and to sell it all off without the mod developers consent, or even a share meh i wouldn't be happy about it if i had mods on that database. but otherwise yeah there is the that thought, and there is also the thought that yeah it violates the EULA as well.

tawny berry
#

sorry but to follow the logic here, when github was bought by Microsoft was that illegal also ?

crystal talon
#

Here it is more like selling the database as a product, rather than the entirety of Armaholic. At least the way I interpret it.

cinder ridge
#

Yeah selling the database seems more like selling (its) contents rather than selling a full service (github) which includes its database in order to continue operating, just my two cents.

echo orchid
#

he isn't selling content, relax

hallow idol
echo orchid
hallow idol
#

Also Unsung removed those songs I believe

#

At least the ones people complained about

echo orchid
#

no idea

soft egret
fluid jewel
#

I was wondering, how come several of those Opposition mods stay up on the workshop?

stiff jasper
#

Because the IP owner doesn't care that much

fluid jewel
#

since when has that mattered?

stiff jasper
#

Since you cannot fill a DMCA takedown request for somebody else. Steam doesn't care, Bohemia can't intervene, you can flag the mod but as I said, Steam doesn't care

fluid jewel
#

so then how do the mods with content ripped from call of duty, battlefield, or war thunder get taken down?

#

activision or EA isn't issuing DCMAs on those

stiff jasper
#

Are you sure about that?

faint nacelle
#

such things are not really public

echo orchid
#

both bi and owner can enforce that

stiff jasper
echo orchid
#

BI can moderate sw as per a3 eula and sw tos

stiff jasper
#

ok

fluid jewel
#

So then what about the opposition mods?

echo orchid
#

you can always contact bi directly

#

and ask them

#

to be honest, besides the fact that there are IPs which are no no

#

the entire workshop has always been plagues by content ripped or missused as mods

#

of course it isn't as bad as gmod workshop, but A3 surely isn't 100% clean in terms of content available on SW

runic wraith
rare kite
#

what is this about? i saw this thing in the comments section of an arma 3 video but i dont get it,

stiff jasper
rare kite
#

ip rights violation

#

i dont get it

stiff jasper
#

As its description says, it is about intellectual property violation. So if you see that someone made a mod with a cool car, but the car itself comes from another mod or game and the author doesn't have any permission to "import" it, it's the IP rights violation.

rare kite
#

oh

stiff jasper
#

This is a very complex thing, as you can see from the long discussions that have formed here, so I have simplified it as much as I can.

rare kite
#

ok, thanks for telling me

stiff jasper
#

you can report here anything that you think is violating anybody's rights, so contains stolen or ripped content, or is a repack of X mods merged into one pack

rare kite
#

yeah

fluid jewel
#

I imagine some of the script mods probably also contain either PBOs or files in other arma formats, like animations

stiff jasper
#

30 euros for a menu pain

#

@bright tartan it seems you are in charge of the project now, so could you express yourself about how does the project follow Arma 3 licenses and agreements?

soft egret
#

Yes that site is known for selling models (violating Arma 3 Tools license) and even reselling free scripts.
They said they stopped doing that.. but looking at their page I don't see that having stopped...

stiff jasper
#

the original author of the website retired two weeks ago and now it has a new "CEO"

soft egret
#

the website owner is also currently banned because the repeated violations and refusing to fix it.
And of course why would he if kids setting up life servers that die after a few weeks are willing to throw hundreds of dollars at him...

tall oxide
#

selling free scripts is not illegal, if they are under a license that allows that (like MIT)

soft egret
#

Don't think I said reselling scripts that allow reselling being illegal

tall oxide
#

yeah, just adding that. but they sell a ton of stuff obviously made with Bohemia tools (maps f.e.)

soft egret
#

They were also in the past found to be reselling free scripts (that were not allowed to be sold) even without giving credit to the original author

tall oxide
#

may their RAMs leak and their keyboards be sticky for all times.

oblique venture
#

I dont really know much about this stuff, but an item on the workshop is currently using arma 3 artwork i created without my permission. I did post the artwork on a public discord, which is where I believe they got it from. Is there anything I can do about it? (I wouldn't care in most circumstances, but the mod doing it is... not very popular. aka opposition.)

soft egret
#

You can report their item, ask them to remove it, DMCA it

#

From experience opposition team doesn't really care about it though until a DMCA forces their hand

rapid wagon
vivid scarab
# 

But for the moment, you can download private part of addon for ARMA 3 by the link indicated below.```

From his DA. Very sus.
tulip nexus
#

The MBAV vest is ripped from RHS with some different pouches etc. put on it, but some of the existing pouches remain. Other uniform parts seem to be from DayZ and EA games

faint nacelle
#

Deviant art is not any safer haven for hosting "private stuff"

carmine folio
#

So what if it's ripped?

#

He's not harming anyone.

vivid wave
#

But the original author

carmine folio
#

Big deal...

#

Damn snitches.

#

Now the link is gone.

#

We finally get a decent Rangers mod and they remove it.

random marsh
#

Stealing content from other creators and publishing it as your own is not ok.

tall oxide
#

you re always free to create your own models or use open source ones. but you cant steal other peoples work.

carmine folio
#

It's not like he didn't give credits.

random marsh
#

He didn't.

tall oxide
#

doesnt matter. still stealing and illegal

random marsh
#

Giving credit doesn't mean anything if you don't have permission.

#

Is it ok if I walk into your home and steal your shoes as long as I say they originally belonged to you?

echo orchid
random marsh
#

Or rather, I stole a painting you made but it's ok because you signed it?

carmine folio
#

What's your content?

echo orchid
#

short answer, parts of what he has ripped from rhs

manic laurel
edgy coralBOT
spark bay
#

🔨

upper wing
#

I mean with his pfp..

vivid wave
#

That's also a reason indeed

tall oxide
#

nice, drama 🍿

carmine folio
vivid wave
#

Still you can copy a data illegally

carmine folio
#

Oh I'm not denying that, but the whole physical stealing comparisons really annoys me

tulip nexus
#

3d models have monetary value all the same.

soft egret
# carmine folio I mean that's a physical item you're taking from someone, data can be copied an ...

You mean a companies production secrets are not worth as much as the company car. Because they can be copied an infinite amount of times while there's only one car?

You mean someone stealing paintings from a galery and hanging them up in their own galery is bad.
But someone photographing paintings, making copies, and hanging them up in their own galery is fine and totally not the same as stealing?

indigo thorn
#

Most monetary transaction these days are all virtual/exist only as ‘data’ in a bank/business’ data bases. No physical entity changes hands.
So I don’t really see why comparisons to other items of value regardless of whether they are physical or not is ‘annoying’.
How is stealing of physical items not similar to IP theft?

tall oxide
#

people need to understand that they have no right to anyone elses work. I know the internet has a lot of free stuff to offer, that doesnt mean that you have a basic right to use anything you want to.

#

i wonder if a license allows me to exclude specific people from using it, while granting anyone else the right 😛

vivid scarab
#

I believe that's been explored a few times in the art world (the whole Vanta black thing?), but I don't recall what came of it. RKSL(?) would probably be able to shed some light on that sort of thing.

echo orchid
#

you cannot do that, but you can definatelly blacklist ppl

vivid scarab
#

Yeah, that's been a thing for a while. I think USP have something in there that'll blacklist certain Steam IDs.

hallow idol
hallow idol
hallow idol
vivid scarab
#

Interesting. I might have been mistaking them with Opposition in that case - someone has definitely gone down the ID route in the past, all said and done.

runic wraith
# hallow idol Unless it's updated, usp blacklists Arma ingame names, not steam IDs, which isn'...

It is updated and only uses Steam IDs now. And you can call it stupid or whatever you like, but we were willing to explore our own options into dealing with some of the people in this community which didn't deserve to use our content and honestly wish more authors would do the same. Steam IDs only prevent multiplayer usage, which was why we attempted the ingame profile names first (to stop both SP and MP usage), but in hindsight we found that to not be the best method.

hallow idol
#

The reason I believe in-game names are stupid are stupid is because how I found out about it - which is that my friend who's Arma was getting screwed over was curious why it was happening. Long story short, "his" name was on the list, even through it obviously wasn't him that it was targeting

runic wraith
#

Understandable, and the exact reason we removed that part of it. Didn't want to catch the wrong people in the crossfire.

indigo thorn
carmine folio
#

Oh and on artworks? Considering how a load of there are the result of imperialist/colonialist plundering (at least here in the UK) I wish someone would make a million copies, maybe then they'd stop refusing to give things back to people if they had a copy they could show off!

(sorry if it's not making much sense, it's early and we're all going to die if mega corps are let to continue hoarding knowledge)

faint nacelle
#

It's making no sense and our mod makers are hardly megacorps. Please support the modders and their rights instead of try to trample on them or you are left with no modders at all.

carmine folio
#

Oh I support modders and artists and their rights not to have people go "I made this" and all that, it's just the examples I took Umbrage with the examples given .

#

To put it in a way that's hopefully makes more sense, cut and pasting someone's work (aka taking something physical) is not the same as copy and pasting (aka all the stuff here).
both are bad but cutting and pasting is worse.

faint nacelle
#

From artist/maker point of view, both are shit. No need to go about rating them.

#

It's how people justify copying many times.

carmine folio
#

I mean, the level of punishment should fit the crime, otherwise one you've done one you might as well go all in

tall oxide
#

IP Theft mostly goes unpunished, at worst its a steam ban. Which is also the reason people often feel like "its okay to do it", bc it never gets sanctioned.

faint nacelle
#

and at some point Artist and makers stop making stuff

#

and you lose all original mods

#

let that be the punishment then

tall oxide
#

that also punishes the whole community tho. not ideal

#

and then all we re left is Life servers notlikemeowcry 🔫

faint nacelle
#

well that is a very possible outcome in the long run

tall oxide
#

you re a nihilist lol

faint nacelle
#

we have lost a lot of talented makers in the past few years

#

and many said theyve tired of their stuff getting copied

#

and its trending

carmine folio
#

Okay let me make sure I understand before I go on. When you say copied do you mean people copying and not saying who the original creator was/pretending they made it? Or do you mean people who copy and build off of it?

faint nacelle
#

depending what the maker has licensed the stuff for, either

#

also im gonna go make stuff instead of waste my time arguing about this

dull moon
#

i demand trial by combat...

carmine folio
#

Good! Do what you want because you enjoy it!

#

Trial by Combat?

tall oxide
#

It doesnt really matter what you do with it, if you dont have the permission to use it

dull moon
#

for every violator of rights

carmine folio
#

Oh I have a list of rights violating countries if you want

dull moon
#

i'd be busy enough with CUP reuploaders

faint nacelle
#

its people who do the violating

#

no need to make this political either

heavy nacelle
#

This game came out in 2013 and I highly doubt we would be sitting here and chatting about it so many years later if it wasnt for the modding community, so if you like the game, you should support those who keep it alive.

torpid hull
#

You report these when you literally stole them from someone's unit and I'm still sure you have them in your unit.dewski

torpid hull
#

Oh look now there gone I wonder why

#

He hurts my brain in so many ways

soft egret
#

For reference report by @spiral cape was

@runic wraith sorry for the ping but I believe some of these assets are yours
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2509978385
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2508045622
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2507043761
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1604909880
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2506876371
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2506519250
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2506517484
TFL, FLB, Fuck ton of Scripts, USP, Tier-1, Call of Duty, Zeus Enhanced re upload and much more
These items are all still online and indeed do look shady

cedar flint
#

^ GG Some of this have been pulled !!

latent void
#

Would modders pay a company to deal with IP for them? This is a problem that even worse in other industries and they have many way of dealing with it.

dull moon
#

some modders use professional legal help to deal with that stuff in arma

dapper crow
#

How does RHS mod guys deal with Life mods ripping sh#t?

#

I think that does happen. Life mods have huge mod packs sometimes.

dull moon
#

DMCAs, C&Ds, ect

echo orchid
#

@latent voiddo modders make money out of the mods?

#

@dapper crowby bringing the legal ban hammer on top of them

latent void
paper prawn
#

Donations are acceptable so long as they actually are donations

latent void
stiff jasper
#

I guess you can just simply say "hey, I'm making mods so if you give me money I'll do that faster and put some more fineness to it", but cannot do like YuriEsin did - "if I get 100 patrons I'll publish the full mod"

echo orchid
echo orchid
#

@dull moon + @ whoever deals with USP stuff

tulip nexus
#

@runic wraith IIRC

spiral cape
tulip nexus
#

What's uncivilised by sending a DMCA?

#

It's Steam's process for removing content

#

Only difference is they get emails from the host (Steam) telling them to remove the content, instead of from Pufu

spiral cape
#

More of the way how it's completely handled. Reading the comments it ain't the nicest way. Of course seeing your content in different mods is not nice but in this case they received content that was presented as original content. Of course this claim is questionable but you cannot assume it's untrue. Looking at it the mod has 9,061 subscribers and if it then suddenly disappears from the steam workshop. That ain't good.

He's directly asking what exactly is stolen content so he can remove it, without knowing what's exactly stolen you won't be able to fix it.

stiff jasper
#

it's a reupload anyway and it is breaking Steam EULA. why would anybody bother and waste time listing what the guy should delete, especially that he didn't even check what did he upload?

tulip nexus
#

It's Arma 3 mods ported to DayZ, not just a reupload

stiff jasper
#

even worse

spiral cape
#

Because it's also full of original content made by themselves. Why delete a whole mod if only a handful of assets are stolen and you did not know about it?

#

Giving them a chance to know exactly what is ripped gives them a chance to redeem themselves and do the good thing.

tulip nexus
#

That's implicit that they would provide the whole project folder unpacked and unobfuscated to be looked through by the claimant

hallow idol
#

"Why delete a whole mod if only a handful of assets are stolen and you did not know about it?"
Why upload a mod if you don't know what is being uploaded?

spiral cape
stiff jasper
#

apparently they don't know as it contains RHS assets

echo orchid
hallow idol
echo orchid
hallow idol
#

Same way steam trade bans you if you are donated an item which was scammed

spiral cape
#

I mean I get where you guys are coming from but from a different perspective if you haven't seen RHS or only heard about it slightly and somebody gives you assets that they say they made themselves and there is no reason to question it. Is it your fault or is it the guy that gave it?

#

In the end it's your responsibility of course but you cannot backtrack the origin of the content if you don't know about it

#

that's impossible

echo orchid
#

you can actually backtrack everything

hallow idol
echo orchid
#

i have raw files and wip files for everything i do

hallow idol
#

And you can backtrack quite easily. There's this magical tool modders use, called "Google" in worst case scenario

echo orchid
#

i can make sure i can prove the content is made by myself if asked for everything i have ever created

#

ignorance is no excuse

hallow idol
#

Guy donated 10 GBs of models but has an art station with only a half finished gun? Hmm

spiral cape
#

Lets say I give you a M4 model, it's ripped from RHS and I say I made it myself. If I google M4 model I will recieve thousands it's like searching for a needle in a haystack.

hallow idol
#

Furthermore most likely the contltent was full with other people's names on it, like "rhs_" class names

spiral cape
echo orchid
#

i have forwarded all the details required by steam, no need to waste my time with every little bloke that cannot be bothered to even know what they have in their distribution package

hallow idol
echo orchid
hallow idol
#

As written, plenty of other signs n ways to find that out too, friend or not friend

tulip nexus
#

But we can probably look you up and see if you have some sort of modelling portfolio where you produce 3d assets of equal quality.

strong hedge
#

Bruh.

echo orchid
strong hedge
#

Dayz mods get taken down like candy everyday and put back up with little to no trouble

hallow idol
echo orchid
hallow idol
#

That alot of effort

#

More than arma rippers, smh they be slackin

spiral cape
# echo orchid i will not take such donations unless you can prove you made it yourself

That's you but there are other people that won't go into such deep extend. I'm not saying that their actions are right but I do think the approach was not the most professional. And no I'm not promoting ripping content or saying this shouldn't be DMCA'd.

In the end if what they say is right then it's indeed a shitty situation that they are in but you cannot assume that they knew about it and just accepted it. They are innocent until proven guilty.

hallow idol
#

It's not like they are being banned from doing it

echo orchid
hallow idol
#

And maybe this time they learn smth - either not to rip, or be smarter about who from/how they rip

tulip nexus
echo orchid
#

so yeah, candy or not, is irrelevant

strong hedge
#

The NH pack is vast, and putting it down stops development of 3 servers that I know are under dev at the moment

echo orchid
echo orchid
spiral cape
#

That's a direct quote

echo orchid
#

yes and?

torpid hull
#

Are you arguing about the way RHS handle their issues?

upper wing
#

It's an easy situation
Does the mods contained/ripped stolen assets ?
-> Yes.
Does a DMCA solve the issue ?
-> Yes.
Is a DMCA legitimate ?
-> Yes.

End of the discussion 🤷‍♂️

strong hedge
upper wing
#

What's petty is the ripped asset and the blatant non care of IP rights

stiff jasper
spiral cape
hallow idol
upper wing
#

Like PuFU said,
It's their fault, their issue 🤷‍♂️

spiral cape
#

Instantly a DMCA without prior attempts of contact or attempts of notices is like putting a suzuki in it's 6th gear and expecting things to go smoothly.

strong hedge
#

It isnt just about the modders and their actions, Im completely in agreement that they are in the wrong but it affects a playerbase of about 500 people that are involved in the community

#

In the end we all wanna enjoy playing the game

stiff jasper
hallow idol
#

RHS sure as hell won't get morally bullied into carring about "New server #7481"

upper wing
echo orchid
stiff jasper
#

why the hell would the IP holder/owner care to talk to somebody who does not even verify what he uploads/downloads?

#

do you think Disney negotiates with every Star Wars modder because the modder might get upset and cry?

hallow idol
spiral cape
hallow idol
#

You can talk with them all you want, in the end all the stupid ones will change nothing

#

Which in case of lifers is 99.99%

strong hedge
stiff jasper
#

a part of an IP has the same value as a full IP

strong hedge
#

And its also a completely different scenario

upper wing
#

You're running in circle
Stop trying to find an excuse to someone who fucked up 🤷‍♂️

strong hedge
spiral cape
#

Stop assuming the worst thing that they knew about it and are scum and shit like that.

strong hedge
#

The issue could be solved on a baser level where it wouldn't hurt an entire community

#

NH russia is HUGE.

spiral cape
#

Yes if it's the case they knew about it then yes it's fucked

hallow idol
#

NH isn't huge

#

If you think that's a big community, I have some bad news

upper wing
#

The worst part is
they claim full right of their mod

stiff jasper
#

CUP also has many models donated but they do not have such problems because they simply verify what they receive.

upper wing
#

🤷‍♂️

hallow idol
#

Big projects don't use mods off the workshop

strong hedge
#

and there arent many like it out there

hallow idol
#

Stalker isn't niche in Russia

strong hedge
#

NH doesnt only sell assets and mods to russians, there are english stalker communities that take from them as well

#

And those are quite sparse

spiral cape
upper wing
#

that's my fault and it mean i haven't done enough research because i trusted someone blindly 🤷‍♂️

hallow idol
#

Again, unlucky, should've not dealt with shady people

strong hedge
stiff jasper
#

if you buy a second-hand car that's allegedly safe, clean and nice and after few months it turns out it's stolen - you go to the jail, because you had an opportunity to verify it's status. If you can't verify that, you just don't use it.

spiral cape
faint nacelle
#

@spiral cape considering Pufu has to deal with this stuff 100s times a year

hallow idol
#

You don't, again, thought luck

spiral cape
hallow idol
#

The world is unjust, and you got unlucky, assuming you are the 0.01% chance of actually not knowing its ripped

faint nacelle
#

its unreasonable to expect him to spend hours on pleading with people who dont really want to be helpful

upper wing
#

And to be fair it's pointless to try to discuss it because :
A - We aren't the IP holder
B - We aren't the person who posted that "mod"

DMCA has been sent by PuFu, Steam will do the rest

faint nacelle
#

it is responsibility of the uploader to make sure his upload is legit

#

it affects many players and servers yes

#

but the blame lies on the uploader

hallow idol
#

Difference is - this is a game. You aren't going to jail, you aren't loosing anything. All that happens is a bit of inconvenience for your small community

stiff jasper
#

after the DMCA he can just delete things that break the EULA and reupload it again

faint nacelle
#

well

stiff jasper
#

unless everything else is ripped or stolen

faint nacelle
#

😄

hallow idol
#

Or upload it again and hope for no 2nd DMCA

faint nacelle
#

and lose workshop rights soon after

hallow idol
#

Or upload to somewhere else than steam with different rules or no rules at all

#

Lots of possibilities

faint nacelle
#

other hosts get DMCAd (or equivalent) too

stiff jasper
strong hedge
faint nacelle
#

no

#

BI does

hallow idol
faint nacelle
#

and probably not after first

#

but on continuous offends

#

it is possible now to lose the right to upload

hallow idol
spiral cape
#

Completely true, and nobody is saying it's wrong. But morale's are thrown out of the window like it's nothing.
Reading from their comments they are willing to cooperate and want to remove everything that's ripped. They just need to know what exactly.

You know people can put up a personality and act different from their true intentions.
But I'm noticing this conversation is going no where. It's apparent that in your points of view there is no difference between an shitty situation and blatantly ripping mods and acting like they are your own.

stiff jasper
#

^

upper wing
#

When it happens 100s of time a year 🤷‍♂️

spiral cape
upper wing
#

they may not want to deal with discussion, they might not have the time to
they have a life 🤷‍♂️

#

There is none no

#

IP rights are there.

#

For a reason

hallow idol
faint nacelle
#

@spiral cape every and I mean every rip/steal situation has the same response from the uploader

#

oh sorry I did not know pls let me know what I ripped and I remove

hallow idol
#

Regardless of the choice - being caught when knowing the consequences, regardless of their reason or validity, is your fault

faint nacelle
#

and they very well know what they did but act innocent

stiff jasper
#

there's nothing like "actions in good faith" when it comes to IP rights or trademarks

#

you get a nice cease and desist letter and you just follow the rules

hallow idol
#

You can't go back in time, and afaik Un-DMCA a mod

stiff jasper
#

mods can be DMCAn't if you have full rights to their content

hallow idol
#

Also as goat said - "I didn't know is the first response always"

stiff jasper
#

USP and PLA VME were in this situation

hallow idol
#

They can't be unDMCAd by the sender

#

They can refute the DMCA

#

Were talking about different things in this case

stiff jasper
#

yes, you're right

echo orchid
spiral cape
#

Ever thought of a copy paste message with all the info that's needed. And if there is no response within a certain time go full steam ahead with a DMCA?

stiff jasper
#

why would he wait?

hallow idol
#

Let's see, the person sending our DMCAs does this. And waits for e.g. 1h for response..

upper wing
#

I still can't wrap my head around why you are trying to find an excuse for someone that isn't you
and that you're not the owner of the IP right

hallow idol
#

For every 100 people be does this too, 1 didn't know

#

And 99 are doing it on purpose

spiral cape
hallow idol
#

99 hours wasted for the small chance of somebody not knowing

#

Instead, sending a DMCA is way quicker and way less headache

#

Why should this person care about another person's mod upload when it clearly does smth they don't want it too?

spiral cape
faint nacelle
#

mod makers time would better be used in making mods

#

not chasing down people who take your work

echo orchid
runic wraith
#

You're missing the point here @spiral cape why should any if us modders have to waste our time going over specifics with every person that reuploads our content? (When that could be up to hundreds in a weeks time). It is THEIR responsibility to ensure what they upload is within their full rights to do so.

stiff jasper
#

if the guy has a patreon or takes money to access the mod with ripped assets then noone with a clear mind would wait until he states whether he drops the modpack or not

#

even without the money, why would the victim of IP theft wait?

hallow idol
#

another argument other than "modders are busy" - it's my time on the Internet. Why should I waste it for yoursake

#

Regardless of context

#

Doesn't make sense to over complicate it for the exact same outcome

stiff jasper
#

modders could hire a company which would copystrike the shit out of people like MGM and others do on youtube

#

but it's a different scale so they have to take care of everything by themselves

hallow idol
#

That's stupid because it costs money

#

Modding doesn't get you money

spiral cape
#

It's unfortunate that we all need to result into these actions in the first place.

faint nacelle
#

the thing is. its no mod maker who can solve that

#

its mod users who can

#

people know very fast if mods contain things that are from other games or other mods

#

because they play with the stuff

#

and then if users were responsible, they would stop using such mods

#

and spread the word

#

and then those mods would die out

stiff jasper
#

I wish Bohemia did an AMA or Q&A with one of their lawyers so people could have all the info they need from the first hand without deliberating here what's wrong and what's not

faint nacelle
#

and then people would stop ripping too since they would not get the fake internet points anymore

spiral cape
#

You cannot expect the consumer to be honest. They only look at their personal need that's something you are impossible to change unfortunately.

It's the bad apples that upload content deliberately saying it's theirs or use ripped assets to gain fame, money or knowledge.

Is the generic TFL, FLB or other private mod user inherently bad for using that mod?

stiff jasper
#

yes, especially if he shows the outcome publicly

faint nacelle
#

private mod with stolen content == just as bad

spiral cape
#

talking about the consumer.

#

All he knows is ooh nice gear.

paper prawn
#

One thing being missed here is that BI could/may take down the mod and ban the uploader for violation of ARMA's EULA. RHS's DCMA may be better in tge long run for them

upper wing
#

that's why we aren't playing the playerbase but the person who is currently receiving the DMCA?

hallow idol
spiral cape
#

In the end it's a fucked up situation. And it will continue to be fucked up until the whole copy right rules get unfucked.

hallow idol
#

So that assumption wouldn't remove ripping

stiff jasper
#

copyright rules are accurate. you just have to know what you share.

faint nacelle
#

simplified example

spiral cape
#

No talking about the whole DMCA law. It's a bit outdated and broken in some extent.

faint nacelle
#

Anyway, back to making stuff

spiral cape
#

^
The only good thing

spiral cape
faint nacelle
#

easy solution = make original content

spiral cape
stiff jasper
#

it's a gripe.

spiral cape
#

a bit of a different topic but it perfectly shows the current state of DMCA and copyright laws. They are outdated and some of it's sections do the opposite of what they are meant to be doing.

faint nacelle
#

if you use the copyrighted material in your exposé then I suppose yes.

spiral cape
stiff jasper
#

not if it's a defamation or a libel

spiral cape
#

That's a different story, if I criticize your actions is it defamation or my freedom of speech

#

messed up lol

stiff jasper
#

anyway I guess this shoud go to #other_ip_topics because Lou can come anytime and delete all this

spiral cape
#

True

#

I do wanted to say thanks for keeping the discussion civil. 🤙

hallow idol
#

There is no option to not do that, so no need to thank people))

soft egret
spiral cape
dull moon
#

ignorance does not protect against punishment

echo orchid
#

@spiral capeno man, you didn't wanted to shed light on some other perspective. You told me i wasn't willing to resolve this in a civilized manner

soft egret
echo orchid
#

and DMCAing stolen content is civilized

soft egret
echo orchid
#

that ^^

#

my post here was in direct relation to the fact that while i know RHS content, i don't know other mods content, so people can have a look over and simply check if, just as with RHS, some of the other stuff is just as "original"

spiral cape
strong hedge
#

Drop this argument lol, its too late anyways. DMCA already initiated.

soft egret
stiff jasper
#

that's what i said before, just you don't know the origin it doesn't mean you're safe

echo orchid
#

actually this is very true - it used to be with phones before android finally added a similar function to apple's "find my phone", and then the phone theft drastically went down

spiral cape
faint nacelle
#

its not like this is something new either.

spiral cape
#

but we are kicking a deadhorse.

echo orchid
#

weird comparison either way

dull moon
#

why is this still going...?

#

¯_(ツ)_/¯

echo orchid
#

no idea

soft egret
# spiral cape Exactly but that's why you have manslaughter and murder. Two different charges w...

Yep.
But the DMCA here is reporting the "killing" to the authorities.
What punishment they decide on is left to them. Theres the minimum of removing the stolen content (manslaughter) and the maximum of taking it all down, and steam ban or whatever (murder)

When someone killed your friend and you know it, do you tell him "hey please don't do that" or do you report it? you report it, everything beyond that is not up to you

stiff jasper
#

that's the weirdest comparison I've ever seen

echo orchid
#

because some random bloke(s) on this discord considers it's ok to tell me how to deal with theft. again, everyone is allowed to do just as they please with their time and the content they have produced

#

@dull moon ^

dull moon
#

tru...
if i would give an F (or get a dollar) whenever people criticise my actions against IP theft, i would make more money than Alinity does on onlyfans 😄

#

hell, if i had the money i would drag every single one of them to court and have them pay big money 😄

#

(to a good cause ofc)

paper prawn
dull moon
#

no, we get that for free. we are basically endorsed by onlyfans

cyan cave
#

Dude for saying it out honest

#

Be civil about it instead of filing DMCA

dull moon
#

DMCA is civil 😉

cyan cave
#

If I may be direct its actually being an idiot

#

Instead of trying to reach a productive discussion you make a lawsuit

dull moon
#

ok, this clearly states that you have no effing clue about the matter
bye

cyan cave
#

I'm stating my opinion on it, did u even try to reach something with the guys who copied that

#

A lot of communities under development relies on this mod to run, with 400+ playerbase

dull moon
#

why wrecking my nerves in an endless discussion if i can just file a DMCA and offload the hazzle to steam?

#

¯_(ツ)_/¯

#

😄

cyan cave
#

The American way

dull moon
#

the legal way 😉

cyan cave
#

Nah american

#

Its only money for you

dull moon
#

oh and btw, i'm not from RHS but share a similar fate 😄

#

aaaand there is no money involved in a DMCA

#

as i said, you have no clue

cyan cave
#

bet if they slid a thousand dollar note under the table it would be different rn

#

americans 101

dull moon
#

nope

#

and again, you have no clue...
just stop it 😉

cyan cave
#

Imagine making mods to cry over ppl using it

dull moon
#

btw, PuFu is not american

#

neither am i

paper prawn
#

The alternative to a DCMA ofc is that Bohemia will permanently remove the mod and remove that workshop for violation of their ARMA 3 EULA and APL licensing... Which they should do anyway...

carmine folio
#

@dull moon How about you also stopping to incite the other one? By now this seems more and more a personal fight, so take that to DM please.

cyan cave
#

Ngl just a bunch of salty modders that hate getting acknowledged for their work

dull moon
#

nah, thanks

cyan cave
#

ppl mod with passion, but ofc we are in a modern time where the term follow the money follows

dull moon
#

k

cinder ridge
cyan cave
#

nah I'm just stating what I see

spiral cape
#

Ngl now it's turning into a he said she said kind of thing. Check the rules of the discord it specifically says that everyone is entitled to their opinion and their views. No need to bash each other for it.

cinder ridge
dull moon
#

facts, laws and rules don't give a F about opinions and feelings
just sayin'

cyan cave
#

Laws

#

Its a videogame, hence why I keep stating modders make mods to cry over others using

dull moon
#

lima alpha wiskey sierra
laws

cyan cave
#

but if it was monetized it would probably be different

carmine folio
#

@spiral cape Both want to pick a fight, i do not think they care for rules

spiral cape
dull moon
#

ikr... it's like fighting windmills 😄

cyan cave
#

I mean nothing against you the persons not crediting the author are just as dumb

soft egret
#

New user joining the discord and immedately when he can write throwing heat into here and starting to flame modders who want to protect their content.
Feels like trolling at this point

cyan cave
#

They are within their rights to do so, protect their mod. But instead of drawing instant law card try to speak with the persons who ''borrowed the mod'' without letting the author know or ask

#

But I don't know whats going on and at first it might have been trolling from my side, yes. But I do see the reasons, I wouldn't condone stealing mods. And of course this is a serious issue but maybe instead of going public with the stuff Pufu could have taken that privately at first (If he didn't do already) before going here?

faint nacelle
upper wing
#

No because PuFu was concerned because other mod maker had their IP violated ?

manic laurel
#

@cyan cave you just joined the server and immediately joined this conversation.
know what I mean?

cyan cave
cyan cave
manic laurel
cyan cave
#

Who would I dual accocunt?

#

account*

manic laurel
#

why do I care 😄
to state bs and troll around for having been reported maybe, idk

cyan cave
#

I did troll but I haven't been on here before

echo orchid
#

if you have no clue about what you are talking about, you better just move on

cyan cave
#

You seem frustrated about it happening, and I understand you. What did they tell you when you reached out?

echo orchid
#

not really your concern, is it now/

#

but just for the sake of the argument, i didn't reach out, i did what i always do, i filled a DMCA after i verified that the report was true

cyan cave
#

Okay fair! Another question. What exactly did they rip out from your mod? Was it everything like clothing, weapons and etc?

faint nacelle
#

why are you even asking this kind of stuff?

cyan cave
#

Curious really

faint nacelle
#

riiiight

echo orchid
cyan cave
#

No agenda Goat I'm a med student, I can't really bother making mods

#

But fair

whole relic
#

But have the time to join "randomly" and troll??

cyan cave
#

Apparently

manic laurel
#

hm. you do realise that your lifetime on this server may be quite short as trolling goes against the #rules, so does dual accounting right?

cyan cave
#

Idk what your talking about with dual accounting

manic laurel
#

why did you join this server? someone told you to?

cyan cave
#

no

manic laurel
#

so you randomly join this server, and in 20s you jump to this channel and type "Dude why you getting mad over a virtual mod being used", interesting

#

but also heavily sus

cyan cave
#

Okay let me break it down

#

I saw the comment section on the mod and searched RHS rightafter trying to see what was going on

#

then I jumped in here rolled up to see someone discuss about the dayz communities breaking down if it gets taken down and put my comment

#

idk how that is being sus

manic laurel
#

joining, finding this channel, reading and typing the message in under 20s is absolutely not sus, ok

#

you'll have the benefit of doubt for dual accounting

but the trolling ends now. if you want info, ask. if you want to troll, get out. Thanks

#rules

cyan cave
#

Agreed

echo orchid
#

and in case anyone else is wondering, this is also RHS tigr, with very minor modification, but not enough to hide provenience...so yeah, they had no idea what's going on, quite indeed
https://vk.com/wall-186332713_1463

Мой Братан Тигр.

soft egret
#

RHS just replaced by UCG? 😄

firefox_0CmSH836Pp.png
echo orchid
#

yeah, basically

hallow idol
#

I hate US MRAPs as much as the next guy, but the comment calling this Tigr an "American MRAP" had me laughing for a bit

echo orchid
#

¯_(ツ)_/¯

dapper crow
hallow idol
#

It's a screenshot taken from somewhere online & posted by some rando', they don't actually have the model

kind sand
#

I know I'm a little late to the debate, but with the uploads to the workshop, don't you have to swear it's your work?

Like Section 6.D Para 1, Sentence 3- https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/#6

'In particular, with respect to Workshop Contributions, you represent and warrant that the Workshop Contribution was originally created by you (or, with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which others contributed besides you, by you and the other contributors, and in such case that you have the right to submit such Workshop Contribution on behalf of those other contributors).'

This 'using stolen content' argument is utterly moot if you're uploading something you 'got from a friend' because you don't even have the rights to upload it under steam.
So who cares where you got it from, because if where you got it from isn't yourself, or from another member of a group mod you're all working on, you've violated terms just by uploading.

echo orchid
#

yep, it does

soft egret
#

Yes. Even when you click "upload" in publisher now a prompt comes up that tells you that.
So you can't have missed it

kind sand
#

Rights to civility disappear the moment you pass the 'are you sure you want to do that?' stage, because that's exactly why it's there.

hallow idol
#

You are allowed to upload things you have been given the right to upload that aren't made by you

#

Or add the original creators as contributors if they didn't give the right for uploading, but gave the right to use

#

Something along those lines

kind sand
#

didn't give you the right.
Then you can't upload it.

hallow idol
#

If they are added as a contributor, they are part of the upload team, they have uploaded itn

#

If they give you full rights, they don't need to be part of the contributor team

kind sand
#

If they're not part of the team, then you're asserting you made it yourself, which isn't true.

hallow idol
#

Difference is that instead of giving away their full rights, they simply followed with you and kept their rights

soft egret
#

Or add the original creators as contributors if they didn't give the right for uploading, but gave the right to use
nono thats wrong.
"Hey you cannot upload my stuff"
"ok I'll just upload your stuff and list you as contributor"

nononono

hallow idol
#

That's not allowed ofcourse but that's not what I said

vivid wave
#

A contributor must be a friend of the owner, AFAIK?

hallow idol
#

Contributors are a two way Street, you don't just add a contributor - they have ti accept it and be on steam friends

soft egret
#

Ah but thats what I understand from your sentence.

You still need permission to upload it, whether you add them as contributor or not

#

But if you add them as contributor and approve to be listed, they inherently know of the upload and approve of it by giving you permission to upload

#

if they wouldn't permit you to upload it, they wouldn't let you do that and even approve to be added as contributor

hallow idol
#

Yes, but you can either give away full permission and not have it be your Eg model anymore, or give permission to use, but not redistribute. In that case, for being allowed to upload - he needs to be the redistributive - a contributor

hallow idol
soft egret
#

either give away full permission and not have it be your Eg model anymore, or give permission to use, but not redistribute.
.. or give permission to use AND redistribute without giving away full permission

kind sand
indigo axle
soft egret
hallow idol
#

We are discussing workshop EULA

soft egret
#

Yes. Contributing in Subscriber Agreement relates to the content

#

not to what users are listed as "contributor" on your upload

hallow idol
#

Not a mods made up EULA - as per workshop if an item is not allowed to be uploaded by somebody else than the creator, for that person to upload it he either needs to get the rights, or add the original creator as a contributor

soft egret
#

or add the original creator as a contributor
no.

kind sand
kind sand
#

Rights and contributor added.

soft egret
#

originally created by you (or, with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which others contributed besides you, by you and the other contributors, and in such case that you have the right to submit such Workshop Contribution on behalf of those other contributors).'

  1. Created by you alone
  2. Created by you AND others, and all others gave you permission to upload

No mention of having to list the original author as "contributor"

hallow idol
#

By uploading a model to steam you say "it is fully my model."
The original creator can never claim it to be his, ever

By having him as a contributor it is still his model

#

That is the difference between full rights and not full rights

soft egret
#

For example ACE3 with some tweaks.
ACE3 has a license that gives you rights to redistribute, and if you made tweaks, it is case 2 of what i listed above

#

By uploading a model to steam you say "it is fully my model."
no you don't.

You say "its either fully my model, or I made it together with someone else and he gave me permission to upload it"

kind sand
#

You can also say 'it's our model'.

hallow idol
#

Yes, and by them giving permission they loose their own rights over it

kind sand
#

<communist meme here>

#

No.

soft egret
kind sand
#

It's a license.

#

A lease.

soft egret
#

"Hey you can drive my car if you need"
Do you own my car? no.

kind sand
#

^^^

hallow idol
#

You aren't driving the car, you're reselling it

soft egret
#

No you're not

kind sand
#

You can't sell mods.

#

And steam says you have to have made it.

hallow idol
#

"reselling", I clearly gave a bad example to a bad example

kind sand
#

Not licensed it.

#

Not bought it.

soft egret
#

"Hey can I put the cool picture you took onto my twitter?"
"yes you can"

Do you own the picture? no. Do you have permission to use it and display it on your site? yes

kind sand
#

Not acquired rights to it.

hallow idol
#

According to twitter you do

kind sand
#

Created.

soft egret
#

According to twitter you do
no

hallow idol
#

And you are fully liable for what is in that picture

soft egret
#

Doesn't mean that you own it

hallow idol
#

And will be punished for it if it breaks their tos

soft egret
#

Yes. Still, you don't own all rights to it, its someone elses property

kind sand
#

Twitter doesn't have the same TOS, either.

#

So that's neither here nor there.

hallow idol
#

Not on twitter, according to their tos

soft egret
#

I really very much doubt that it says that in their tos

kind sand
#

Regardless of what Twitter says, it's not the steam workshop agreement.

#

So comparisons are irrelevant.

soft egret
#

Good then.

"Hey can I put the cool picture you took onto my website?"
"yes you can"

Do you own the picture? no. Do you have permission to use it and display it on your site? yes

#

same thing

#

uploading someones content doesn't mean you have all rights to it

#

and Steam Subscriber agreement also doesn't say that you need to or do

kind sand
hallow idol
#

Steam workshop agreement says what is says, people clearly understand it differently, since this isn't the first time

#

Email steam, see what they answer

soft egret
#

But you don't.
Subscriber agreement says its either your content, or yours and other peoples content.

kind sand
hallow idol
#

Which they have

#

Hence I am sure of what I say

soft egret
hallow idol
#

This is unrelated

soft egret
#

No its exactly the same thing

hallow idol
#

This was if people could upload somebody else's work at all

soft egret
#

and its a Email from steam, about exactly that topic

#

read the last paragraph

kind sand
hallow idol
#

I see it now, yeah. The last paragraph

indigo axle
kind sand
soft egret
hallow idol
#

That is not what steam answered to an email for modders in another game

indigo axle
hallow idol
#

So that is what I based my argument on

#

But the argument on "not allowed to redistribute so add contributer" still stands

soft egret
#

not allowed to redistribute == don't redistribute at all. Done.

kind sand
#

Except!

#

They are added as a contributor and withdraw their consent.

soft egret
#

If the author tells you "you can reupload it, and add me as contributor"
he gave you permission to redistribute. So you are allowed to redistribute

kind sand
#

Bam.

#

No more uploading.

hallow idol
#

Allowed to redistribute with the person as contributor vs not allowed to redistribute at all

soft egret
#

Some few people may make that as a requirement for their own content if they want to (I haven't seen such a thing yet)
But its not a thing according to subscriber agreement

kind sand
#

Here's the biggest hole in your argument, @hallow idol.

hallow idol
kind sand
#

The fact that that email said you need to have all the consents before uploading.

soft egret
#

I know that many people say "list me in the credits"
but i haven't heard of "add me as contributor on the workshop item"

hallow idol
kind sand
#

Adding them as a contributor after the fact means you didn't have it to begin with.

#

If you're adding them after the fact, you've already uploaded it.

#

Without consent.

hallow idol
#

And the agreement can be made before the upload

#

And they can be added as one before that too

kind sand
#

Before is fine, methinks, but you're making it seem like adding them after the fact makes it okay.

hallow idol
#

No

#

I didn't say that

kind sand
#

Which it doesn't, because the wrongdoing was already done.

hallow idol
#

You read that

#

Since the beginning I specified that I am not talking about people just uploading something out of the blue

#

But somebody who specifically didn't give full redistribution rights, but only partial. These partial in this case are "you are allowed to upload but I want to be a contributor"

soft egret
#

I think we answered all questions now?
This would just go on in circles past here.

If the author says "you can only upload if you add me as contributor" then that is so.
But Steam Subscriber Agreement doesn't say anything about that, it only says you need consent.
Its purely a agreement between the author and uploader to give the consent.
Same as a "you can only upload if you add me to the credits"

hallow idol
#

I think we answered all questions now?
Yes
This would just go on in circles past here.
Already has

kind sand
#

There's one thing I'm confused about then...

#

'In particular, with respect to Workshop Contributions, you represent and warrant that the Workshop Contribution was originally created by you (or, with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which others contributed besides you, by you and the other contributors, and in such case that you have the right to submit such Workshop Contribution on behalf of those other contributors).'

#

'Was originally created by you'
'or {...} by you and the other contributors'

#

So if you didn't create anything, you can't upload?

#

Even if you buy all the rights, get all the consent, etc.

#

You aren't the creator.

hallow idol
#

"and in such case you have the right to submit"

#

Literally written there

kind sand
#

In such cases, meaning the two I listed.

indigo axle
#

If you purchase the rights to something than you can upload it to the workshop

kind sand
#

Wherein you're a creator.

hallow idol
indigo axle
#

No, you are the IP holder

kind sand
#

Not the creator.

hallow idol
#

In such case is such a case when you have the right to upload

#

That is the email you asked to be Pinned

kind sand
hallow idol
#

Answer that exact thought

soft egret
#

Yes thats been a big discussion point in the past.
And specifically why Rock E-Mailed valve.
As Valve's E-Mail says though, you apparently don't need to be a contributor, atleast their E-Mail didn't mention it, but Rock also didn't specifically ask about that and they didn't specifically talk about that.
But according to the E-Mail, having all rights is enough

hallow idol
#

Steam choose the word 'contributor' for their workshop thing, but also speak of contributers as donator which is confusing in some cases

kind sand
#

Doesn't quite read the same as what that paragraph says in the agreement, but if that's their stance... just seems divergent from the text of the agreement, IMO.

soft egret
#

And rocks question "to include their work in my workshop content"
implies that "my workshop content" is a block of work, and someone elses work is included in that.
So you have a piece of work made by yourself, and a piece of work made by someone else, being assembled together. Which means you are a contributor to your resulting item in the end

kind sand
soft egret
#

Yes I'm not 100% sure about that E-Mail.
Rock said its proof that you don't need to be contributor, but really, that E-Mail doesn't actually answer that specific question.

But that E-Mail also doesn't specify to being a contributor, so one can atleast assume that it doesn't matter, from reading that. But its not 100%

kind sand
#

I guess some more emails are in order...

indigo thorn
#

Also, be a bit careful when buying assets. From what I’ve seen, there’s actually very few licenses that will automatically give you enough rights to publish on the workshop.
So if you go down that route, it’s probably worth trying to get an explicit statement from the original creator to ensure you’re ok to publish.

quiet finch
#

Not entirety sure where to ask this but figured its somewhat relevant as I don't want to infringe on someones hard work and give credit where credit is due.

I came across a group of headgear called FLB (Not sure what it stands for) The quality is pretty good & I wanted to ask for the original upload link or permission to use add it to steam.

Checking some of the files I thought they belonged to VSM due to some of the descriptions but I can't seem to find a steam link for VSMs & since the quality is pretty good so I was kind of surprised I couldn't find it if it did belong to VSM. See link below.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/329978448938532868/853050710669393930/unknown.png

soft egret
#

FLB content is known to be ripped

quiet finch
#

Sorry I didn't mean that. I was genuinely just trying to find the original content & the original link to where I could download the content.

runic wraith
#

There is hardly anything at all in any of the FLB mods that is legitimate content. 99% of it is ripped from other community mod authors, other games, or even ripped from other rippers (imagine that). Any uploads to the workshop containing FLB will be DMCA'd by our team (USP) since it also contains assets of ours.

quiet finch
#

ah cool, was going through your stuff and couldn't find it. USP has a lot of variations but I don't think the face wear was yours. Pretty confident its VSM but can't find it in their modpacks either. Will continue looking for a legit upload.

soft egret
#

Looks like he ripped the models, and combined them with other ripped models to have these combo headwear items from your screenshot

scarlet patrol
#

is the workshop crawler dead?

#

guess its in manteinance

carmine folio
#

CoD uniforms + shitty retex

random marsh
#

TFL mod team
Model designers

river spear
#

@scarlet patrol yeah, sadly still some work that needs to be done on it before it runs again

scarlet patrol
#

no rush just curious
keep up the good work

gusty isle
tribal crest
#

Why was I given a warning for that? I just said “o7” In response to Sanchez saying to keep up the good work on the workshop webcrawler

#

Had no intention of spamming, genuinely meant to pay respects there

soft egret
#

And that was also 2 days ago, where the spammer was today

tribal crest
#

Either way, apologies I guess, no intention of breaking rules

soft egret
#

You didn't break any rules

#

!removeWarning 147533340893904896

edgy coralBOT
tribal crest
#

Ah, thanks!

cold rain
# soft egret Yes I'm not 100% sure about that E-Mail. Rock said its proof that you don't need...

From the RKSL Discordsgdaman — 06/15/2021 So you dont have to be a contributor? He keeps going on about how you havent cleared that up? RKSL Rock — 06/15/2021 No. Dawn answered that in the email. The Contributor thing is something Dedmen created to justify his banning someone. Legally its bullshit as it gives you no legal claim to anything. its just a Steam community thing. As Dawn said "If you have the legal rights to upload it you can." Hes just trying to save some face and justify his past shitty actions and behaviour. sgdaman — 06/15/2021 Can I show him this? RKSL Rock — 06/15/2021 Sure, I'm sure he'll be told by someone else within the next 12 hours anyway. @sgdaman#2360 this is the original email with the reply. Dedmen seems to imply I didn't cover the bases. I did not specifically ask about be marked as a contributor because I knew full well its not legally important in anyway. sgdaman — 06/15/2021 So If i mod ACRE since its opensource I dont have to add Nouber or the ACRE_Team account to it? RKSL Rock — 06/15/2021 No you are covered under Acre's licence and Dawn's/Valve's policy on permissions as per the email.

#

Rock seems to think its not important and doesnt matter if someone add you as a contributor.

#

😉

rapid wagon
#

screenshot wouldve probably been better

soft egret
#

Well said E-Mail is pinned here, you can read yourself what Dawn said and didn't say
And we discusses about that same stuff right here a few weeks ago

cold rain
#

Seems Dawn dismissed the technical questions and went straight for the actual center of the problems.

#

I think the message is pretty clear.

soft egret
#

As I said, email is pinned

#

and we talked about it just 10 days ago
As it stands the final question "do you need to have actually contributed anything" hasn't been answered clearly.

cold rain
#

I think you are the only one that thinks this. 😉

soft egret
#

Scroll back 10 days and read.

#

If you just came here to again forward Rock's repeated attacks towards me and just try to restart pointless discussions that we already had a dozen times, then I suggest you leave.

If you want to help, get actual clarification from valve about exactly that which resolves this once and for all.

cold rain
#

Its got nothing to do with Rock's attacks. Its got to do with real facts. You are a moderator enforcing a rule you created. Why dont you want to goto Valve and get clarification if you arent willing to accept someone elses opinions?

I am curious what are you qualifications to interpret contracts and laws?

kind sand
#

@cold rain

I think you are the only one that thinks this. 😉
Decidedly false.

Its got to do with real facts.
I'll get to that in a minute.

You are a moderator enforcing a rule you created.
Which, technically speaking, as a BI employee in the BI discord, is their right to enforce how they see fit within the interpretations of the rules set forth.

Why dont you want to goto Valve and get clarification if you arent willing to accept someone elses opinions?
It's arguable that it would not be not his responsibility to do so, but the person making any such claim to prove standing policy to be incorrect.

I am curious what are you qualifications to interpret contracts and laws?
Irrelevant. His qualifications are to enforce the rules of this Discord server as a BI employee and moderator of this server.

Heres the email https://ibb.co/wYT1mVk
Seems Dawn dismissed the technical questions and went straight for the actual center of the problems.
I think the message is pretty clear.

As per the statement given within the email, it states clearly that the owner, as per the Steam agreement, can revoke anyone's posting privileges. Notice from the phrasing 'have received all necessary consent'. Just like with sex, doing something because no one has yet to tell you 'stop' is not the same as receiving consent. So, unless all contributors have been reached out to ahead of time and assented to your use and distribution, that just means you've received ZERO consent, and have no claim to post.

Furthermore-
While the GPL v3 license allows for unlimited distribution under license, it only secures the right of the individual to use, modify, and convey such work. It does not address the platforms that one is allowed use to distribute the work. So while his right to distribute is unlimited, as per the Steam agreement, his right to distribute on the Steam Workshop platform is not.

cold rain
# kind sand <@!549958712341561354> > I think you are the only one that thinks this. 😉 Deci...

Im in a layby just outside of Manchester on a mandated rest break right now i dont have a huge amount of time so i'll be brief.

As per the statement given within the email, it states clearly that the owner, as per the Steam agreement, can revoke anyone's posting privileges. Notice from the phrasing 'have received all necessary consent'. Just like with sex, doing something because no one has yet to tell you 'stop' is not the same as receiving consent. So, unless all contributors have been reached out to ahead of time and assented to your use and distribution, that just means you've received ZERO consent, and have no claim to post.
I dont see what thats got to do with the issue of having to add someone to the "contributors" list. Do that is just acknowledging which of your mates were involved in making it. The point Rock made is that there is ZERO legal basis for adding it IF you already have all the correct permissions from the author. Consent is the requirement NOT adding someone to your friends list and adding them as a contribtor. That is only about the Steam Community. There is no legal bit of text saying you MUST do it.

Apart from that Im agreeing with you.

Furthermore-While the GPL v3 license allows for unlimited distribution under license, it only secures the right of the individual to use, modify, and convey such work. It does not address the platforms that one is allowed use to distribute the work. So while his right to distribute is unlimited, as per the Steam agreement, his right to distribute on the Steam Workshop platform is not.
Its up to the Author to decide how someone uses or distrubtes their content and which license to use. That is clearly stated in the email.

Which, technically speaking, as a BI employee in the BI discord, is their right to enforce how they see fit within the interpretations of the rules set forth.
1/2

#

So BI have given him training on IP rights and how to understand contracts? He maybe BI staff but is what is his experience and qualification to make rules? Or has all these rules come from BI legal?
2/2

I have to get to Nottingham for 0730 so ill check back after.

kind sand
#

I dont see what thats got to do with the issue of having to add someone to the "contributors" list. Do that is just acknowledging which of your mates were involved in making it.
If you were to add me as a contributor to a project I worked on so you could distribute it does not function reciprocally. You adding me to the contributor list doesn't count as consent from me as one of the content creators.

I dont see what thats got to do with the issue of having to add someone to the "contributors" list. Do that is just acknowledging which of your mates were involved in making it. The point Rock made is that there is ZERO legal basis for adding it IF you already have all the correct permissions from the author.
This is the ambiguity I find, and will agree it's a valid point to raise, given that the document refers to them as 'contributors' rather than capital C 'Contributors' (which itself would imply 'Steam Contributor' and the lists thereof, plus the fact that the term is not explicitly defined), leaving it as possible to interpret it as either.

#

Given that the subscriber agreement 6.D states-

D. Representations and Warranties

You represent and warrant to us that you have sufficient rights in all User Generated Content to grant Valve and other affected parties the licenses described under A. and B. above or in any license terms specific to the applicable Workshop-Enabled App or Workshop page. This includes, without limitation, any kind of intellectual property rights or other proprietary or personal rights affected by or included in the User Generated Content. In particular, with respect to Workshop Contributions, you represent and warrant that the Workshop Contribution was originally created by you (or, with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which others contributed besides you, by you and the other contributors, and in such case that you have the right to submit such Workshop Contribution on behalf of those other contributors).

You furthermore represent and warrant that the User Generated Content, your submission of that Content, and your granting of rights in that Content does not violate any applicable contract, law or regulation.

the ambiguity comes from the phrasing of
'[Y]ou represent and warrant that the Workshop Contribution was originally created by you (or, with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which others contributed besides you, by you and the other contributors, and in such case that you have the right to submit such Workshop Contribution on behalf of those other contributors).'

So, 'you represent that the Workshop Contribution was originally created by you', so that one's out.

#

'OR [emphasis added] , with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which others contributed besides you, by you and the other contributors'.
This is the other ambiguous phrase, as you can argue with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which other contributed besides you as being part of a list, with by you and the other contributors being a separate instance. This however, does not track due to the phrasing of the clause immediate following.
Were the agreement to view these as wholly separate, then the phrasing would refer to each of these (being separate from the 'originally created by you' clause), as separate from each other, which it doesn't. It instead states in such case, rather than 'cases' implying the whole statement of with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which others contributed besides you, by you and the other contributors, as being a single idea, and the appositive at the end of this quote merely expanding upon the preceding statement.

Therefore, the only valid cases, in reading this agreement this way, requires that you warrant that the contribution was originally created by you [or] by you and the other contributors, which in this plain text reading of the agreement is more restrictive than what's stated in the email, and for this reason has been Dedmen's interpretation (as well as mine) with regards to who would be allowed to post a particular item on the Steam Workshop.

(hence why `I think you are the only one that thinks this. 😉' is decidedly false)

#

Its up to the Author to decide how someone uses or distrubtes their content and which license to use. That is clearly stated in the email.
And if people wrongly state that the GPL license allows them to distribute or its usage somehow represents consent (when none is given) and thinks that overrides any restrictions should note S12 of the GPL (even though it's usually the other way around that this section is used)-

  12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.

  If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot convey a
covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may
not convey it at all.  For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you
to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey
the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this
License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.

In conclusion, I'll say you're right in that it's not unambiguously clear that a contributor needs to be an included 'Steam Contributor' to satisfy the language of the agreement, would say that I do find (unless my people-reading skills are off in determining what's being said) that someone saying that 'Hey, I added you as a contributor, so everything's peachy for me to post this to the Workshop, because... reasons!' as some sort of justification to post things willy-nilly (or in case of TFAR, asserting that the GPLv3 license would allow such/function as consent), fails not only on the workshop front, both in the text of the agreement itself as well as the email's interpretation, but also with Section 12 of the GPLv3 license.

cold rain
#

If you were to add me as a contributor to a project I worked on so you could distribute it does not function reciprocally. You adding me to the contributor list doesn't count as consent from me as one of the content creators.

Mate, you are missing the point. You are reading something into this that just wasnt said. I never said adding you to the contributors list was consent.

I asked RKSL Rock who is an acknowledged expert. Or as he prefers to say, "probably more IP related experience than most people in the community" he said:
No, just adding someone as a contributor is not enough. You have to get full written consent.
Like i have said many times before. Contributors lists are a Steam community thing. There is no legal requirement to add a contributor. by adding someone as a contributor you are not giving them equal ownership or rights over the content. In a court of law a mention on a Steam Contributors list holds about as much water as bucket with no bottom.
Being listed as a contributor has ZERO legal impact to anything

This is why I said Dedmen is the only one that seems to think its an issue. I'm not refering or implying anything related to anything but the statment about the contributors requirement.

You also mentioned something about BI making the Rules. On here yes thats correct. On Steam. Not they dont. its the "Steam Agreement" not the BI agreement that manages the Workshop.
1/3

#

This is the ambiguity I find, and will agree it's a valid point to raise, given that the document refers to them as 'contributors' rather than capital C 'Contributors' (which itself would imply 'Steam Contributor' and the lists thereof, plus the fact that the term is not explicitly defined), leaving it as possible to interpret it as either.
Given that the subscriber agreement 6.D states ....

the ambiguity comes from the phrasing of
'....
So, 'you represent that the Workshop Contribution was originally created by you', so that one's out.

'OR [emphasis added] , with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which others contributed besides you, by you and the other contributors'.
This is the other ambiguous phrase, as you can argue with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which other contributed besides you as being part of a list, with by you and the other contributors being a separate instance. >>>This however, does not track due to the phrasing of the clause immediate following.

...

Therefore, the only valid cases, in reading this agreement this way, requires that you warrant that the contribution was originally created by you [or] by you and the other contributors, which in this plain text reading of the agreement is more restrictive than what's stated in the email, and for this reason has been Dedmen's interpretation (as well as mine) with regards to who would be allowed to post a particular item on the Steam Workshop.

This has been done to death and the ambiguity of 6D was answered by Dawn from Valve legal in the email Rock posted and is pinned. As long as you have the proper permission from the Author you can upload it. I don't see how thats ambigious.

(hence why `I think you are the only one that thinks this. 😉' is decidedly false)
See The Valve\Dawn's email proves you wrong. So 😉 all you like. Valve is the final word on this as its their platform. I dont see what theres left ot argue about.

2/3

#

And if people wrongly state that the GPL license allows them to distribute or its usage somehow represents consent (when none is given) and thinks that overrides any restrictions should note S12 of the GPL (even though it's usually the other way around that this section is used)-
I am no lawyer. But I've seen this one asked and answered before too.

Misusing or misunderstanding the license terms doesnt mean you can do what you like. The real Author still has the right to DMCA you, litigate and sue you for every penny they wish.
From the discussion I read about GPL licenses even when someone tried to exploit a clause the Author's rights still trump that. Bottom line, and we all agreed that "YOU MUST HAVE PERMISSION TO DO ANYTHING, EDIT OR UPLOAD".

I just don't see there is any debate now we have the email from Valve. Its clear!

In conclusion, I'll say you're right in that it's not unambiguously clear that a contributor needs to be an included 'Steam Contributor' to satisfy the language of the agreement, I do find (unless my people-reading skills are off in determining what's being said) that someone saying that 'Hey, I added you as a contributor, so everything's peachy for me to post this to the Workshop, because... reasons!' as some sort of justification to post things willy-nilly (or in case of TFAR, asserting that the GPLv3 license would allow such/function as consent), fails not only on the workshop front, both in the text of the agreement itself as well as the interpretation, but also with Section 12 of the GPLv3 license.

So you were actually agreeing with me all along then. The only failing i can see (still not a lawyer) is that people either misunderstand or misuse the licence clauses to justify doing whatever they want. But before all that. We ALL agree that everyone need to have permission from the Original Author before doing anything.

As explained in the Valve email...
3/3

kind sand
#

You are reading something into this that just wasnt said. I never said adding you to the contributors list was consent.
I've seen people try to make the argument and given how this seems to be about the status of 'contributors' and the like, so just making sure that's complitely unambiguous.

This is why I said Dedmen is the only one that seems to think its an issue.
This has been done to death and the ambiguity of 6D was answered by Dawn from Valve legal in the email Rock posted and is pinned.
I just don't see there is any debate now we have the email from Valve. Its clear!
Him saying 'If you want to help, get actual clarification from valve about exactly that which resolves this once and for all', is not entirely out of line. The email in question states one thing, that current readings of both it and the text of the agreement are contradictory on a single point, in my interpretation (which Dedmen's appears to mirror). I think it's not unfair, given that lines of communication between Rock and Valve/Steam are already open (and the fact that we are unable to directly contact the same person they did to clarify the statements made), to ensure that this reading had been considered, given the apparent contradiction and the fact that humanity is known to err. Directly addressing that one point to say 'yes, in fact I was referring to that and you were in the right' or 'oh, upon further review, I can see how you would see that, and that does seem to be the correct interpretation and I misstated earlier.' Singular clarification in follow up of that point in specific should be more than sufficient to disambiguate that one point.

You also mentioned something about BI making the Rules. On here yes thats correct.
Which means that BI can happily ban whom it sees fit according to its rules for, say, refusal to add someone to a Steam Contributors list.

Ultimately, you need permission, yes, minimum. It's whether there's more requirements to meet that seeks answer.

#

Or at least, that's what I'm seeing as being asked (or would ask myself), since...

So you dont have to be a contributor?
you represent and warrant that the Workshop Contribution was originally created by you (or [...] by you and the other contributors,
So, by not meeting the latter case and interpreting it as a capital C 'Contributor' i.e. someone added to the mod that is not one of the other contributors, uploading anything to the Workshop (under this interpretation) would be a violation of the Steam Workshop policy, and therefore is punished in the BI Discord and Forums as per violation of their own IP rules.

#

If I'm reading all this right; that's the crux of the issue here.

#

@cold rain

cold rain
# kind sand If I'm reading all this right; that's the crux of the issue here.

I think it's not unfair, given that lines of communication between Rock and Valve/Steam are already open (and the fact that we are unable to directly contact the same person they did to clarify the statements made), to ensure that this reading had been considered, given the apparent contradiction and the fact that humanity is known to err. Directly addressing that one point to say 'yes, in fact I was referring to that and you were in the right' or 'oh, upon further review, I can see how you would see that, and that does seem to be the correct interpretation and I misstated earlier.' Singular clarification in follow up of that point in specific should be more than sufficient to disambiguate that one point.
So you are saying Rock is lying.
Why dont you email Valve then? or BI legal. or Pufu (I hear he has a great relationsship with Dawn), Audiocustoms seems to have a pretty good relationsip if the IP popcast could be believed. Better yet... Dedmen.

Your reply suggest you dont and wont trust anyone else. I'm sure if you ask Rock, Pufu, Audiocustoms etc they will help you contact Dawn and Valve legal yourself.

kind sand
#

So you are saying Rock is lying.
Not at all. Just that I could see that the content of the given email's response and the text of the agreement as still being conflicting and requiring further sorting.

Your reply suggest you dont and wont trust anyone else.
I think it best to only trust the person who made a particular statement when it comes to clarifying their aforementioned particular statement, at least moreso than anyone else.

Why dont you email Valve then? or BI legal.
I might, though that's digging that nets me no gain. And you said, this is a Steam thing, not a BI thing. If BI wants to get involved, I'm sure they're more than capable. I'm just stating that, any person's ban or kick aside, I think clarifying that singular point would be in the content creator's interest (Rock in this case, if he was somehow banned or kicked for maintaining this point of view) to clarify this point, rather than mine or anyone at Bohemia.

cold rain
# kind sand > So you are saying Rock is lying. Not at all. Just that I could see that the co...

I'll get you the address if you want. I'm sure Rock will give it over if asked properly. He's posted in the past that he doesnt see the need to question Dawn's reply.
Its clearly worded. The intent is readily apparent. And its from a confirmed representative of the Valve Legal team. Anyone that wants to make the effort can easily verify it. End of endless debates

And as a point of fact Rock left himself because he was sick of the bullying abuse of power and he found arguments like this to be pointless. Especially after the email from Dawn and people's reaction to her statement was to keep on asking the same question over and over.

I'm mostly positive that if I were to show him this chat he would just say "I told you so. You just wasted your time.".

#

I'll repeat myself again. If no one is willing to see the email for what it is they should contact valve and get their own reply. It baffles me that Rock was the only one that actually did it.

kind sand
cold rain
soft egret
# cold rain > > If you were to add me as a contributor to a project I worked on so you coul...

This is why I said Dedmen is the only one that seems to think its an issue.
I don't understand why you keep stating that, despite me having told you to read the same discussion we had last week where I said that I do NOT think that.
And we as Moderators (the current moderators atleast) did not punish people who uploaded content with permission.
Because we ourselves are not sure how to interpret that line in 6D.
We are here to protect the Modders, and if the Modders very clearly are fine with the upload, why should we want to punish anyone for it?

This has been done to death and the ambiguity of 6D was answered by Dawn from Valve legal in the email Rock posted and is pinned.
It was not, thats the problem. It doesn't actually answer that problem.
What Dawn's E-Mail says is that if you have the necessary consent, you can include other peoples work in your work.
The include part though implying that you, yourself also did some work and that you're not just taking someone elses work verbatim.
Which means you ARE a contributor to the resulting workshop item, as 6D says you need to be.

Dawn didn't say you don't need to be a contributor, which is the point thats being discussed and that Rock repeatedly says was answered by valve, while if you actually do read the E-Mail in fact has not actually been answered.

The E-Mail answered that you can use other peoples work INSIDE your work with their permission, that was something that was NEVER up for discussion.
That was always clear.

What was up for discussion was whether you can upload someone elses work verbatim without having contributed to it at all besides just taking someone elses work and uploading it.
And Dawn's E-Mail doesn't answer that, Rock's E-Mail to her didn't even specifically ask for that.

Rock asked if people can use content (in their product) with permission or a license giving permission, and got a "Yes" back, but that was never the question.

soft egret
#

And as a point of fact Rock left himself because he was sick of the bullying abuse of power and he found arguments like this to be pointless.
Rock left after he threw a rage fit and verbally attacked me because I asked to clarify some unclear, missinterpretable statements which have caused issues in this specific channel countless times in the past, which he interpreted as an attack towards him which it never was.
And since is trying to repeatedly attack me and share lies about me about how I'm supposedly just some power hungry power abuser who just tries to save face because he has shown me being wrong.
Even though I immediately accepted his results when he got reply from Dawn, though I just saw a couple weeks ago that it didn't actually answer the question we had like he said it did.
And I also never banned anyone for uploading content with permission.
I'm here to protect the Mod Authors from getting their content stolen, there is no reason for me to punish people who use other modders content with explicit consent.

On the other hand I find it dangerous to tell people "no no this is fine" even though, you don't actually know whether its actually fine. When you're just basing your statements on your opinion made by interpreting some statements the way you wanted to interpret them.
Its not dangerous for you, but its dangerous for the user that you told its fine, who can get into trouble because of your statements which may possibly be true, but may also just be false.

And as a Moderator I also want to protect the people who want to do everything right and ask here to be safe, just to get told unproven statements which can put them in danger.
That's why I ask people (including Rock) to clarify incomplete/generalized/missinterpretable statements to prevent people reading it from making a mistake.
That Rock interpreted my will to protect people as a direct attack towards him and tried to retaliate for it, is frankly not my problem so stop attacking me for it.

cold rain
# soft egret > And as a point of fact Rock left himself because he was sick of the bullying a...

I don't understand why you keep stating that, despite me having told you to read the same discussion we had last week where I said that I do NOT think that.
Its hard to tell what you think. You keep flip flopping. Before the email you were telling people you could not upload without being part of the developement team.

What Dawn's E-Mail says is that if you have the necessary consent, you can include other peoples work in your work.
The include part though implying that you, yourself also did some work and that you're not just taking someone elses work verbatim.
Which means you ARE a contributor to the resulting workshop item, as 6D says you need to be.```

Weeks later you are now saying ``Which means you ARE a contributor to the resulting workshop item,``  

```Dawn didn't say you don't need to be a contributor, which is the point thats being discussed and that Rock repeatedly says was answered by valve, while if you actually do read the E-Mail in fact has not actually been answered.```
You don't see it do you?  You are supremely twisting all this to fit your own narrative. There is a clear statement from Valve.  One that boils down everything to the core issue as Dawn says.  And you still want to pick out something that is not relevant.

So let's fix this.  Why don't YOU email Valve.  And request clarifcation.
#

Rock left after he threw a rage fit...

https://arma3practicalipguide.blogspot.com/2021/05/why-i-really-chose-to-leave-arma-discord.html

You repeatedly try and undermine him don't you. You are incapable of being wrong.

and verbally attacked me because I asked to clarify some unclear, missinterpretable statements which have caused issues in this specific channel countless times in the past, which he interpreted as an attack towards him which it never was.
I dont see ANY verbal attack. He asked why you were time and time again picking at something he'd already answered later in the conversation. Several times. But you continued to pick. He got tired of the BS and stood back. He posted as much in this channel.

I would love to see what you were writing in the Veteran's channel that he quit the next morning.

Even though I immediately accepted his results when he got reply from Dawn, though I just saw a couple weeks ago that it didn't actually answer the question we had like he said it did.```

Actually hes pretty over you now.  He just laughs about it and everytime you post crap like this he just says "More evidence decide for yourself". 

As for ``immediately accepted Dawn's reply.``  You did not though did you.  You tried very hard to pick it apart. I'm not sure thats acceptance.

In my old account I've seen enough of your moderation on this server to agree with him. Problem is when you lot ban someone all the evidence disappears. So disproving that statement is almost impossible.  This discord has such a bad reputation for a good reason.
# 
 On the other hand I find it dangerous to tell people "no no this is fine" even though, you don't actually know whether its actually fine. When you're just basing your statements on your opinion made by interpreting some statements the way you wanted to interpret them.
Its not dangerous for you, but its dangerous for the user that you told its fine, who can get into trouble because of your statements which may possibly be true, but may also just be false.```
And yet Rock's statements tend to be right on the money dont they.  You focused on on line of text that he repeatedly clarified for others. But you would not accept.

```And as a Moderator I also want to protect the people who want to do everything right and ask here to be safe, just to get told unproven statements which can put them in danger. That's why I ask people (including Rock) to clarify incomplete/generalized/missinterpretable statements to prevent people reading it from making a mistake.
That Rock interpreted my will to protect people as a direct attack towards him and tried to retaliate for it, is frankly not my problem so stop attacking me for it.```
So with Rock accpeted experience. You decide that hes wrong.  OK so what expereince and qualification do you have to make these judgements?
#

The way to solve this is to have several independant people ask Valve again since you don't seem willing to accept "The community expert's" opinion.

#

Or Valves... 😉

faint nacelle
#

This starts to sound like some sort of personal vendetta now and you are using Rock as some sort of surrogate to pick a fight. None of what has been written here has helped or clarified anything. It has been the same shit all over.

#

Especially if this is now your second account here..

void rapids
faint nacelle
#

not this again...

cold rain
cold rain
# faint nacelle This starts to sound like some sort of personal vendetta now and you are using R...

Not personal at all. Just like Dedmen I like to understand the facts. i dont understand why he is taking this stance. The only reason I can see is that the Valve email contradicts his previous policiy.

And I dont like seeing one of most helpful people in this community trashed by someone that I am told has no qualification to make informed decisions. To me the reply from Valve is very clear. And now that im talking with others about it I know I'm really not alone. But no one wants to get involved here because they beleive they will be 'black marked and banned down the line'. That should worry any community manager.

#

it should be up for discussion shouldn't it?

faint nacelle
cold rain
#

We have two discussions wrapped around each other.

faint nacelle
#

people fears have not come up as far as I've noticed. Though I have not memorized whats been written here.

#

if you have such worries please do take them up with Dwarden or Nillers

cold rain
#

Ok so bottom line. here's what I want answered:

  • What qualifications does Dedmen or any other Moderator that sets policy have to interpet IP laws. (How informed is anyone?)
  • independant and trusted verification of Rock's original email and Valve's intent.
#

Thats should end the debate shouldnt it?

faint nacelle
#

As far as I know moderators work by given guidelines from BI. blobdoggoshruggoogly

#

but you probably want answer from someone more in the loop

cold rain
#

So why is BIS Legal not responding to clarify this to make sure the Moderators are following legal policy. Because Im only seeing a Moderator with no legal experience and background interpreting policy to suit his own beliefs. Not guided by BI.

faint nacelle
#

I dunno. youd have to ask them

cold rain
#

Set the rules on this Server - fine. But Valve's own Rep made what i and others see - as a clear statement. So what empowers the moderators here to decide how to interpret that?

#

I disagree over Dedmens view of the issues. Rock gave his informed opinion. No one else here seems to have similar experience. But others seems to be deciding policy and endless debates over an uninformed opinion.

#

Doesnt make sense to me

kind sand
# cold rain I disagree over Dedmens view of the issues. Rock gave his informed opinion. No...

I mean 'no one else has similar experience'. We've read the steam subscriber agreement, and you assert that the fact that we laugh any sort jurist doctorate means we aren't qualified to interpret the document, how would it be reasonable to expect people to abide by it without a lawyer on retainer?
It's written in plain language, and yet there points of contention still present.

paper prawn
#

Oh, bloody Hell, is this still going?

kind sand
#

So it's far from settled.

kind sand
paper prawn
#

I may be wrong but I don't even think Dedmen has permissions to do stuff on the Workshop... which would sort of invalidate the main point of this farce (if so)

#

Other than DCMA TFAR stuff that is

kind sand
#

It's about BI enforcing IP rules in their domain based on people making unauthorized uploads to the workshop.

#

If they violate Steam's Subscriber Agreement, they get punished in BI's realm as well.

#

So knowing what the Steam Upload rules actually are is important for BI to enforce its own rules properly.

paper prawn
#

Agreed but the guys comments are all aimed at Dedmen who i thin, maybe wrongly doesn't make those decisions for BI

dull moon
paper prawn
#

And BI removes very little content themselves

#

Anyway, does seem to me to be a deliberate and unjustified attempt to tarnish Dedmen's rep

#

And i never thought i would utter those words 😉

upper wing
#

Well it's definitly targetted toward dedmen

paper prawn
cold rain
paper prawn
#

Well, you started and continue this based on the idea that Dedmen said that you have to add people as contributors... You should know that's not true because with your current discord user you participated back then. In fact, that suggestion was brought up days later by someone else (as you know) and Dedmen responded: `1. Created by you alone
2. Created by you AND others, and all others gave you permission to upload

No mention of having to list the original author as "contributor"` Can't really be clearer than that

#

So the last two days of your posts in this channel are either spam, or a deliberate attempt to tarnish the name of a Bohemia Interactive employee on an official Bohemia Interactive discord for the ARMA 3 game...

cold rain
paper prawn
#

That's the Created by you AND others bit. Got nothing to do with being listed as a Steam Contributor

scarlet patrol
#

discussions like these are why contracts and licences often really insist on the meaning of names and adjectives to not cause unwanted misreadings

cold rain
cold rain
paper prawn
kind sand
cold rain
cold rain
kind sand
# cold rain Not sure how that relevant to the interpretation of the Steam EULA and Supportin...

If by Steam EULA you mean the Steam Subscriber Agreement, then it answers the question of what rule or policy is being enforced, wherein someone here in BI's discord is punished for actions or violations in Steam Workshop.
If someone uploads something in a manner that violates Steam Workshop's rules, such as uploading something you don't have right to upload or uploading something without proper consent required and credit given, it may be determined by BI staff that this action violates others' IP rights.
If you violate others IP rights, that's a breach of rule 6 (in this discord), and can be punished as per the severity of the violation.

Therefore, if a moderator such as dedmen, or someone else who BI allows to moderate this Discord, determines that an individual made an upload that violates 6.D of the Steam Subscriber Agreement, that moderator may view that action as violating Rule 6, and administrate accordingly, including punishing the uploader.

paper prawn
#

We're basically done here. Guy's been claiming Dedmen said something that he never said, in fact, he corrected the person/people who suggested that. So no need for any more response to them.

cold rain
#

Yeah I can see why Rock got so frustrated and left now.

cold rain
# paper prawn We're basically done here. Guy's been claiming Dedmen said something that he nev...

Point of fact I linked you to what Dedmen actually said. And the question of "contributor" is still open according to Dedemn and I disagree the Valve email accounts for it.
On the questions of:
"Must be a team member/maker to upload" - Answered by Valve. As long as you have permission for the content either in whole or in part. Its all good. Regardless of you uploading content where parts were made by someone else or its a re-upload.
"Must be added to the Steam Contributors" - I say answered by Valve and Rock. But Dedmen now says it wasnt the question...
"#ip_rights_violations message" - Answered by Valve. But this is Disputed byb Dedmen. I asked why no one is asking valve and I got attacked and the question ignored by all but LorenLuke.
I challenged Dedmen's interpretation and nitpicking of the clauses because its obvious to me that Dawn's reply to Rock shows that permission is all that is required. Not further disassembly required. But Dedmen is the only one says this. hence why i question him. And I asked why no one else asked Valve about it if its such and issue. So yeah It sounds to me that Dedmen is defending his own previous stance by casting doubt on the email.

Now if you want to take that as me attacking Dedmen. I cant stop you. But hes the one making the statement I want clarified. And I will guarentee that me as a nobody in this community were to talk to Valve and get the answer all of you wouldnt beleive me.

I can see why "They just like playing lawyer" comes from 😉

drowsy elbow
#

This shit is just sad yall spending so much of your life arguing stupid shit

tall oxide
#

nah, keep going, i need some drama in my life.

echo orchid
#

also, you want specific questions answered, feel free to ask Dawn yourself, i can provide her e-mail address to you

#

so instead to keep going in circles and knee jerking around here, feel free to get the answers yourself, instead of waiting / demanding someone else to do that for your, be it rock or dedmen

#

from a legal point of you, considering this


You represent and warrant to us that you have sufficient rights in all User Generated Content to grant Valve and other affected parties the licenses described under A. and B. above or in any license terms specific to the applicable Workshop-Enabled App or Workshop page. This includes, without limitation, any kind of intellectual property rights or other proprietary or personal rights affected by or included in the User Generated Content. In particular, with respect to Workshop Contributions, you represent and warrant that the Workshop Contribution was originally created by you (or, with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which others contributed besides you, by you and the other contributors, and in such case that you have the right to submit such Workshop Contribution on behalf of those other contributors).

You furthermore represent and warrant that the User Generated Content, your submission of that Content, and your granting of rights in that Content does not violate any applicable contract, law or regulation.```
is pretty straight forwards, and not sure why the heck this is still under debate
#
  1. the content uploaded is created by yourself - all good
  2. you have writen permissions, in terms of IP share/transfer - all good
  3. you have permission to upload by some dude granting you such permission by voice to some random social media channel text - not good / not sufficient from a legal POV - sure, it can pass because unless original author will drop a DMCA, you are fine, but then again, from a legal POV that doesn't warrant sufficient rights as per TOS
#

don't believe me, please go ahead and check that with a lawyer, just like Rock, myself and some other blokes have

upper wing
#

And getting permissions to edit an addon, doesn't necessarily give you the right to publish it either
and as stated in the email pinned, the original content creator can withdraw their consent at any point in time

soft egret
#

Thats literally all of it.
I don't know what rock interprets there to come to such a conclusion:

The next morning, I woke up, read his comments in the Veteran’s chat room. And left the server in disgust.

Also he even said "I'm out, cya" to everyone at the evening before the morning where he left, looks to me like he intended right from the start to leave, and not decided that after reading my comments like he says.

To me it all looks like he's just trying to get people to attack be because "He made Rock leave".
And this, saying he was disgusted by my messages which triggered him to leave, again looks like an attempt of him to attack me and get other people to think I'm a bad person.

See for yourself what he was so "disgusted" about.

soft egret
soft egret
# void rapids Can you clarify which statements he made that were unclear

If the "Opensource" licence allows redistribution then you should be covered.
Same for "Share-a-like".

That was unclear.
Because it can be interpreted as
"share-alike" == then you should be covered.
or
"share-alike that allows redistribution" == then you should be covered.

Which is not correct, a "share-alike" license doesn't imply that you can directly upload it to the workshop, or upload derivatives to the workshop.
Share-alike just defines which license you need to keep if you make a derivative, it doesn't imply that you can also redistribute that derivative wherever you want.

Here's the definition from APL-SA

Share Alike - If you adapt, or build upon this material, you may distribute the resulting material only under the same license.

For example I have several APL-SA licensed mods, that I explicitly DO NOT allow to be reuploaded to the workshop.
But Rocks statement of "Share-a-like is fine" can be missinterpreted to mean "if its share-alike licensed, you can upload it to the workshop"

Which I replied to with a clarification of

I have the feeling many people missinterpret the "share-alike" as "share as you like" which is totally not the case

soft egret
# cold rain He is the only one dictating this policy - who else should we question?

What policy? Not the "policy" you are stating.
You are making it sound like we are banning people for not having contributed to their workshop uploads.
Thats not at all the case.
We are

  1. Informing people about what the subscriber agreement says and that they should make sure to have correct permission.
  2. Banning people who reupload content without the mod authors/license's consent (respective the mod authors rights, NOT the steam subscriber agreement)

If the mod author says "you are free to reupload this to the workshop even without making any changes"
then thats fine. We don't ban people who reupload ACE or CBA or other mods where the license CLEARLY allows to do such.

Though we warn them about what the subscriber agreement says about being a contributor to the item.
What they do with that warning/notice, is left to them. We just inform them.

#

Our rules say:

  1. Posting addon/mod other content without permission

For many years this community has been known as the premium addon/mod creating community, people work tirelessly and in great detail to create fantastic addons/mods/missions/campaigns to release for free so that everyone benefits, including Bohemia Interactive. There are a few simple rules in place to provide the respect to these creative people/groups that they deserve:

The first and most fundamental rule is that you must seek permission to alter someone's work, to mirror it or use it in any way other than for personal use. No permission, no editing, no mirroring, no adding to your mod pack, no editing and sharing around your private squad, none of that is acceptable.
And THAT is the only thing we punish here.
Violate the mod authors rights == you're out.
Violate Steam Subscriber Agreement == not our business, punishment wise.

Rock is repeatedly tying to claim that I'm punishing and banning people based not on the mod authors rules, but on the steam subscriber agreement. Which is not the case.
But despite that several people come here claiming thats the case, and they all heard it from Rock..
And I'm really starting to grow tired of it

#

"Must be added to the Steam Contributors" - I say answered by Valve and Rock. But Dedmen now says it wasnt the question...
That was never a question. And as multiple people said its legally irrelevant if you are listed as a constributor on the workshop item.
Its also not even mentioned in the subscriber agreement.
And I'm also not aware of this having ever been a question back when Rock was still here.

The question was "do you need to have contributed something to the workshop item, or can you upload someone elses work 1-to-1 without having done any modifications or additions to it".

Rock didn't specifically ask valve for that.
And valve's E-Mail talks about other peoples content being "included" in your workshop content.
"included" here implying that you have some own content, and just add someone elses content on top of it.
Which makes you a contributor to your workshop item, you contributed part of it.

So Valve's E-mail says "if you use other peoples content in your own content and you have permission, then its fine"
While the original question up for debate actually is "if you use other peoples content 1-to-1 without adding any own content to it, and you have permission, is that fine?"
Which in fact did not get answered, and you'd see that if you'd actually read what the E-Mail ACTUALLY says, instead of listening to what Rock tells you it says.

#

People repeatedly keep attacking me because I "refuse" Rocks statement that "you don't need to be a contributor to the item you upload to the workshop as long as you have permission" because I "need to save face because it contradicts my statements and I need to justify my bans".

And I'm really seriously getting fed up by repeatedly being attacked by the same guy and his surrogates for things I have not done.

All that while

  1. I never punished anyone on the basis of "you are not a contributor" while they had permission from the mod author (there were some cases related to that, but their main reason was that they didn't get permission from the mod author, not that they didn't contribute in their reupload)
  2. The E-Mail from Valve that Rock got and uses as justification for his statement, doesn't even clarify that point at all. It just glances over it and doesn't even mention it.

On top of that Rock seemingly trying to start a smear campaign against me.
Like how he left in "disgust" after reading my comments (which I screenshotted above, I simply stated he was missunderstanding what I was trying to say).
Repeatedly stating I was refusing and not accepting his research, even though I did (only saw two weeks ago that the E-Mail didn't actually answer the problem, but back then I thought it did and accepted it for that)

And even after I said multiple times to read up to the conversation of 2 weeks ago where I said what my opinion is, you still stand on your statement that my opinion is the opposite of what it actually is and that I'm stubborn and not wanting to move away from it.

I didn't at all say I refuse rocks statements, I just said I don't fully trust them because the thing he used as basis of his statements, didn't actually provide sufficient information to come to that conclusion.
And I very much invite you to read the E-Mail yourself, and think about it yourself instead of just regurgitating what Rock tells you it should mean.

#

What I'm doing (and will keep doing) is inform people about what the steam subscriber agreement says.
Not what some person says how a unclear E-Mail, from valve which didn't actually answer the question, should be interpreted as.

I will not put people at risk and tell them something is fine because someone claims something is fine despite not having the evidence to support it.
If Valve comes out and says "Yeah our subscriber agreement is actually wrong about that" in a clear statement and maybe even updates their subscriber agreement accordingly.
Then thats, what I will tell people.

But until now we have a legal text which says one thing, and one guy saying another thing and using a E-Mail as base that didn't even say that other thing.
I'll stay with the legal text on that one, until the legal text is changed or we have a statement from the author (Valve) of that text telling is how to interpret it.

tribal estuary
#

so why are star wars communities and what not not allowed if the material which is made for them is all made by people and not imported from other games?

soft egret
#

Because Disney doesn't allow use of their Trademark, and has been very harsh on it in the past and openly forbids it.
Down to where even a Kindergarden was sued for having a mickey mouse painted on a wall.

tribal estuary
#

even if you create the content yourself

soft egret
#

Its still their trademark.

tribal estuary
#

well thats stupid but i get it

soft egret
#

Well I don't like it either.
But if the law says so, then the law says so.

echo orchid
#

it’s not stupid, going against such trademarks is

#

don’t like it, get written permission from disney

soft egret
#

Just because some people prefer to ignore trademark law, and copyright law, and would want everyone to just be able to take everything and do everything with it.
Doesn't mean we have to accept that. We follow the laws and if you want to be here you have to do so too.

tribal estuary
#

What I am meaning is stupid is that Disney will come after people online who produce in game content for a game but wont go after people who create real life armor such as captain rex and what not

soft egret
#

Its business decisions.

Does Disney loose money if some cosplayer makes a costume and advertises their Movies/Games/Content with it? no.
Does Disney loose money if some people make a free video game while they themselves also have a paid video game in the same universe? yes.

One of these things is not interesting to them, while the other is.
Though both are not legal.

tribal estuary
#

I can see that but the flip side is Disney hasnt produced a game worth playing for the star wars feel

soft egret
#

Legally irrelevant whether you like to play a game or not.

heavy nacelle
#

You would think they would care more about all the 3d printed Disney stuff being sold online. Some guy on youtube literally made 18k dollars in no time printing and selling Disney/Marvel etc related stuff.

faint nacelle
#

they do crack on to stuff like that too

echo orchid
heavy nacelle
#

Instead they care about people making their own 3d models with no profit to use in a video game they love.

soft egret
echo orchid
heavy nacelle
#

Like imagine just straight up banning fanart. Like how sad do you have to be to do that.

echo orchid
#

it is not the same thing

heavy nacelle
echo orchid
#

you are not competing in the same business area with fanart

faint nacelle
#

well in many conventions only licensed artists can sell Marvel/Disney Etc art

#

sold fan art gets booted out

#

even during the convention if caught

heavy nacelle
#

You aren't selling anything if you make star wars inspired 3d models for use in a3 tho?

echo orchid
#

i can make my own models based on disney ip and print my own models for my own use

faint nacelle
#

@heavy nacelle you will have to take that up with Disney.

echo orchid
#

no matter if it is free or not

heavy nacelle
faint nacelle
#

also

heavy nacelle
faint nacelle
#

theres money moving in those circles

#

even though things are said to be "free"

heavy nacelle
#

Yeah fair

#

It removes competition tho in a way, like you said @echo orchid "Competing product for their licensed games" Like if a SW mod made by fans on a different non star wars game draws away consumers from actual licensed SW games, its a pretty clear indication that you need to create a better game to begin with. And we all know that competition is good for the consumers, we get better products and it forces the devs to up their game. But just putting a blanket ban on anything SW kinda removes that aspect.

#

And it makes me curious, how far can you reach with this? If a game company made a game that featured a futuristic levitating tank, can they then ban anyone else for making a levitating tank? Like where can you draw the line on this.

#

Like are lightsabers trademarked? The name probably is, but what about the actual weapon?

tribal estuary
#

plus people who are uploading clips from the clone wars series to youtube are making money off ads on the videos and Disney hasnt gone after them

soft egret
#

And we all know that competition is good for the consumers, we get better products and it forces the devs to up their game

We know that...
We are not in control of the Trademark though.

On the other hand Disney who owns the Trademark knows

  • Taking consumers away from our own product
  • We need to invest more money to make a better product and try to compete with a free competitor (hard to complete against a free product, with a paid product)
  • We can just sue them as they violate our Trademark and all these problems go away
tribal estuary
#

or CinemaSins who makes videos about movies and their sins and he has ads in his videos has done videos on the latest star wars movies

heavy nacelle
faint nacelle
#

Thing is, the starwars mods dont get made with made up names

#

or "altered /original designs"

#

they could be

heavy nacelle
faint nacelle
#

that I dont know.

soft egret
#

Depends on what was trademarked.
You certainly will not be allowed to trademark "levitating tank"

But if you have a specific levitating tank with very specific visual features, you can trademark its "likeness".

Look at a storm trooper. VERY specific distinctive visual features.
You can immediately recognize "yes, thats a star wars storm trooper"

tribal estuary
#

but COD ripped the pelicans design almost point for point from the Halo franchises

faint nacelle
#

so?

heavy nacelle
#

What about vehicles that are real, but in video games they are named differently. You can still immediately recognize it for what it is?

soft egret
#

Microsoft allows usage of its IP/Trademark for non-commercial use.
And COD might have licensed it.

or they just worked from the idea of such a ship. If you actually compare them you find LOTS of differences. and the idea is so generic that you can hardly claim something to be ripped.

faint nacelle
#

and almost point for point is your estimate

tall oxide
#

the difference is, that COD has a legal department that said "yeah we can do that".

faint nacelle
#

I wager you did not have the models side by siide

vivid scarab
tribal estuary
#

im looking at them now as speak

vivid scarab
#

If you wanted a specific example of asset theft you'd have been better off using the incident involving the Stellaris mobile game, where they out and out stole artwork for use in the game.

faint nacelle
#

and if you suspect they have made something they should not have, please do report it to the original author

tribal estuary
#

and yes they are besides one piece on the COD version being moved up so by virtue shouldn't it be that with the star wars models as long as we change the colors or re-texture something then it is ok for use

faint nacelle
#

you will have to take that up with Disney

soft egret
#

"Lets just copy this and change it up a bit to look different"
!=
"Lets make something new and use that as inspiration"

keen trout
vivid scarab
#

That's the one - thank you Dahl.

heavy nacelle
faint nacelle
#

also if your purpose intentionally is to "mask copying stuff"

#

you are on the wrong path

tall oxide
#

yeah, starwars is forbidden. its that easy

soft egret
#

Most of the Star Wars mods try to copy elements from the movie and recreate them as close to the original as possible. Thats a pretty clear trademark violation.

There surely are some Star Wars mods that imagine their own content and create their own stuff in the star wars universe, thats a different story.

heavy nacelle
#

How can that article be? It specifically says "If realism is an artistic goal" Using Humvees "undoubtedly furthers that goal" and it was allowed?

faint nacelle
#

simplest thing is if those modders contacted disney and got a permission

#

I've heard few people have tried but dont know the results

tribal estuary
heavy nacelle
#

So if I want to make a mod that has a artistic goal of realism the 1st amendment gives me the rights to use whatever design and or naming/icon I want as long as it furthers my goal towards realism

soft egret
faint nacelle
#

@tribal estuary I have no authority to judge that. Disney probably would still come after you if you just "fiddle this bit around a little and dont use red but orange in this stripe" and win if they like

#

theres plenty of people in the starsim community who know all this already