#ip_rights_violations
1 messages · Page 70 of 1
For fictional content it's much more of a quagmire. That's the main difference between the Humvee issue and Star Wars.
Lets say I made a game about competition shooting as a civillian. And my artistic goal was max realism, then the 1st amendment gives me the rights to use real manufacturers designs and naming because it does infact further my goal towards realism.
Thats what I get from that article.
More importantly, though, Daniels writes that "if realism is an artistic goal, then the presence in Modern Warfare games of vehicles employed by actual militaries undoubtedly furthers that goal."
He said that, the article didn't say that is a reason for allowing such use.
Him saying that doesn't imply "so if realism is an artistic goal, I can do anything I want"
I'd consult IP lawyer at that point.
I'd wager answer would be something along "danger zone"
I believe this could be seen as a defamation and first amendment may not be enough to defend your buttcheeks. Especially with support of UN Human Rights Commitee on the manufacturers' side because of the killing civilians hot take. But that's only about names, designs can be as realistic as you want
but as HG said, asking a lawyer specialized in this "branch" would be the best option, such cases are unique in some aspects
because of the killing civilians hot take
not killing civilians.
Civilians shooting other things
brainlet moment, sorry
All, apologies for the interruption again: I've come back briefly to answer the accusations against me and make a suggestion for the rest of the community to consider. But first.
@cold rain - please don't bring my name into your arguments like this. You've quoted me out of context rather a lot.
@soft egret
okey here, all my messages from that evening to next day
How about the rest of it where you're crying about "my aggression" to try and get support of the others? Thats what i read in the morning and was disgusted about. Running off claiming ignorance to get sympathy and support. Even my god kids don't do that they they are 10.
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.```
My god you are good at spin and manipulation. You take so many things out of context and order. Here's the Proper context:
[#ip_rights_violations message](/guild/105462288051380224/channel/105792634995388416/)
"I'm out, cya" refers to my veteran status. I had already asked for it to be removed.
Blatant spin on your part.
See for yourself what he was so "disgusted" about.
As for why i was so disgusted that leaving seemed like the best way forward.
- I was disgusted because of the way you trolled me and how I fell for it. My bad.
- I was disgusted (and had been for some time) about the way people are afraid to challenge you for fear of being banned. Mods on here have a bad rep for being heavy handed for good reason.
- I am still disgusted by the way that when someone disagrees with you, you try and mobilise support by spinning the situation. With hindsight the pattern is obvious.
- I was disgusted when I realised how futile debating with you was. And how you switched track, and started to pick away at the Valve email. Blatantly trying to save some face as it contradicted your previous policy. It just felt like I'd wasted my time. And still does.
- I woke up to find your posting in the Veteran's chat (parts that you havent shown I notice) claiming innocence in what looked ot me and others as lobbying for support. how much time i'd wasted debating and explaining.
As for mounting a slur campaign I really don't need to. You already have a reputation for being awkward, pedantic and a bully. My only crime is acknowledging that in public. Shame on me.
So moving past all that, here's what bugs me about this entire IP debate. You've all have the ability to ask Valve what thier license means. Everyone of you. Just contact support. Yet when everyone was endlessly debating here. No one emailed and asked. So I did it, I asked the questions I was asked to clarify. We all have the reply. It over turned the previous "policy" that you repeatedly enforced. (Something i dont have evidence for because - surpise - banning someone removes all their posts and evidence of what was said.) So we get the reply and almost immediately start criticising and nit picking what it means in what looks (by more than a few people I've spoken to) as an attempt to save face. Given previous occurances its the consensus that this is your form. So yeah I was both annoyed, frustrated and pissed off at myself that I was so obviously wasting my time.
So that answers some of your slur campaign against me. Which also apparently predates my exit from the server from what I understand. (Moderators talk too.)
So, the suggestion I mentioned.re: Valve the email and further questions.
Why don't we all compile our questions. All the little, nit-picking and obtuse ones that get constantly debated. List them here. Stick them in an email and ask Valve to help us out. Use that reply from the Actual Experts at face value to set the policy.
No more endless debates.
No more nit-picking of clauses to suit personal narratives and egos.
No more circular debates or creative spin.
I would do it myself. But according to dedmen I'm some sort of 'lying monster intent on Discord Domination'. Whomever does it, Should be trusted. So that rules out me an Dedmen doesn't it.
So lets start with @soft egret what do you think is not clear or is still debatable?
How about the rest of it where you're crying about "my aggression" to try and get support of the others?
There is no rest. I screenshotted ALL my messages in the veterans channel between the start of our conversation in #ip_rights_violations and you leaving this discord.
- I was disgusted because of the way you trolled me and how I fell for it. My bad.
I never trolled you. I was trying to clarify a incomplete statement and you saw it as a attack towards you and we riled eachother up into a straight out war of you accusing me of trolling you and attacking you and stating you're wrong, and me trying to defend myself and try to explain that its not at all what I meant.
as it contradicted your previous policy.
It doesn't contradict my policy as it doesn't actually talk about that specific thing in the E-Mail.
And you repeatedly saying its "my policy" and I need to "save face" to protect it...
While its NOT my policy.
Quotes from myself from 2018!
ACE Team knows the Steam workshop rules quite well. [...] They can do whatever they want. I just said that Steam technically doesn't allow it. Which is true.
You can just ignore the Steam rules like thousands of other people are already doing though. No one's gonna stop you from doing that. Except the mod author if a author is not fine with you reuploading something
The ACE Team is fine with you uploading stuff. So feel free to do it.
It just technically violates the Steam Subscriber agreement and neither you nor me can do anything about it.
And thousands of people are already reuploading stuff and Steam didn't care till today. And we don't know if they might care in the future
So what I'd say is. Just reupload it.
Or here from me again from feb 2020
Technically yes, you didn't contribute, you can't reupload. But if the Author gave you explicit permission to reupload it, noones gonna bite your hand, except Valve when they notice you broke their subscriber agreement.
You are repeatedly making it sound like I'm banning/punishing people for that stuff, while I'm not at all.
You're accusing me of things I haven't done and I don't understand where thats coming from.
Yes I inform people about what the subscriber agreement says if they ask about it, but violations of it are Steams business, not my business as a Moderator.
Though I do know of one case where a moderator perm-banned someone for this (reuploading ACE compats I think), but it wasn't me and it doesn't match up with my views on the matter.
I woke up to find your posting in the Veteran's chat (parts that you havent shown I notice)
I have shown all my messages between your "I'm out. cya" and the time when you left the discord. Even the few days after that I only posted that one message in total.
Both according to the channel now, and our message deletion logs. I don't know what you're on about.
It over turned the previous "policy" that you repeatedly enforced.
No it didn't. As I messaged you in #veterans RIGHT after you got the reply from valve.
Moderators talk too.
The moderators that banned people for the "policy" you're trying to put on me which never was on me?
The moderators sharing lies and accusations about me because I put a stop to them when they went overboard and since then have a grudge against me for that?
I'm some sort of 'lying monster intent on Discord Domination'
Stop putting words in my mouth. The only problem I have with you is you attacking me for things I haven't done.
Stick them in an email and ask Valve to help us out.
As I understand @kind sand is already doing that.
Edit: yes he did, it went out on saturday.
It specifically asks about the "need to be a contributor" claim, and specifically about the steam subscriber agreement 6D (Rock's E-Mail reply talked about "online conduct" and didn't even mention the subscriber agreement that was in question)
Here another reply from me towards your ACE problem (someone saying they cannot reupload without being a contributor).
Immediately after you've shown the E-Mail from valve which you said answers that problem.
It was always my stance that we know ACE allows it, and don't take action against it just because steam subscriber agreement says so.
In my view that has never been a problem, which is why I asked that.
Yet you are repeatedly trying to put the opposite into my mouth
could you 2 give it a rest already
or keep it on DMs 
drama channel is drama ....
i swear to god if i see people talking about ACE in this channel I am just going to send you raw fish by snail mail.
This is what happens when you believe you are never wrong.
Hey there, so a quick question for me as a unit mod dev
What would the best APL/other mod license be to basically say, "please don't touch our stuff"? 😆
Considering going with APL-ND but wanted to ask around about it
ND is pretty much the definition of "don't edit my 💩"
you can also just write a license file that says "don't touch my 💩"
(Rock's E-Mail reply talked about "online conduct" and didn't even mention the subscriber agreement that was in question)
The "online conduct" page is the simplified precis/summary of the "Steam Subscriber Agreement" ie they are the same thing. Just like CC licences have a simple summary, then the full licence.
https://store.steampowered.com/online_conduct/
https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/
I thought that was obvious from the text of both pages when you actually read it?
Again, the email points only to online conduct (which you call a 'simplified summary') rather than the text of the subscriber agreement which is where the text relevant to the particular issue is situated.
I know I've talked about this specific issue to death, but I'm just going to say that if a lawyer says 'just follow the simplified summary and you're fine' without acknowledging the potential for weird edge cases contained in the much longer text of the full license, then you should probably fire that lawyer.
Splitting hairs.
My original email specifically states Section 6d.
The reply is in context with that email.
As for "Any Lawyer telling me to follow the summary" I never said that happened. Only you did. But as you said - its now been done to death.
whats your definition of "don't touch" ?
I really like the CUP-License, its open enough on one end, but permissive enough on the other end
Is porting all A2/A2OA/A2PMC campaigns (in their exact form) to A3 allowed?
if they are in the released datapacks
do I have to download all of them?! 
cuz I already installed A2 and everything. I don't want to download the data all over again 
if anyone has it, can you tell me if they are in the pack?
Looks like it, didn't check for OA and PMC. https://imgur.com/8qyvzG7
thanks! 👍
https://steamcommunity.com/id/victoria_squad/myworkshopfiles/?appid=107410 - Looks like lots of ARMA 2 mod ports, incl Taviana. The LA-7 is from War Thunder...
https://www.patreon.com/user?u=17867361&fan_landing=true i dont suppose paywalling something on patreon is allowed by BI?
(specifically a mission)
Correct there were issues with that in the past @hollow rain
Unless he runs a monetized server I guess
he only released that gamemode, he doesn't run any servers
and you can only get the actual gamemode files from patreon
I think that would count as selling a mod
I’ll pass it on, but yeah, needing to pay to get access to a Arma mission you created is not allowed without special circumstances.
most of the features listed are made by other community authors as well.
@junior frigate what's the difference between the thing you uploaded on the workshop and the other hidden behind the paywall of your patreon?
C2 mod is selling on Patreon too and many others I don't get it?!
what is C2 mod
https://www.patreon.com/Mad_Cheese They are selling access to dev build
Selling access to a dev build of a freely available mod is probably a bit different than outright selling a whole gamemode.
And also not allowed sure.
C2 is still available on the workshop for free
wait how can they have 7 patreons and 6 bucks per month, isnt the minimum thing 1$
?
you can do an anonymous donation so the amount of you paying is not shown
As usual the "but others do it too so its fine" defence...
Yeah other people murder people and steal cars and break into peoples homes, that makes it fine right?
no..
If having a light version of the content on the workshop page is the point, there is no problem, I make it happen ✌️
I think you missed the
And also not allowed sure.
part
Actually. Just saw you were already told about everything in CUP Discord, and subsequently banned when you refused to do anything about it.
No
if you're only going to have a light version on the workshop, you're still selling the full version
Just to inform you here. @junior frigate violating the Arma 3 EULA will get you banned from this Discord too if you refuse to stop violating it.

why do you need "some days" to upload a file to the workshop
btw, how does "illegal" code monetization compare to, for example, paid extended support of my mod? Can I take money from someone in exchange for ad hoc help?
Hm, without being too in-depth I'd say thats fine since you arent selling anything under the eula
your personal time/effort isnt covered by the eula, so
I'm in the middle of Moving so I don't have Access to any pc just my phone
You cannot monetize the mod itself.
But you can monetize your knowledge about how the mod works

what about "paid access" to Early Access versions of a mod?
Or a Dev version that'll later become public?
makes sense. what about a situation where person X asks me to port a model to Arma. I know that using Arma Tools means he can't pay me for this certain job, but what about paying for the time I spend doing that? I believe this is not covered by EULA from that point of view
Thats monetizing the mod.
Selling access to mod is no go, no matter if it maybe potentially becomes free someday
I've seen people do that too 
That would make you use the Arma tools for a commercial purpose (gaining money by using them) which the tools license forbids
Yes. I've seen people break into a house once too.
oh, so there's no difference then
I didn't mean it's ok. just saying...
Yep. Just saying too.
I called the police on them
What if what you’re building requires arma tools?
would that not be using arma tools commercially
if you use them and get paid for the time you use them
Again, I'd be hard pressed to think of any court that would consider using a freely available tool to build something where the something is not being sold commercially as the same as being paid for your time in essentially a consulting role.
There is slight but fundamental differences in action.
Id consult BI legal team
I mean, I'd consult my own lawyer. Remember a EULA isn't magical. It has to be tested in court to have teeth.
dangerous game
BI can say their EULA also spawns unicorns on the moon.
I think this logic must have a flaw though. If this was entirely true, I could get visual studio community for my business and use it freely, since I create custom tailed software for each client, so I'm not selling a product created with it, I'm selling my time creating it
Or what's the difference I'm not seeing?
It comes down to a product vs. a service and the commercialization of either.
And what commercialization actually means.
I could argue that every youtuber that has posted a video of Arma and received ad revenue is also commercializing Arma, more directly than if someone was consulting. Would that be the definition of commercialization that a court falls back on? Questionable. There is some case law there (see Nintendo) but its a pretty grey area.
So I’ve always wondered, how do they pay CDLC creators that use Arma Tools to create stuff?
I mean its a EULA, they can just go "doesn't apply to you"
Im pretty sure cdlc creators have special contracts
CDLC teams sign agreement with BI
Ah makes sense
A EULA is just a contract that is possibly enforceable in a court.
It's not criminal or even civil code, at least in the US lol (and that'd suck to live in a country where it is).
And the entire concept of an EULA is pretty shaky in the US to start with.
Nah. Unless the EULA has statements contracting the applicable laws there is nothing to nag about. It's civil rights. If you enter in an agreement with BI not to commercially use the tools and break it the just sue you if they want. End of story. If you sell something that is impossible to be produced without the use of BI tools then you have 0 excuses.
Not really. Again, if I wrote code for you and gave you the code and you then used the tools to build it, did I use the tools commercially?
Needless to say the BI EULA and also Steam for this sake was not put together by a few monkeys on a typewriter. Those are done by legal experts because the are the basis the the whole company stands on.
And BI can sue, but that's a meaningless statement, again, because a EULA has to be tested in court and they have to show some sort of damage.
Code is fine. You can Programm without the use of BI tools. If you created a binarized p3d for examples ... not so much.
Right, but again, that'd be selling a product, not selling your time.
That is not how commercial use works anywhere.
If I give you the unbinarized models then I didn't use the tools, and you paid me for my time to make something.
Not in the US. Not in the EU. I download your non commercial use Image and sell it to someone. They don't pay for the image but for my time to find it? That's your logic?
No, because that is copyright there.
Yes, you can do that.
Right, so I don't know why you keep making up an argument that I am not even making to argue against me.
You're just being a contrarian.
Wouldn’t a unbinarized p3d still be using arma tools?
Doesn't have to.
Don’t you need arma tools for toolbox to export a p3d?
Not after the blender plugin was broadly available and BI did not act upon it.
Yea, thats the other thing too, is that BI would also have to be proactively going after these things to establish cause. BI is pretty permissive in what they let their user base do, which is good.
I mean almost all the major formats and systems are entirely reverse engineered at this point, sometimes with the direct blessing of C suite level BI people.
@bitter sierra there are very few things you can do and still play by the rules in terms of paid work in the BI universe. You made it sound like basically everything is fine. It isn't. 90% of paid work was and will be violating the rules. Because most people don't want a mod they have to finish up themselves.
Again, it depends on how you go about it.
That's all I am saying.
TBF very few people actually pay anything close enough to be worth doing stuff related to Arma for money. Haha.
You'd think so but I can ensure you there are loads of money spent. 2 people I know could buy a house from it in Germany and did so. In 2 years, just from arma. After taxes.
I meant development work, not running a Life server.
DayZ is even more valuable. The russians are selling anything they can to each other there. If you take 100€ for a mod pack and have 500 servers willing to buy it ... You do the math.
It was all "products" that were pre-made + extra money from specialized support for those who used it
I guess yea. Forgot how many people play DayZ still
More players than Arma :)
how far we stray from our milsim roots
The blender plugin uses O2Script.exe to write the p3d
so it too fall under the umbrella
you can make and sell the .blend
Ah good info, I thought it was native. Then p3d is off the list again
and the buyer then handles the importing into game on his own
That easily could be replaced by open source tools.
no problem there
Mikero's entire toolset is basically defunct now.
Yeah I was confused about that since I heard something about that
Mikero's tools rely on BI tools in many ways as well ... so don't consider them a replacement
Yea
sure why not, it just isnt so the argument is moot untill someone does replacement
yes that is what I said
Actually BI has an explicit policy on that issue: https://www.bohemia.net/community/game-content-usage-rules You are allowed to put footage (screenshots and videos) of our games on websites (such as YouTube). You are only allowed to make money (e.g. advertisement revenues) from it if you add your own content to it that would be a sufficient amount of additional work/content to justify it.
And the answer I provided in there is also:
Am I allowed to seek crowd-funding or other forms of donation towards my modding work?
Yes this is allowed, with the same rules = the access to data/content cannot be limited by any financial contribution.
In no way does this mean that Bohemia guarantees any compatibility or functionality now, or in the future for your modding work or that Bohemia endorses your project.
Also lol at the reverse engineering bit, most widely flaunted rule in the entire community
There would be no DayZ without reverse engineering
what happened? 
There are better tool suites now like armake2 and HEMTT
not the right place to ask but is HEMTT being maintained ?
yes, that's the totally wrong channel (if you're talking about the build system)
according to the github repo, last update was 5 months
from comments:
Courtland [author] 19 minutes ago
This is a really unpublished model anywhere and was made for personal use, unfortunately I cannot publish it, because it is the property of Red Hammer Studio.
@crystal talon - not much i can do unless that is published...
Probably still worth checking the mod if you haven't already
i will, tnx for headsup
Can anyone else confirm? I've been away from modding and thus out of the loop for over half a year. I had been using Mikero Tools for so long, and just paid for a yearly sub.
I still use Mikero’s tools. I’d not even heard of the others!
armake2 and HEMTT still lacks features that mikero's tools have. also #arma3_tools
👍 on both points.
Quick question just to be sure. If a mod is released under the APL-SA, and they have the source on GitHub, I can modify anything there under the license and redistribute as long as I release it under the same license, correct?
redistribute depends on where.
Some people have additional terms on APL-SA that limit where you can redistribute, and of course some hosting platforms too might limit what you can upload to there.
But yes
What I always wondered about ... if one asset in my mod is ADPL-SA ... do i need to make my whole mod ADPL-SA? Would it not be enough to to have a folder for it with a license file that says "this is ADPL-SA" and while the rest is something more restrictive? Some people seem to split their mods because of this, but i don't find anything regarding that. The SA clause only says Share Alike — If you adapt, or build upon this material, you may distribute the resulting material only under the same license.
RHS doesn't allow Retexture on some of their models while allowing it on the rest, I believe that is something along the lines of your question
You could read their license or ask PuFu for clarifications on how they wrote their license
I understand licenses files as "applies to this folder, and all its subfolders". So if i have two folders at the root, one for licensed content and one of my own stuff (both in the same pbo) but no license file at the root, and the "correct ones" in each of the main folders then I would think i am good to go ...
you can atleast do different license per PBO, ACE does that.
I don't know what would prevent you from doing it to a single file in a bigger pbo, but of course for the user and for you its more trouble to figure out "do/did I/they touch that one specific file or warrant a license change, or did they touch everything but that file"
I believe that is way overcomplicating it (what Arkensor said) - you can just state which class names fall under what licence
Alrighty, thx for the input
But in a situation where I make my mod a APL-ND but use an APL-SA asset, I am braking the rules for doing that? I have seem alot of mods doing that even big ones like RHS but they claim that their assets were donated by the author.
Another example is this one, he uses Niarms weapons and animations but he splits the licences
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2424797017
Don't know.
Easiest way always is to ask the author if he's fine with it
Problem is that its allot of bureaucracy just to check with the author if he did allowed one mod to take it and use it so we mostly have to trust the moder word that he was allowed.
well that's your problem, that's how licenses in Arma work. If you verify such things with a 3rd party, in case your modder, not the mod author, you have to be aware of some kind of C&D if your guy does a mistake.
Only way to be sure is to make stuff yourself.
sry what?
Yes
Wasn't KA Weapons banned from the workshop? https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2440433646
Been up for a few months now
Guy also has reuploads of the other weapons packs
Huh yeah I think so
Not the only one though: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2430081546 and I think that one too (not sure) https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2413645211
Why was it removed?
Stolen contents iirc
what were the contents? I was interested in ask him about models
I think there was something about a katana and some other stuff? dunno, you'll props be able to find out more by searching for ka weapons in this channel
afaik he had nothing self made
Kickass also contributed to some other bigger mods which caused huge issues down the line when his stuff turned out to be ripped.
But I only remember one case with some Swords from killing floor
So.. I'd recommend to keep a good distance
he had stuff from Hitman games at least.
and that also led to the chinese army mod being unavailable for a while
which led to some... interesting steam discussion posts
probably no need to dig that up again. 😛
the thread was deleted, but it was a pretty fun read 
Could be wrong here, but to me this looks like the A2 BRDM. It has the Takistan livery and everything.
https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/military/vehicle/brdm-2-atgm-3d-model
It is
Thought so
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2464082540 VSM project zenith stuff
This module was not made by me but I had the authorization to post it
Yeah....
why would anyone reupload tfar
it doesnt even say it has anything special
What does that reaction mean? @deft gazelle
it means people do things for no reason, he probably reuploaded it just for the sake of reuploading it, i try not to put method to madness because theres rarely ever
it means im giggling because its just how it be sometimes
Ah oki
I found good crye uniforms but im 99% sure theyre ripped from cod or some shit
BRUH OK I DIDNT LOOK AT HELMETS BUT THERES ONES WITH "COD" AS A PREFIX, 1984
dammit
Yeah the boots and shadows look similar to mw
Ill launch the game tommorow because its 1am and find the one with the funny ripped assets
Im not sure about alpha group being it since it looks clean
Alpha group is to ugly to be ripped, and it uses either A2 gorkas or vanilla retextures
Why do people put random mods here and call them all ripped? That's cringe
Here is one of the authors of the Alfa Group mod
https://www.artstation.com/jota416
Alpha group is all self made by the authors, and I would definitely not call it "too ugly to be ripped"
It pays to do just a little research
Furthermore having "COD" as a prefix doesn't mean something is taken from another game. Make sure that there is actual CODtent before reporting it through official means)
The first link has rips featured in the preview image
Wth is a "ripped feature" nvm misread
Eitherway I said what I said only for the sake of the pun at the end)
I suspected alpha but was like 90% sure on the first one
Out of curiosity, what makes you think our stuff was ripped?
Not the first time AGE has been posted here either.
Probably a combo of "SF = ripped" , "good looking = ripped" , and "Russian = ripped" train of thought that I see people sharing rather often
Yeah I've seen it being brought up before, hence i'm wondering ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I downloaded your mod and the ripped pack,sorry
as a reminder: no accusation stands unless undeniable proof is given. which is still missing...
Ah all good no worries. I was just wondering if it was something of the contents or other reasons, thanks for the answer 😛
Literally put a guy with gear from it in a scenario,uninstalled it,and it said tfl packs are missing

you still gave no proof of your words, but if you feel you're 100% right and you are sure you won't hurt your own reputation by wrongly accusing someone than read the channel description and use the email mentioned there to ask for a solution
and writing "Ripped from COD" is just a blunt statement, I don't really get what do you want to achieve by doing that tbh
To cut things short: if content got ripped from a mod, and the creator is here, shoot him a PM.
If it's a user that is notorious for reuploading other mods (repeat offender) contact Dwarden with proof.
For anything else, use the email in the description and / or contact the original game studio
If its TFL then Siege-A is probably interested (no ping because he'll see this I assume)
"models came from great creators in the community"

"Models came from thieves that pretend they made the content they stole from great community modders"
FTFY
Cope
It literally stated shit like "missing files ade required for this scenario-tfl_nvgs
Etc
Yeah ik,didnt wanna annoy him by using presumably ripped shit since he already called me out on it once
@carmine folio
All TFL content isn't automatically ripped, so just because there are TFL requirements doesn't mean it is bad. Since TFL always gets taken down by USP, I guess they have only ripped their content (afaik some Backpacks) - it's either up to you to find what content in the mod is ripped, or up to e.g. Siege to go looking through it himself
There were backpacks that were probably ripped
Same thing goes for this mod - if it has TFL content which is theirs - it's TFLs problem. If it has TFL content which isn't theirs, it's the og modders problem
"probably ripped" isn't evidence, so if you're looking to be a 6 and report ripped content to USP, double your report to actually make sure there is USP there
Well most stuff in TFL is ripped, and thats only the stuff we know the sources from.
Not 'probably', since otherwise you'll waste their time, and possibly the time of the guy who made the mod
Ok, and your proof is?
I also don't see how that is an issue of arma modders, e.g. USP - as somebody said above if you believe you are sure enough it's true, report it to the COD IP people
I also don't see how that is an issue of arma modders, e.g. USP
Because they ripped stuff from USP and other mod makers too
I am reffering to COD things in the mod Dedmen, not the USP stuff
Also referring to the Russian mod, not TFL. I haven't seen any evidence that they have the USP stuff, yet
They have cod stuff for sure
Obv the stuff ripped from USP is USPs issue
TFL stuff == known proven ripped content including COD and USP.
New mod contains TFL stuff, and just from looking at it you recognize COD content.
Chance that it really is ripped COD content? pretty high
Change that it also contains ripped USP content? pretty high too
Which is why he posted that here. Which is the correct thing to do to put it to the attention of the people who got their work stolen
Chances are not certainties (and this isn't TFL either, but a mod that ripped TFL) hence my point ot the guy - he should make sure its one or the other, and then report it to COD lawyers/Siege-A
Which is why he posted it here, so that the people who own the content can look at it (Siege-A)
And as it contains ripped content from atleast one Arma mod, chances are it also contains ripped stuff from other mods.
Which is the reason why people post here, to inform modders of it so they can take a look at it.
That is fair, but then he went on claiming it already is, without any facts or proof.
I never said he shouldn't post it here, I said that him claiming something he isn't sure about isn't a good thing
Since that will start a very usual witch hunt where a mod is assumed to be stolen/ripped content just because some random claimed it here.
Where did he claim that?
I found good crye uniforms but im 99% sure theyre ripped from cod or some shit
Yeah the boots and shadows look similar to mw
He says he thinks it contains ripped content, which is why he posted it here for people who know to take a look at
E.g. VSM being called ripped content still today, even through it never was
it was. I was there back then.
It had a COD Prefix,looked like helmets from cod,things were also named after cod operators
There's also some backpacks and nvgs that i dont recongnize but were also high quality
I posted it here because it looked ripped
Here he claimed, hence my comments
I was there back then too, I remember VSM was fine, while Project ZENITH, private mod by VSM guy having the bad content
Point is - people claim today that VSM is still ripped content
Hence my guess they tried rebranding under MLO, but that's only a guess
As far as I remember VSM renamed their mod to get rid of the ripped content smell
Exactly, but it didn't work so it's back to VSM
Because back then VSM AIO contained ripped stuff. And people associated VSM == ripped.
MLO was known as all the non-ripped stuff from VSM seperated out
if they went back to the old name then.. unfortunate PR wise.
Well, I still see people claim MLO is ripped, so I'm guessing the name change didn't work
I wasn't aware of VSM AiO having ripped content, since when we where using it and it was pulled, and then put back up - nothing was missing from any loadouts, missions, etc
Point to this rambling is that people claiming "X is ripped" with the proof of "duude trust me" can and has started issues for mods
Since Im a 3rd party, I haven't downloaded the mod so I don't know if to attack it or defending, figuretivly, and all I'm seeing is "dude trust me" and "look at it yourself". When making negative statements such as "they have cod stuff for sure" - I simply ask for proof
Yes.
But if we know for certain it's just a repack of a mod that we 100% know contains ripped content.
And then someone recognizes content from another game in there that we know was ripped by that first mod.
Then making the connection that its ripped really isn't far fetched or baseless.
So yes there are some cases of what you say, but this isn't one of them
Ofc, not saying its far fetched or baseless, I think it most probably is exactly that - some kind of illegal content, but point of a lack of proof stands, atleast imo
Since if nobody spoke up in the first place - this wouldn't be the only mod that was reported with that label, Alpha Group Equipment would've been under that label too
And just like that - the rumour and false info would spread, since people wouldn't check the mod themselves but only read the comments
Luckely AGE is pretty big now, but I remember following it when it just started and had a tiny following. Had it been reported then, its very unlikely anybody spoke up against it, and its riputation would be forever stain with those claims
Alpha Group Equipment would've been under that label too
If people don't actually read what was written then sure..
He never said Alpha contains ripped content.
He said "one of these two mods contains ripped content, and I'm 90% sure its not Alpha, I'll verify it tomorrow"
If people make the connection "Alpha == ripped from that" then oof
Same as asking "I think this may be ripped, can anyone confirm?" doesn't mean that something is ripped, just that some user is unsure.
if people make the connection that its ripped then its not the posting users problem
Yeah, his words werent attacking AGE as much, your correct. But they are attacking the other mod, which is very likely, almost certainly ripped content, but still have no proof of it being ripped content presented other than "my eyes"
Since if AGE got the same treatment, which was my example, sure it wouldn't be true and would most likely get shut down after a few people checked, but the word would still be spread
Basically tl;dr: I'm saying to not slander until there is absolute proof of the slander
But they are attacking the other mod, which is very likely, almost certainly ripped content, but still have no proof of it being ripped content presented other than "my eyes"
He has proof that TFL is in there, and we know TFL is ripped content. Thats pretty sufficient proof
Well, some TFL is ripped content, not all, so depends on what part of TFL that mod is using
E.g their vests all are completely made inhouse, I believe by a commissioned artist, or a guy in the group
E.g their vests all are completely made inhouse
I know of several of their vests that have parts ripped from USP
Some* of their vests, not all
I wont speak for all of them, since I don't know about that. My bad
Again.
TFL == Known and proven to contain ripped content from COD
That mod above == Known and proven that it contains some "TFL" content.
That mod above == User recognised COD content in there.
At that point I would rather ask for proof of it not being ripped than other way around.
Well, it's personal preference of when enough proof is sufficient enough. I was just thinking of 'beyond any reasonable doubt' in this case
Yeah I guess "reasonable doubt" is different for different people.
For me "Mod 1 contains ripped stuff, Mod 2 is repack of Mod 1, Recognized ripped content in Mod 2" is sufficient beyond resonable doubt for me
@soft egretit contains a fuckton of RHS ripped content, as with anything FLB
Well that solves that
@hallow idollisten, since i keep seeing you come in here and protect obvious ripped content
there is NOTHING with a FLT prefix done by that bloke
everything and i actually mean everything contains ripped content from various places
As I said, I haven't even downloaded the mod. I didn't defend the mod, or atleast didn't intend for it to seem like I did, I said very most likely is ripped
It was more because of AGE being reported, which could've had the same treatment happen with it
Luckily it didn't, but seeing the environment here - it could've
That mod was just an example used, since even through its very likely ripped, the guy saying "hes sure about it" actually wasn't sure, only assuming (like myself) hence its better to have a more official person, e.g. you - make that call/judgement
while in theory i am in agreement, there are various well known exceptions, including everything TFL
of course it is advisable to presume nothing, and notify people who's content might have been ripped and/or missued before self-concluding anything, unless the one concluding goes through the obvious steps required to confirm/infirm it
That is what I was getting at more or less
If its the case that all of TFL is considered ripped, then my bad for the misinformation from my part, I wasn't aware of that
that being said, while i actually always not just visually confirm shit, but actually take apart the mod and dig for the files and configs and what not, not everyone has either the know how or the tools to do that
and (un)fortunatelly i can only take the necesary legal steps for content that i (co-)own, not everything i have seen (bar notifying the other original creators)
and yes, considering i have taken apart TFL pbos/p3ds multiple times now, i know what they contain, and nothing minus some poor ass retextures are self-made
the models are, all of them, ripped, either from existing arma mods, dayz sa, and/or other games
I was sure about the top one,not age
Has anyone ever seen a mod that has skeletons as zombie entities? I know there was one, but was it removed or something a while back?
@worldly condor #arma3_questions is the correct channel to ask such
@unreal mountainno links without description
Advertisement on YouTube for a mobile game called Battle Warship : Naval Empire using Arma 3 footage
I can’t embed pictures one momento
@unreal mountain~~ no advertisment on this server~~ nevermind you meant to report it
Lmfao
always helps to describe what you link
Well lads, I was still typing when the what is the link description was asked.
definetly gonna try that Game now/s
Yeah sorry I was late to that convo, lol, ping me next time.
Thank you :)
See channel description, thats where to report A3 infringements to.
Hey, uh... what's the policy on BankRev-ing BI's own PBOs?
And yes, I have read the EULA, and I find the wording finicky for my mind that did not attend six years of law school, since it specifically speaks of modding as well yet here we are.
setting up P drive correctly extracts A3 data on your P drive
what you can do with that data is limited though
I'm mostly curious about the interpretation of "reverse engineering" because as far as I can tell, looking at the configs to find out how things work fits the exact definition of reverse engineering according to Merriam Webster.
configs are straight available through game too
With Games Workshop updating the IP guidelines, is the 40k mod for Arma 3 called "There is Only War" at risk?
reverse engineering afaik in this case refers to breaking open the things that are not openable after P drive setup
so models
Yes, through the cfgViewer, but that one is not 1:1 to how the game wants it to look in order to actually work.
and the games DLLs and executables
@last torrent Id think 10+ years of modding should have already established that it is ok
Don't worry. I'm on the paranoid side, and I realized that with the EULA as it is, they could go 180 at literally any moment and claim it has always been written so.
Doesn't mean I'm having a reasonable line of thought, but the reverse engineering part made it really... weird. Because, once again, looking at anything seems to fit the definition.
we dont really know if that will affect modding.
time will tell
if 40k models added to Arma can be used to 3D-print figurines based on those then Games Workshop will probably intervene and ask to cease the development
I don't think there would be any reason to go after mods specifically. To get to the point where you could use a model from a mod downloaded on the workshop, you would have to do enough transformative work that it's arguable the original intent of the author has been lost. If the original author goes and uses the same model for his mod, as he does a custom print, that's a different story
so why do they go after fanfic youtube videos? if those are treated as a threat to IP, then I bet mods are at least in the same category of "danger"
honestly, I don't know why they'd go after fan animations specifically, and not other forms of fan art as well, such as 2d and 3d art pieces, of which I'd say mods are a part of (essentially 3d fan art that you can use). I'd think due to the traction that high quality animations can get they want to control that specific part
huh? I didn't hear about that, got a link?
reverse engineering file formats not intended to be open or the game itself is not allowed.
But BI specifically offers you all configs and scripts ingame (config viewer, function viewer) for you to look at and learn from.
And also distributes official tools to unpack these.
If you have to manually really actually reverse engineer some file format, or use some shady third party tool to unpack/look at a thing, you can assume you're doing something you shouldn't
@manic laurel FYI
Though I don't see much risk concerning Arma mods. I'd count these as Fan-fiction/Fan-artwork
unauthorised use of our trademarks - unauthorised use or registration of our trademarks in respect of similar products or services is not permitted.
That depends of course, what do they actually have Trademarks on
Games and apps – individuals must not create computer games or apps based on our characters and settings. These are only to be created under licence from Games Workshop.
Depends if you count a free mod == computer game (which would assumably be a paid product)
Ofc the last point on the page is the most critical one, yeah that could mean something
WH40k logo and the eagle are the "most forbidden" trademarks, I believe only the latter shows in the TIOW, but from what I remember it's modified because GW has been sending their sad lawyers everywhere since forever
i wonder about imitation models - our products must not be imitated. Imitators produce models which copy heavily from Games Workshop’s artwork, books or products. part, because they do not precise what the models are
i mean the figurines or just the project
Reading that I expect 3D models aka figurines.
Probably best to ask for clarification, they neatly directly provide the email there
GW, Games Workshop, Citadel, Black Library, Forge World, Warhammer, the Twin-tailed Comet logo, Warhammer 40,000, the ‘Aquila’ Double-headed Eagle logo, Space Marine, 40K, 40,000, Warhammer Age of Sigmar, Battletome, Stormcast Eternals, White Dwarf, Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Space Hulk, Battlefleet Gothic, Dreadfleet, Mordheim, Inquisitor, Warmaster, Epic, Gorkamorka, and all associated logos, illustrations, images, names, creatures, races, vehicles, locations, weapons, characters, and the distinctive likenesses thereof, are either ® or TM, and/or © Games Workshop Limited, variably registered around the world. All Rights Reserved.
these are all of their trademarks, always listed everywhere so people don't have to search too long
yep, that's the way it is so far
"no, u"
that contrarian thing is just the perfect sentence one cannot defend against 😂 yes/no, you're screwed!
Well, no. BankRev and Notepad is all that I see the need to use, ever.
Same for most other people
Even the existence of the EBO is annoying but understandable. And even then it's really an annoyance at the fact that some people insisted on being assholes to the point where the need for the EBO arose.
but even with ebo, functions/config viewer lets you look inside there
Exactly. Let's be fair: A3 is the one where you guys really out did yourselves in terms of user friendliness.
The level of tutorials for literally everything reached a new high, the tools also seem to have a good deal of improvement (can't really judge, haven't used previous tools all that much) and we got a Config, Function and Animation viewer right in the game itself. 3Den is a chapter all of it's own, as is Zeus. In my opinion, the series has seen several times the improvements since the release of three than it has between 2001 and 2013.
But yeah. BankRev and Notepad. I don't make models or textures myself (fortunate enough to be in a team and others can make that) so all I need is to know the ins and outs of the configs.
EBOs were a step in the wrong direction though.
ebos dont really hinder any legit modding
No, an inconvenience does not equal hinderance in any meaning of the word that I know of.
How so?
Is it really though? A2 already had encrypted pbos for BAF/PMC/ACR way before EBO became a thing for Arma.
see you end with catch 22, some demand no encryption/protection and some demand more than now
Why would you demand encryption. It actively reduces modding potential.
does it tho?
configs could still be read via config browser, and for the rest there are countless tutorials
"reduces modding potential" textures you can still get at if you want to make retextures.
Model files you cannot modify anyway.
Audio files you have no reason to modify? Not sure if allowed either?
Config files and scripts are still completely open to you.
Unless of course you mean the modding potential of removing DRM off of DLC content to be able to use it for free because you don't want to pay for the DLC.
Thats piracy and thats exactly why EBO exists
i am wondering when for example contact gets fully de-ebo'd like all other bi dlcs
I've forwarded it for you, as noone seemed to want to actually report it to the correct place.
But its been taken care of now.
Not at all, since PBOs can be sent around, and DePBOd with Programms Like Eliteness, Contact Platform DLC, must be loadet via the Launcher manually while the Basic stuff contact offers (Like all the guns, the map and stuff) is Always available
You wouldn't DeEBO GM, PF or CSLA either, because that could Open These DLCs To Potential piracy (Pls correct me If im wrong, thats how i understood it)
All other dlcs got de-ebo'd after roughly 1.5 years, to me seemt his was forgotten. Not talking cdlc here. also not talking about removing drm measures, no need as i own all of them anyways.
more of an easier access to the files themselves for viewing textures without workarounds, same as sounds.
Ahhh okay, didn't know that
Please use the official Feedback Tracker to report bugs and suggestions.
See this website for a guide on how to use it correctly: https://feedback.bistudio.com/w/ft_a3_howto/
I guess as a single-player-only DLC, it would nullify its selling point
the content that people would want to be able to access for modding isn't singleplayer-only though
keep the actual campaign EBO'd, I don't think anyone is interested in looking inside those PBOs
not sure if its any different/anything can be done since its gmod, but found this while looking for reference images:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1990812025&searchtext=
description says "Various stuff ported from games(arma, dayz)", and I identify the camo AK in the second picture as eerily similar to RHS's camo AK
Hat's from RHS at least. @echo orchid will do his thing
@dull moon preview image for that mod in another workshop item https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1882502310 (picture with black background) looks like one of the CUP AK-74 textures. So you might find you guys' stuff in the item trenchgun linked to as well
Thx, will have a look later
On a first look, the stuff is surprisingly familiar.
Good thing that scans on gmod might be available on the crawler at some point
I don't think either of those addons contain any of those weapons in the images
@ivory sable@tulip nexuscheers DMCA filled
was there actually anything from RHS in there?
patrol cap mentioned in the description and shown in the images is from RHS
Helmet looks like our too
oh yeah, the patrol cop is very obviously RHS
those uniforms are RHS too or is it custom?
Kneepads in RHS? Don't be daft!
sorry okay that wasn't clear, i mean the content that is available on the a3 platform not any additionally "outside" addon that you need to specifically select in the a3 launcher
I will probably do a FT ticket, then and stop bring in it up here.
hey I noticed the crawler is back online but doesnt seem to be working?
unless every single rhs repack has been killed
It worked for me a couple of days ago
it's still indexing iirc
yep, 51984 items remaining out of 93k or so
Not sure what to do about this one. The guy claims that he paid for someone to port all of the stuff from MW2
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2561600174
DO NOT UPLOAD THE HELMETS ON THE WORKSHOP OR OTHER WEBSITES AND CLAIM THAT ITS YOURS, I PAID FOR THE HELMETS, VESTS, UNIFORMS TO GET PORTED!!!
🙈
paying for stolen stuff incident 
to be honest this is one of the shittiest looking mod on Workshop I've ever seen, I think I'd rather play with some massi's stuff instead
My reaction as well. It gave me a great big chuckle.
You'll need to report to the developer company. They can then dmca it. @indigo axle
He even incriminated a friend
Erika somethin
Dumbass moment
Friend of a friend did
Said it in the comments
well it's gone now, was responding to a comment from the workshop page owner and it disappeared lol
I think it just went private (according to a comment by the author)
that would make more sense
Hello friend of the guy that got incriminated
And i have screenshots

Too bad he literally said you ported some stuff
So what?
It is an IP rights violation
So you're incriminated 
Well good luck
Ok
Well now i have a screenshot of another ripper saying you did stuff
The incredibly tough anime fan

Well, it's good that you have this screenshot, I'm really happy for you. Print it out and hang it in a frame on the wall. You will continue to satisfy your ego.
Listen, I'm not interested in talking to a person who is getting personal at all.
Bruh i just dont support ripping shit
You can write anything and to anyone. And what you want about me. But you should know that I did not start this discussion. So for now.
Its more important for bohemia interactive
@soft egret @manic laurel
Since well,Activision is quite a big company ,also a problem for valve for hosting ripped content
@wind stirrup your mod is ip theft not a port. dont be a dick about it, you are at fault here and have done wrong.
if you want make mods, make mods with legit content and not stolen models.
"because I did not start the discussion about the bank robbery you cannot incriminate me" line of defense? or am I misunderstanding something 🤨
can we maybe not compare ripping a model from some game to bank robbery
stealing a pen from a bank might be a more appropriate comparison
not the same range, of course
but, you know, it is a figure of speech called "exaggeration" to outline the fault in logic - not rate the fault itself
I dont think hes on the server anymore
@fluid jewel wrong is wrong, people seem to not understand that
correct, he left
well yeah, stealing a pen from a bank is technically wrong too
its shitty move to downplay IP theft
aaand he won't be anymore.
if the guy who is making these models earns a living out if it, it’s pretty close
The "being proud of own made stuff" is missed / doesnt exist
Regarding Mechwarrior on the IP section of the Bohemia community wiki, as far as im aware wouldnt any mods be dealing with Microsoft (and their development rules?) a recent example being Living legends 2 having been greenlit by microsoft. (another fan project being Wolves)
(Ie. battletech belongs to them (Topps), all mechwarrior games related content is under a license owned by microsoft)
We’ve decided to abandon the MechWarrior 5 mod and publish Living Legends 2 independently under Microsoft’s Game Content Usage Rules! Other games published under the same framework include Wolves, a spiritual successor to MechAssault, and the Halo fan game Installation 01.```
Someone would need to get clarification from MS or whoever holds the license at the moment
most latests Battletech games are not by Microsoft
MWO/ Mechwarrior 5
MW5 Was licensed by Microsoft
Microsoft has the Sole right to create and license battletech/Mechwarrior games
alrighto. then clear answer from MS will be needed
then again. Arma engine is a bit limited when it comes to mechs
so Im a bit doubtful anyone will even try
LL and Wolves have permission from MS iirc, explicit written permisson. Since MW5/MWO and MechAssault are their property.
mmm no MS does not own those?
mechassault yes,
MWO and MW5 are made by Piranha Games
in act case, if anyone wants to make a Mechwarrior mod for Arma then they will need to contact MS for permission to use the IP
General question: do people consider an excerpt of a mod (taking a single weapon out of a pack) to be an adaptation under Creative Commons-NoDerivs license? I'm reading the exact wording of the license and it appears to be allowed to me.
I think it is not
modpack = usage of a piece of work in another one
= derivative
the whole mod is one piece, if you take parts of it to assemble something else you derivate it to create a new thing
I don't know the best way to tackle this other than reporting it and posting it here for BI to ponder about.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2006655036&searchtext=escape+from+tarkov
https://steamcommunity.com/id/SamSWAT911/myworkshopfiles/
And here, the guy has basically ripped the entirety of EFT 🤣
flag it to Steam, that's the only thing to be done (you can email Battlestate Games as well if you want)
@pliant oar … workshop permban or contact first?
A lot of it is for insurgency too, I'll email BSG, but I thought maybe a dev flagging it to valve might be quicker
NonDeriv section says "an unaltered excerpt" is acceptable and compares it to a book chapter, When translating the wording to pbos it is permissible under the wording, at least to my interpretation
Also it wouldn't be presenting the work as original of course.
"an adaptation requires original expression"
You should most definitely contact the author. I think CCND technically says you can share it unaltered,
But assuming you're pulling one thing out of a pack, you're altering it, literally and creatively.
@long talon in most cases you can't take out some small part of a mod like a weapon without editing config or texture paths. And in most cases mod makers really really hate when people do this.
Or try to do it. And it is grounds for DMCA .
Yeah I guess the intent is to disallow excerpts.
The NoDeriv license doesn't seem like the right license to use for them though, something more explicit would be better.
to me its very weird thought that it has to be specifically said that dont take my stuff.
If they say nothing then "don't take my stuff" is the default, I wanted to do this so I checked the license, and couldn't make my mind up on what the intent was.
i think this mod ripped from a mod for FO4, cascadia
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1743386973
looks identical, minus the NCR emblem, to this uniform:
https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/007/043/818/large/ehab-abd-elhady-ncrt-07.jpg?1503267478
Dude the patches look shit compared to the uniform
Holy shit just looked at the bottom link,clearly a rip 
Easy on the language thanks
@pliant oar I'd like to see about having a workshop ban placed against the uploader here: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2567144122&searchtext=Gatekept
Over time we have dmca'd this individual roughly around 3-4 times now. He is part of a group formerly known as TFL, which has been well known to steal assets from other authors in this community, as well as porting ripped content from various games. They have stolen content and been DMCA'd by USP, RHS, S3S, and many other community mod teams. This recent upload once again contains content belonging to USP and undoubtedly several others. Not to mention its riddled with other ripped content taken from Call of Duty. One look at the 'team' he has listed on the workshop page can give an idea of the many undesirables that are a part of it, several individuals which have had multiple violations reported against them and are banned from this community.
lovely people indeed
Quite the toxic bunch
I don't get how it can be that successful in only one day
are they self-attributing points for visibility or what?
pretty much
Most likely their fan crowd
such rebels
zomg yiss
don't cut yourself with all that edge 😁
anyway, repeated offender should be workshop ban yes
provide dwarden with enough evidence
wtf is even going on in the comments
Man children doing what they do best
And here is that users twitter page, where he seems to be proud to be the maker of 'illegal mods'
The question is, how do I provide evidence of past DMCA's which are no longer on the workshop?
Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe they make good assets...
We do list the URL for every mod that we have DMCA'd in our discord, but linking that here will only result in the page not being found (since it was already taken down) and isn't going to show the uploader
we link the user accounts
They don't make anything, they rip content from others
and a list of the content they have uploaded as TXT
Have you considered the possibility that "re-uploading" and "ripping" don't count towards "making assets"
So this needs to be done for every DMCA that we issue? Just log the username and workshop page in a text document? I still don't see how that would be proper evidence when none of the pages taken down in the past would be accessible anymore. Is there a way for Dwarden to access workshop logs for indivduals, which include items they have previously had dmca'd before?
I believe (hope!) his message was sarcasm ^^
I do hope. But ik what the 'community' can be like
@empty heath right 😁
why not do both 
workshop ban and remove mod
I mean 1 includes 2 anyways, but ya know
I mean their mods are cool

their mods don't exist basically
it's not their mod to begin with ^^
A fair bit of it is original content that they had commissioned or made but it still has ripped assets. Like the SPC and MPU5s were all modelled by Vielmond. Whereas the JPC and AVS were commissioned a while back. Not saying there's not ripped content but a fair bit of it isn't
Then they should upload the mod with only their own content in it 
didn't know Mr House is Monsieur La Maison 
homie!
indeed, will fill a dmca myself on monday, since it contains rha ripped content
lol
Lmfao like you guys asked permission from mechanix to use their gloves in arma
Lol
where do you some of you people have been hiding til now?
What
😅
again someone talking without knowing…?
expand your thoughts or gtho of this convo, thanks 😄
I'm not arguing just saying
And what you are saying is total BS that makes no sense at all
so you say a total random unsourced sentence and let us deal with it? that's spam, dear sir
don't do it, it is against the #rules
Isn't it spam if it say it repeatedly?
no, read the #rules 🙂
anything random/unrelated (e.g "potato")
spam is "unwanted/unneeded message" basically.
Fine fine won't do it again y'all need to calm down
thank you very much.
So, just for your information, if something licensed is displayed in RHS, it is highly likely that they have the permission for it - they are very serious about it.
Hence why your comment was dismissed as irrelevant.
Have you guys ever tried to entertain private mod makers? like idk give them a chance
a chance of what?
"private mod makers"? 🤨
Lmfao
oh for fucks sake
I'm asking
have you tried bank robbery? I mean it's illegal but it's good money
"have your thought of giving the child molester a chance? it's basically just love......." /s
Well excuse me i have limited knowledge that's why i ask
https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Intellectual_Property can help you then 🙂
if you want to learn, we are all here to explain!
Hi all, a few months ago I sold a model to a customer and after that I saw Intellectual Property page on the Bohemia Interactive and it says selling p3d's are forbidden. I researched on the internet before selling but I couldn't find what I'm looking for which is clearly says what's forbidden and what's not forbidden like in the Intellectual Property page, I always follow rules so doing such a thing annoying me and I want to share this with you to toward me what can I do?
also I'm able to contact with him
well, first thank you for honesty & reaching out
second, you can tell him and ask if he wants a refund
third, we can permaban you from here
if it was a one-time and you won't do it again, it's cool I guess. Just spread the word and read EULAs 😉
what you can do is sell source models you make
like .blend, .fbx, obj and texture files
but Arma Tools are non commercial
so anything done with them is not allowed to be sold
and ArmaToolbox addon for blender that produces p3d also uses part of the Arma Tools to create the p3d
okay, thanks for your understandings, I'll contact with him and ask if he wants a refund
yes now I'm using .blend files
Big brain time. What you're essentially saying is the sources that they ripped the content from are the ones responsible for it being high quality. Those sources being COD, RHS, USP, etc etc. While we do appreciate the compliment, some of us actually put quite a bit of time into making those things look high quality as you have described. So we're not too keen on allowing others to take it and claim it as their own, and as the content authors, we are allowed to decide what you can and can't do with our assets. Is it starting to make sense to you now?
sure
dude, really?
IMO only PuFu and people that are actual IP rights lawyers should be able to speak in here. Everybody else just gets butthurt.
It's basically drama channel
"boohoo... he made an extreme comparison...!"
unlawful actions are unlawful actions.
by your logic, IP Theft, murder and rape should all have the same repercussions?
there's degrees of unlawful action
and the fact you made that comparison is wrong at the core
if you ask like that, yes
but sadly IP theft gets sentenced harder than rape
not to mention financial crimes
oh boy
So im guessing we all got the rights to use Crye Equipment and patented camos? Or we just bypass that for the sake of our own personal interpretation of creative rights? Explain because i am genuinely confused by the logic displayed
2.5 hours of PuFu, Rock and me talking about this
https://soundcloud.com/armahosts-llc/ep-37-intellectual-property
have fun
Episode #37 of Radio Arma.
Hosts : Flash-Ranger & Syhrus
Guest:
PuFu from RHS mod (Twitter @rhsPuFu)
Audiocustoms from CUP mod (Twitter @audiocustoms82)
Rock from RKSL mod (Twitter @RKSL_Rock)
Radio
I believe I've already listened to this, if it's the one where there's a lot of heavy breathing
Could you answer GUS' question though please?
You have a timestamp?
The first few minutes stated to not use the podcast for any legal advice because you two were not professionals in law and are simply discussing your own views
@dull moon
LOL
So thats crazy, im asking for legal and clear direction to better understand the situation
Not a biased podcast
views, and years of experience in fields that have a lot of IP and copyright stuff going on
as for you question (since you don't wanna listen...)
recreating equipment and patterns are an "artistic recreation" like a photo. as long as you can photograph it, you can recreate on the computer (simplified)
as long as no trademark is violated (using protected terms or brands in clear name) you are good
Sure, but when we talk about legally incorporating into a video game isnt there a whole other aspect to address
as long as no trademark is violated (using protected terms or brands in clear name) you are good
In the Case of USP, RHS, CUP all clearly show brands and logos visibly identified on clothing and gear
Would that not be a violation??
If not how so?
Theres a reason why arma didnt have crye or strict patented camos in the base game. They would need the rights no?
many companies tolerate non-commercial use for artistic recreation, others hand out permissions
Well the Navy is not a company and have pretty strict rights to AOR1 and AOR2, big game companies have struggled at times to get these rights which is why we see “desert digital” instead of “AOR1”
USP clearly uses AOR1 and AOR2
Also is crye one of these companies that tolerate non commercial use?
I've never seen an official stance from Crye
to my understanding the name "AOR-1" is a military designation which can not be patented
Then perhaps im wrong in that stance
like M4, M16, M-whatever
i don't know
I looked it up just now cause the guy has a point I can’t find anything from them specifically either which is odd considering how protective they are in the real world with their brand
Point im making is it seems like groups ignore the entire law for the sake of their own personal benefit but then bash others for “ripping” assets
When arguably you would be “ripping” off major companies without obtaining the legal rights
big companies probably don't pay much attention to mods for a niche game. Unless people are profiting off there gear or making the company look bad.
I imagine commission stuff is where a red flag is raised
@haughty torrent you will have to consult a lawyer if you want legal advice on such matters.
Should devs not know this?
I understood answers given by people here were not satisfactory
-> next step: talk to IP lawyer
Thats funny, bunch of grown men tossing around the law and bashing others based off individual interpretation. As a community how can we all reach an understanding if the side “flashing” creative rights knowledge around or “intellectual property” cant even factually inform their audience
“The recent spate of cases discussed above have generally upheld, on First Amendment grounds, a developer’s right to include unlicensed trademarks in video games. Following the Supreme Court’s clarification that video games are expressive works, this right to use trademarks is only becoming even clearer. “ - Sean F Kane. Pillsbury Law Offices
Guess it falls under fair use
I can send the full article I found on the topic if required but I think posting an unrequested link is not exactly pretty
I'd never suspect such a stifling of creativity
no, fair use is something different
Regardless that’s a statement from a lawyer on the topic
Understood, i will no longer use that in a claim
(one of many examples)
And id never suspect a “ professional” community to be as blindly hypocritical as this one
nothing keeps you here
be my guest to provide proper insights, until then we have https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Intellectual_Property
we gather and redistribute all the documentation we have.
I also count on everyone to keep it civil, thank you.
its a camouflage pattern they have patented it and have protection on the name
are you actually comparing digital recreation of product X with reverse engineering/ ripping other people work?
because that is what this seems to happen here
does any of you comprehend that without these free mods there would be (less) stuff to use for everyone, not just the ones ripping parts?
i am already sick of self centered assholes that consider is fine doing that, and will most likely not gonna finish and/or release any of the things i have been working on, because duck you motivation
and if brand names (and btw, we have permissions from a few) is something that is bothering any of these companies, or any of the users of our free released content, we could be notified by their representatives
most people here doing mods from scratch are not ignorant, nor 2 sided
If you have such an issue with it, contact those brands/companies that you believe we are infringing upon and see what they do about it. We are a non-commercial mod and we have yet to receive any sort of C&D letter from any of the brands that we base our creations on. So maybe they don't know or they just don't care. Unfortunately for the guys ripping our stuff, we do care, and as such we do file DMCA's. Sounds to me like some of you are just reaching as hard as you can to justify those ripping content from others.
everyone is well within their own rights to protect their own digital products. and btw, a digital representation of a real world object is just that - an artistic, subjective and most likely eyeballed representation of that thing
not an 1:1 copy, just like a painting and/or a photo of a car is not a car
and if brands would be such an issue, then none of these brands products would be available for purchase on large digital stores like cgtrader and turbosquid
you do not need to believe me bluntly you can feel free to have a word with your lawyers
Interesting, so why is it that some game developers do not include licensed products in their games? It seems as if the right to market these products is still necessary as you can easily misrepresent the company. The argument that “what they dont know wont hurt them” seems to be used which is cool, but then you cant blame people for taking the same approach when it comes to ripping other content. I could easily be wrong but that bit of grey area seems to turn into more of a moral argument. I understand the legality of posting copyrighted content so that isnt my argument, but the idea to silence and shun those that want to play “Legos” with assets seems hypocritical. But i suppose thats where we agree to disagree
Are those game developers charging money for their game product?
Are people charging who are ripping?
You fail to understand that there is a big difference between commercial and non-commerical works. A difference that weighs heavily on whether a company is going to act on those seeking to use their likeness or brands in their mod/game/whatever. Some being more lenient than others.
Your comparison is making no sense here
Arguably there are many developers that add free expansions to games that would still follow those limitations and would require permission. While i agree that making profit is an extremely important factor so is public attention or the overall user base when worried about brand misrepresentation
ripping is not same as using a likeness of a thing
and both are easy to solve by asking permission and if denied moving on to make something new instead
I agree 100%
My problem was that both sides aren’t asking for permission
Yet we are judging one and not the other based off of individual interpretation or feelings
like I said its 2 very different things
but I feel I dont have the energy to continue this to convince you that ripping is bad and equals to stealing something from the guy who made the model/textures to a possible likeness of a real thing,
Vice versa which is fine, its a great thing we can agree to disagree
sure. If you approve of ripping also dont expect me to help you with your modding questions in the future.
In the least rude way possible, what mods have you done? I don't really recognise the name
none.
what about non-rude though
I don't really get what you mean
You have any mod experience then?
plenty
you can do a search on the maker channels here to see who answers most of the questions,
if we are here to measure e-pen
Ite just checking lol, would be weird if you said that about modding questions and had no experience
Please chill, I meant it as a genuine question. I don't see the need to get so damn defensive and confrontational
Apologies if it came off rude
accepted
you said "least rude", I mean, you could ask "non rude" too ^^ but j/k 😜
😐
in a non rude way may have been clearer lol
The main takeaway I have from this conversation today is the question of whether or not creating assets using the IP of a company that was not asked can void the right of the creator to defend against derivative works or apply for a Creative Commons license.
Because as we’ve established with ripping from videogames “they don’t care enough to C&D” is not a valid defense of infringing on ip
I’m not a lawyer and this is a really complicated question but I think it’s interesting and if somebody knows a lawyer I’d be interested in knowing what the actual answer to that is, especially when you have companies like Crye that don’t publicly have statements regarding digital recreations
Somebody once asked in #other_ip_topics how they could go about re-creating some irl assets, to which I told him something along the lines of "you will be making a non-commercial mod for a game and most likely won't get any issues/letters from the company as they most likely won't know or care, so just go for it."
For that my message was deleted and I was told not to give 'possibly illegal and dangerous advice'.
Now a similar answer is being proposed here, so I definitely see the point some people are making of double standards, in this example alone
didn't you make water points? (or maybe that was DayZ)
But they are both 2 different things.
As has been stated, making an artistic impression of something is quite different to physically taking the fundamentals of what makes something what it is.
The equivalent of your argument is that if the ‘rippers’ just made artistic impressions of RHS or USP work as opposed to actually using their actual content, it would be fine. And it would be fine!
But they don’t. So instead, it’s the equivalent of me buying a car, dismantling/reverse engineering bits of it, adding a couple of new things and selling it as my own car brand. Which I think you’ll find is in breach of the terms and conditions of the original sale...
So they are very different things.
I don't think he is "defending" rippers, but rather calling out others for being selective on which laws they enforce
It’s not selective at all
If the artistic impression of RHS work with a version of the RHS logo was then to be commercialised, that would then fall into the issues of what you can do with your artistic impression.
I’m just trying to use these examples to show that these are very different things and people are not being ‘selective’ about what laws they choose to uphold or not.
But using multicam, aor 1, aor2, marpat which is trademarked is not “artistic impression” is it
Like i kinda said earlier, this is why some games have “desert digital” as that is i would say more so “artistic impression”
Not sure what you mean by ‘using’. You mean quoting the name?
Or having an exact template of the camo scheme
Apologies, yes i meant the exact copy of the pattern while using its official name. I don’t think this would be considered artistic interpretation
I’m not sure anyone has an exact copy of the pattern but could be wrong.
Also, a lot of people won’t actually use ‘multi cam’, they might abbreviate to ‘MC’ which could stand for all sorts of things.
Less sure about AOR 1 etc. I thought those were military designations like M4 which can’t be copyrighted.
But genuinely unsure on that last point
Yeah i know trademark is different than copyright as its really pertaining to to the brand or company. So i do not think it would be the “pattern” but more so use of names. Like MARPAT, AOR1, Multicam, ect.
Which again is why big dev teams have used names like “desert digital” for aor1 and such
lol what?
i keep bumping into your rhetoric
- ripping 3d models = stealing
- using someone’s elses brand names is not stealing, at the very best is missuse of trademark. besides the fact that for this sort of stuff, for everything us military i get away with military designation
plus some of us doing that do have permissions from said brands - because
a. they cannot actually gain something from something that has no commercial income - which they can via licensing deals with commercial products
b. they get free advertising
c. they got nothing to loose or win, so we found out that some are actually very willing to say yes
on the very same note, please have a look over eft that has no licenses for any of their content (last i checked anyways)
Correct me if im wrong but the Use of unit insignias, Service Seals do not fall under military designation
These would require permission
(it is a side question, right? I (genuinely) am not sure I see the relevance in this conversation)
Relevance is that these are all things i have seen in game by independent developers where the rights to use the above ^ have not been given. So again, it feels like we are selectively following the law. Hope that clarifies
1 - unlawful copying*, as its legally called, and I never said that wasn't the case
2 - not talking about brand names, but recreating assets. Not all companies allow it, so when a mod does it, its done illegally
2: wrong
artistic recreation is the same as taking a photo
Not according to the law as its practices, id a company doesn't allow something to be recreated, then it can't, otherwise why would e.g. Disney go after artistic recreations
according by the law it is
I believe from my research since my previous comment that it is possible that in specific circumstances, Colt and Gentex come to mind, that creating mods with these products is simply illegal as in their terms of use they prevent any sort of use without the companies permission
I could be wrong
But that’s what their TOS say
I assumed so to but was told otherwise by Dedmen when somebody asked "I wanna model a challanger tank, can I do it" and told them the same answer
i can recreate in a 3d space anything i can actually get my hands on
Since he's higher up the chain of knowledge in this regard, I assumed him to be correct
it is a fucking artistic representation
how can i put it any other simpler way so that you can actually grasp that
it is not recreated
is not a 3d scan
is not based on leaked CAD data
it is a 3d paiting of something in existance
again, ask your lawyer if you do not believe me, it is something that i have done
Again, I assumed the same thing you said, but was told otherwise as I stated here
it is also the reason of existence of several multi million dollar bussiness
like turbosquid and the like
which is plain simple wrong
are you refering to the leaked challenger data?
if you can publicly access it, if you can photograph it, you can model it
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what was said by Dedmen, but I assumed what you two are saying to be the case myself too before that. I trusted what he said since I assumed a greenname to have more knowledge on the matter
trade dress for anything military is set via the activision lawsuit
Referring to this #other_ip_topics message
so, in short, and will reiterate, game assets based on referances (3d models) are always an artistic representation of the real thing
just because someone has a green tag doesn't mean he's right (if he actually said that)
unless i 3d scan parts of it, or used CAD data (and even then, it needs to be overly simplified for game injectionpurposes)
With my (deleted) reply being something along the lines you said too "You are making an artistic recreating for a game, there is no reason why the company would sue you, so go for it and make the Challanger"
not 2 people will get the same result
This isnt an artistic representation
Thank you for clarifying. I assumed he was right both for being BI and because nobody spoke up against him then
Or again, perhaps I misunderstood what was said
sure, but what is the relevance in this particular discussion?
Ill just use USP posting i believe what was called “military ranks and insignias” mod pack. The rights to use military insignias and service seals was not acquired
i don't see dedmen telling him he can't do it
So how is that not cherry picking
again, nothing about that justifies some assholes ripping assets
there are 2 separate things
??? he says “telling them to do it wrong is absolutely not helpful”
the original creator own everything he makes
Not getting permission is not getting permission
He told me that I was giving him possibly illegal advice
as a reply to T00T, not garfierld
And @hallow idol’s reply was telling him to do it
since i can't read the original message... ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I told you the original message
The question is whether or not stealing a companies IP/trademarks without asking prevents them from using a Creative Commons license to defend against derivative works, ie “rippers”
whatever
#ip_rights_violations message
Ah so i get a warning for use of a medical term but directly insulting me is cool. Guess this community thrives off of cherry picking
that isn't derivative work @hushed niche
Unless Gus is on some complete other track then I am
Specifically referring to a ripped asset that contains modifications
That’s the sort of vibes I’ve gotten from lurking my entire time in this discord.
again, irrelevant, read the CC license, and see what derivative actually entitles
you cannot steal someone's trademark - you can missuse that trademark, is not the same thing
Same experience here, through from another (now gone) party
I’m literally looking at it, is modifying a previous creation not a “remix, transformation or built upon”
@echo orchid @haughty torrent all directed comment aside,
again, nothing about that justifies some assholes ripping assets
do we agree on this or not?
@haughty torrent you may argue that it's two different speeds of justice, but you cannot argue that "if somebody can do wrong, then it's right"
Specific companies prevent the usage of their stamps/logo/trades without prior approval, that’s what I mean maybe this does not constitute stealing but this is what I am referring to
I don’t think he’s advocating that any of it is right.
maybe there is some language barrier here instead. i asked a question, i didn't make any assumptions
Asking that sort of question in itself can be seen as an insult and demeaning lol
snowflake
Don't use the language card here please, I'm pretty sure we both have the same native language - where that is a pretty clear insult, same as English
Great argument, guy
...
Im not saying ripping is right though.
yeah no, let's keep the convo afloat if we want to get something out of it thanks
good.
that is some rhetoric question tbh
you cannot compare 2 things. and stuff that is ripped is stuff i actually made myself, it has no brands, not logos, or anything, and has the military designation
modification of these files i own does not go under derivative work
so we are having two topics in one conversation here
- repro without permission: legal or not
- some people did it and didn't get the hammer
let's not mix them, let's not move goalposts, let's be civil
or I will have (as too often here) to cut the conversation short.
plus, for the sake of the conversation, how do you happen to know i have or not permission from FN to use their trademarks? did you ask me before figuring it is ok to reverse engineer my work?
I don’t get why this conversation is even happening. I believe that the discussion about recreating IRL assets yourself and discussion about ripping assets someone else created are two completely separate things,
It’s a hypothetical scenario I don’t care about your stuff
your single word message spam does not increase the weight of the words
your own ignorance is irrelevant to this conversation
🍿
lol
Where is your justification that a private mod, that adds on to your work is not a derivative, when a derivative is clearly classified as something that “builds upon” another work, is that not building upon your work
that stands true if reverse engineering does not happen
and IF the license allows it
neither is true
and private means private, as in one single guy having access to that, not privately distributed behind curtains
so again, ignorance
How is the nomenclature of what to call ripping assets even relevant to the original conversation at all. This entire chat is just “let’s start an argument and branch into 10 different unrelated arguments about things irrelevant to the initial discussion”
The question is whether or not a hypothetical individual using a trademark on their model they did not ask for voids their right to a license
And private mods at this point is slang
not sure why i even bother with people who just type words just for the sake of it
I’ve literally done nothing but be reasonable with you
But you where the ones sending 'one word at a time' messages just now?
theeere is some truth in that. I wish one topic could be kept, dealt with and the next one was picked.
I am not a multithreaded person
Discord did add a thread feature for that 👀
Yeah i wasnt targeting your work, I am saying as a whole it seems one side tolerates selectively following the law and bashes the other
doubt it would be helpful here through
the original topic is people ripping other people's work
Yeah, the issue it that people are trying to relate everything to each despite it being held together by a thread.
A “secondary topic” that took the forefront and was constantly calling back to ripping. That discussion STARTED because someone used it as a point regarding ripping assets.
and the only ones that can take action (legal or otherwise) against trademark infringements, are the ones who own these trademarks
I am aware of this yes
so no, not having trademark permission or license from the trademark owner does not make you entitled to rip an asset
That’s not the question for the fifth time
That’s not the argument being made at all
we can cut it short...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17
https://www.gov.uk/topic/intellectual-property/copyright
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/
https://www.gov.uk/topic/intellectual-property/law-practice
have fun reading.
got any question, ask your local lawyer
i'm out for lunch, cya
what is the question then
or the relation between the original topic and the secondary topic?
Isn't that what you said here?
example, and this is lawfull and commercial enterprise-
https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-2020-porsche-taycan-1471061
the bloke does not own any trademarks permission for the brand, or the shape of that car
Does someone creating an asset, with usage of a logo, ie the colt horse, on an M4 without asking, as colt specifically says this is not allowed without permission void their ability to apply for a Creative Commons license
On that specific asset
no
so the question is:
- a group uses a trademark without permission
- they create original models
- someone rips off their models
- can they sue
correct?
of course i can sue
So I can just use whatever trademarks I want in my models and still claim a Creative Commons
Even if the company says I cannot use their trades without asking
blurred...
to many goal posts moves by now
I believe the argument, and what started this whole thing, was based in people claiming hypocrisy and the similarities between rippers and content creators depicting IRL brands. The two things can barely be compared and none of this should have been a discussion at all. It’s gone in circles and no one is here to have their minds changed, this entire discussion is based on weak ties and is fruitless.
go eat, you! 😄
bon appétit 😉
merci
have a look over the licenses used on these websides like TBsquid and cgtrader
most are CC, or variations of these
(from conversation rises the solution, was I told)
Is this allowed or is it a variation of a company such as CGtrader being too big to care about such violations
both cgtrader and turbosquid have seen C&D from bell to have all bell related content removed
that was settled in court
bell assets are still available for sale
From what I’ve gathered, people initially just began to basically say modders are just as bad as rippers and gave relatively poor reasons (imo) as to why. I don’t think there is a question being asked outside of people trying to provide “gotchas” to support their claims.
so it isn't about size, it is about, as i said, having an accurate representation of the real counterpart
In reference to artistic representation?
Nobody claimed that about modders. GUS' argument was that some laws (in his opinion) where ignored while others weren't
again, you are free to ask your lawyer, you do not have to believe myself
rephrase, because i do not get the question
can you take a photograph of a porsche and sell that photograph without porsche's permission?
even better, can you make a painting of a porsche and seel that paiting without porsche's permission?
I’m trying to collect over a days worth of arguing together between 10+ people about barely related topics, so I may have very well been wrong lol
I believe you are confusing me with artistic representation, is an exact recreation of a companies logo, in something such as a texture considered an artistic representation?
sure it is
How is that even possible
It’s a 1-1 recreation with no artistic license taken
Your argument previously was that no two recreations were the same so it’s art
sure
No the argument was about how this community treats both sides. Obtaining permissions should be across the board, not cherry picked
Because if there is no reverse engineering and it’s eye balled, you cannot have an exact recreation
for ripping assets - that obvious that no permissions have been obtained - hence DMCA
for trademarks - how would you know that no such permissions have been obtained/
if i make that texture from scratch, it is an artistic representation
Alright well I’ll back down because I was not aware artistic representation could be used as such a strong legal defense when someone intends to make a 1-1 copy even if they do not have the means to do so, it still seems odd to me but none of us are lawyers so
Im not saying that one should be allowed to post on the workshop, as i can understand the copyright. But simply belittling and silencing someone for posting pictures of content that they may or may not gotten permission to is where i think becomes cherry picking
you cannot make an 1-1 digital copy of the real thing for game purposes
If i cannot assume that someone didnt get permission from the Military unit to use their insignias then how can one assume someone didnt obtain the permissions to use Assets from elsewhere based off a screenshot
too many assumptions tbh
I apologize I edited my post after I made I meant that it seems odd that can be a defense even if someone intends to make as close to a 1-1 copy as they can
I guess that’s where the whole “prove it in court” thing happens though
have a look over the activision vs GM lawsuit
where GM sued activision for tradedress for the humvees
and lost for obvious reasons
in short, the original creator of an asset owns the rights of that asset as being an artistic representation
no matter what
Still seems weird but I won’t argue with that for the time being since I just read a summary of it and how “enhancing realism” is considered a form of artistic representation, which I think is relatively ironic, but you do seem to be correct
...
No thats not at all what you said.
To quote what you said
Best way to approach it - make the mod and don't waste your time trying to talk with them.
You weren't.
Someone asked for legal advice, whether he generally needs permission and how he should approach contacting the owner of the Trademark.
To which you replied "make the mod and don't waste your time trying to talk with them"
And I told you
i will not let you give people advice to do literally potentially illegal stuff so please keep that stuff out of here
When people come in here asking how to do it right, telling them how to do it wrong is absolutely not helpful.
And thats it.
The "best" way is to ask to make sure you're not violating someones Trademark rights.
The "best" way is NOT "Just do it and don't waste your time asking for permission". Which is what you stated and which is what I forbid you to post because it will get other people in trouble who make the mistake of listening to you
yeah I never did. Just people again missinterpreting/missrepresenting my statements 😄
Thats how I understood it, my bad if that wasn't the meaning
TOOT said to not bother asking and just do it no matter if you have permission or not.
That is "wrong".
If I want to borrow my friends car I also don't go "Nah I'll just take it and not bother asking him", that could get me in deep trouble.
As TOOT's statement could've gotten Garfield in deep trouble
But isn't it the case that he can create the Challenger just fine without asking for permission, because it's artistic representation?
He isn't taking anybodies model, or borrowing anybodies car, he is making an artistic representation which was explained above as being fine to do
Alright @runic wraith ,I dmd you some stuff cause a guy is doing le funny "dont make money off it",sorry for the ping
Somewhat related as this is my comment being brought up, it was both for the model itself, as well as using the name, instead of just its numeric reference.
Of note, I wasn't just going to base my actions based on comments here, it was just to collate information & experience
Seems to me tbh this entire debate is an example of why legal courts exist, I doubt anyone here would ever get a clear answer unless an actual lawyer gave the answer because it’s so speculative, regardless you should probably still try to get permission, idk why you wouldn’t. There is the Activision case, but who’s to say whether or not a video game mod can use the same defense as a games studio in this specific case, you’d probably have to get sued to know the answer to that question, which nobody wants to get sued, so just ask permission
Or a simple C&D would suffice, only getting sued if you choose not to comply.
If you get a C&D I don’t necessarily think that proves that your breaking the legality in the same way that a legal court ruling would, not saying someone should not comply with a C&D they absolutely should.
Not to disagree because I could be wrong, but for anyone to send out a C&D means they have some form of factual info or evidence that you have violated their trademark/copyright/etc. They wouldn't send one out based off suspicion, not from a major company. So that would essentially be the same as us filing a DMCA against someone. Meaning we have found proof of IP infringement, where they then have the choice to remove it (basically admitting they're guilty) or counterclaim and it gets taken to court to settle.
I won’t disagree with you because I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know, but I think at this point trying to claim anyone knows the right answer to this very specific and hypothetical question would be very difficult to do without experience in professional IP/copyright law
Agreed. I'm no lawyer either, so I can only speculate at this point and only speak from the experience and knowledge I have gained over time, doesn't mean I'm right.
Because it seems to me on one hand, one group believes that technically speaking you can use any trademarked item on a mod without permission because it’s artistic representation (without some small legal precedent in the activision suit, but that’s game studios not modders) and the other believes you cannot do that without permission (which to me makes more sense), and this debate is the exact reason we have lawyers
(not to intrude here, I just wanted to say that I am happy to see people in this channel exchange in a civil manner!)
(I try my best lol)
But again I would stand by the fact that if a commercial game company can win a case such as that, there is less risk involved when it comes to a noncommercial mod. But again, thats just an assumption, not fact
For me it's quite simple: If you are using anything made by some1 else when publishing you own stuff, you HAVE to be sure you are allowed to use that stuff. If you are not sure -> do NOT use it.
It’s just a very loaded question tbh because if that is the case, then why is Disney permitted to C&D fan games, which are clearly artistic representation, which is why I said earlier that a C&D isn’t necessarily solid proof the person enforcing the C&D is necessarily in the right
I’ve just come to conclusion that unless a legal professional says otherwise, permission is required
It would be my own personal belief that the reason Disney is so strict is due to them covering such a broad form of entertainment for people. So someone making a mod, using their likeness/names/etc, can potentially lose them money if they were to do something similar themselves. Regardless of whether that mod is commercial/noncommercial, and in this case non-commercial is even tougher because why would someone pay for a Disney product if they can get something nearly the same for free. Whereas when we look at real world equipment/weapons/etc, no one is going to stop from buying a Crye G3 uniform simply because they can use a digital version of one in a game. Its actually quite the opposite, they would be more likely to go out and buy one if it was something that really caught their interest. Free advertising if you will. Whereas if we suddenly started producing real world copies of their items and giving them out for free, Crye or whoever would most definitely not be so lenient about it. These are entirely different companies which cover entirely different spectrums, so there is no doubt that ones based around entertainment will be much more likely to disapprove of games/mods (whether free or not) using their likeness/brands/etc
An individual would have to be able to prove in court that the fan creation is not harming revenue for the parent company, which I believe would be possible to do through statistics, if they support the claim, but no one is insane enough to sue Disney over that at least not yet, I believe it’s possible Disney knows that they could possibly lose in a court case over this, as if they were 100% certain they would have struck down SWTheory’s Vader show instead of making the deal with him they did. But again we’re not lawyers and this is not an Arma topic, my bad I did not intend for that to spiral off
i asked a my attorney about the above
she used to work for google on ip rights
you have my answers in PM
prior to this discussion
it is about likeliness
so trade dress
Bruh,I just had a guy say the G3s he used arent from COD,but from "Garry's Mod"
and link me this
ta-daaa
guess he got a port of it i to arma
lmao
yeah thats what i noticed first off
- For models\help
Martin Freeman
WINDFURY
GeneralCucks
Auditor
Hauptmann
(incriminating others)

wants credit for porting stuff

HOLY SHIT
"I PORTED THEM FROM GMOD SO IT CANCELS OUT"
The guy is saying mods like usp and rhs are also breaking the law by using mechanix, crye,and oakley
Etc
Peltor
they are wrong, therefore I am right. nice!
@night kiln if I ask you to take it down, should I assume you will not take it down?
Hi what did you @ me here for
read above
Do you want me to take down a mod that I didn’t make on a workshop for a completely different game?
yes
Let me get in contact with the mod developer, I’ll let him know.
"your guy"
Considering I actually have no idea who the person is who created the mod, I would absolutely love to message him out of the blue and tell him “some moderator in the arma discord for a completely different game told me to tell you to take it down”
so you are absolutely totally not involved in creation/promotion of this wonderful piece of art right, therefore not actively promoting model ripping and IP infringement, going against our #rules?
Considering that you can look everywhere around this discord, and see that literally none of that conversation took place here, yes
I have literally no involvement in the making of that mod for a completely different game
any other illegal one I should know, like, ported to Arma from GMOD?
Ported to Arma from GMOD, as in assets from the GMOD workshop ported to Arma ?
as in "any models to which you don't have rights and illegally ported, can you take that down from the Workshop pretty please?"
We’re referring to the Arma workshop here right because I remember you just told me to PM the creator of a mod of an entirely different game to take down his mod on an completely different workshop
I don’t know of, and don’t make any, mods that contain illegal assets from GMOD/ or any other IP
yep, I mistakenly thought this was your creation at first
In the arma workshop
because they wouldn’t be on the arma workshop in the first place
regardless if i made it or not
and im being honest here i didnt
i dont think the guy would take it down because someone in a completely different discord for a completely different game told him to take it down lol
as I said I thought that guy was you at first, disregard this request and apologies for the misunderstanding on that one.



I'm interested