ip_rights_violations

[upbeat tinsel]

though

[dusty nimbus]

…..The file

[upbeat tinsel]

explain

the contents of the file

[soft egret]

You look at it with your eyes, if its the same just.. smaller, then its the same

[dusty nimbus]

Literally look at the texture

it looks exactly the same as a texture in that game

[upbeat tinsel]

yeah but it wont exerdamn

[soft egret]

It will

[upbeat tinsel]

it can be hidden very easily though

[soft egret]

Can it? So you got experience in doing that?

[weary star]

Anyway, even if Aftermath was taken down, fallout mods might make a comeback if the Ip handling falls into Microsoft officially after Bethesda being acquired by Microsoft itself, and as such getting a similar treatment like OPTRE or any HALO mods on the workshop.

[dusty nimbus]

Not really. They used stolen content

[crimson ingot]

if

[dusty nimbus]

If they make stuff from scratch

Then sure

[soft egret]

There were other issues with Aftermath too.
But yes if Microsoft gives them permission to rip fallout models and put them in a Arma mod, in written form as a E-Mail or something. Then it would indeed be absolutely flippin awesome

[weary star]

Still depends on the IP holder and not BI, BI only enforces the Copyright.

Right?

[dusty nimbus]

Isn’t that kinda obvious

[upbeat tinsel]

privately yes i have uploaded a file into a 3D workbench software and messed around with it to appear similar to the original unrelated to arma 3 though

[weary star]

It's better having a confirmation, rather than having only a hunch of it

[soft egret]

Then you know how textures and UV mapping works and how much effort it is to alter so much that the relation is unrecognizable

[dusty nimbus]

Even then I’d imagine you’d have to re-do textures in substance

Less effort to actually make something yourself

[soft egret]

People who rip content don't really go to the effort..
If they wanted effort they would make the content by themselves without violating copyright and stealing it

[upbeat tinsel]

its not really that hard

[chilly silo]

I don't think it will happen. I was asked about an email reply from MS licensing. They were not happy to allowing cross platform modding. You mod THEIR game its not an issue. Take content or recreate their games on another platform is a no go.

Your experience may differ but until you ask you wont know for yourself.

[chilly silo]

Its hard to do legally 😉 You need the models and to get them you break the EULA

[upbeat tinsel]

like if you know how to do it then you could do it in like 30 min a rough guess

but if you dont really care

then

[dusty nimbus]

Not really

[soft egret]

We're going in circles. But yeah keep believing what you want to believe.

[weary star]

Fair Enough

[rapid cypress]

Wasnt IFA3 only one dev that did it and when the rest of the team found out they removed all of that devs content from the mod?

[faint nacelle]

pretty much

[upbeat tinsel]

no i think it was 2 devs

one left

idk why

told war thunder

DMCA

it was known they were for a long time

but could not prove

then

the old dev could prove it

it then got removed

[rapid cypress]

If you know about stolen content being included in IFA3 I'm sure @undone pier would love to know about it as well

[undone pier]

i guess @upbeat tinsel you refer to this?
#385885667751755796 message

if not, you should reach out to us to provide specifics

[upbeat tinsel]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/556756134367592481/938017519883673640/RDT_20220131_2200395166255889605331663.gif

[atomic edge]

I remember the armstalker guys told me they got the perms to port the stuff from shadow of chernobyl to arma 2/3.

[upbeat tinsel]

i dont have access to that channel

kju

[undone pier]

https://discord.gg/JRTpKsWw

[rapid cypress]

was that the ominous forum post that doesnt exist anymore or something else?

[atomic edge]

I think it was something else but I'm not sure (it might be the forum post)

[upbeat tinsel]

like i said did not know

but i now know ig

[undone pier]

so you spread some hear-say or what is your point?

[upbeat tinsel]

some guy asked and i said what i thought happened to it

i did say i think as i did not know for sure

[faint nacelle]

well at least now you know 👍

[upbeat tinsel]

yeah

it was a while ago that

[faint nacelle]

there are lot of misinformation out there.

[upbeat tinsel]

the mod called real panzer also got taken down at the same time right?

[hallow idol]

Stalker assets are allowed to be used in any free projects, including Arma mods

Said so by the members of stalkers dev team ages ago. And it has not been said otherwise since

[atomic edge]

Yep, that's what I heard too

[rapid cypress]

#ip_rights_violations message

[atomic edge]

I wish they could answer clearly for once 😅

[rapid cypress]

Yeah

[atomic edge]

just tell us yes or no 😭

[hallow idol]

And that says "not allowed" how?

[rapid cypress]

Just passed on the info from that

[hallow idol]

I also don't know who that, but I assume it's a dev for the new game, ot the old ones

I don't see how it's useful info here

[stiff jasper]

it doesn't matter which game he develops if he's a member of GSC and this is GSC official statement for the series, not Stalker 2

a non-existent-anymore post from a forum moderator from 10 years ago has no legal power, particularly when the current position is the one I asked for

[atomic edge]

what he said is not clear though 🙃

"on basis of" so it means doing stuff using the old games as a basis right?

[crimson ingot]

Original = Not Ripping

[atomic edge]

Original

oh yeah ok

[hallow idol]

The assets aren't owned by his company, as the creator company of those assets was dissolved, with the previous statement being the last on the matter

[atomic edge]

so you're free to do stuff using the old engine and the old games as a basis

[hallow idol]

It was the same statement as was used before. GSC has never cared for their assets being used in free projects, and always allowed it, because they aren't some western company that cares about those things

Anything the new company of GSC says about old assets doesn't mean anything until they can somehow prove in a court of law that it does.

As they basically used any old assets in the same way anybody else would've - open source content.

[livid yoke]

Thank you for clarifying this apologies for my misinterpretation of which actually occurred I’m still new here, let this be the end of it 😂

[hallow idol]

But this is still assuming, since I'm more then sure the new company of GSC still won't care and will allow use of (at least) the old assets, as they are still Ukrainian

[stiff jasper]

previous statement is as legally binding as Polpox would come here and say we can do whatever we want with Arma 3 content. I will try to get more light on what agreement the old company's assets were ceded to new GSC

[muted grove]

That's not porting, that's ripping. Porting is when you're doing that but legally.

[rapid cypress]

as a sidenote of this, is there a screenshot or something of the old statement?

Dunno since I never did much stalker stuff

[chilly silo]

Thats not how IP works. The Stalker product, back assets and lore are all a valuable product. It does not matter if its an old product.

Eg Star wars, Star trek etc.

There is no such thing as abandonware

Copyright does not immediately lapse

Someone still owns that IP

[hallow idol]

POLPOX is a random discord moderator. That guy was the representative of the communication with people

A better example would be Dwarden saying that

And while he's not in power and in charge to have the final word, he's the highest ranking person who said so

Meaning there is nothing saying otherwise above him, and no new way something could do it now unless new GSC can legally prove their ownership of the assets

and up until that can happen - there is no legal, assumable, logical, or "Think of the IP!!" argument that can be made against using those assets.

[hallow idol]

It's porting regardless of it's done with or without permission. One is just 'legal porting' and another is 'illegal porting'. 'Ripping' is taking the assets out of e.g. the games

[stiff jasper]

I understand you are trying with both hands to defend the legality of Armstalker mod but you talking about no legal possibility of GSC being the ceded owner of Stalker assets while deliberately not providing proof of Armstalker actually being legal, to keep it in the grey zone as long as possible is a bit funny to me. It's been years and no one has that legendary screenshot of community manager saying "do whatever you want".

[hallow idol]

Assuming doesn't make you look smart. I've never played Armstalker

[atomic edge]

by old I mean original, like they said 👍

[chilly silo]

Well the Stalker IP was sold to new people (AFAIK) so what was said 10 years ago is not valid today.

[atomic edge]

But I'm not sure that's what they mean by "original"

[stiff jasper]

I'm not assuming anything, I'm simply questioning your line of defence.

[hallow idol]

It is until those new people say otherwise, no?

Assuming it was actually sold to them and they have all the legal stuff that goes with it

[chilly silo]

Nooooo. Until you have a letter giving you permission from a legal department of the company dont take anything for granted. Legally you do not have a leg to stand on if someone challenges you and you present "Well a guy on a forum 10 years ago said it was ok"

YOU need specific INDIVIDUAL permission unless there is a EULA/License that sets out the terms for use of thier IP that states you may do something.

[hallow idol]

Indeed, legally speaking. But there isn't a legal question since the new GSC hasn't raised the question

[atomic edge]

do you know who's the guy who replied to your message @stiff jasper?

[hallow idol]

At least that is how I understand it

Since the assets and their use was acquired before the new license & new company owned them

So they have to specifically state that old assets aren't allowed to be used in projects before their time, and that also sounds like a very hard-to-win battle for them

[chilly silo]

I'm sorry mate, thats really not how the law works. Sure you can do what you like until you get caught. But once you do you have to pay the price. You have to decide if its worth it.

[atomic edge]

I think armstalker had been abandoned anyway

[hallow idol]

At best I can believe they would be able to block new use of old assets from being done, but not have old ones removed

[chilly silo]

You are talking about "Grandfather rights." unless you have a contract or a EULA stating you have permission nothing changes.

[hallow idol]

As those where at the time made within the laws & licenses and what-not

[stiff jasper]

if I'm not mistaken it's Alex Strelyayev, GSC's Game Designer

[hallow idol]

I won't believe that until I see a court decision of that happen in the past. I'll consider that court stupid, but at least believe it be possible

[chilly silo]

The owner of the IP can update or change the EULA at anytime they like providing they dont break the law. That includes removing you "right" to mod. Thats what that "All rights reserved" comments are all about

[hallow idol]

'If I bought a bottle of water and then the company was bought by somebody else, they can't ask for my bottle back' is an example I'm thinking of

[soft egret]

But you didn't buy anything here.
Taking someone elses models is not a "purchase"

[hallow idol]

But this isn't speaking about a change to a EULA or license, or anything along the lines of "all rights reserved" included - it was stated permission that the assets where allowed to be used. AKA this isn't editing a license, it's making one after the fact

[hallow idol]

So? If it's done legally it doesn't matter

[soft egret]

Better comparison would be.
You ask a friend if you can use his bottle. He says yes.
A day later he says he wants his bottle back

[hallow idol]

My example works with a free water stand too

[hallow idol]

Not really. Nobody asked if they could borrow GSC assets, they wanted to use them. GSC allowed it

[atomic edge]

if they change the EULA and the mod has been released 7 years ago, does the mod team have to remove all the content? I believe they'd need to remove all the stuff, right?

[hallow idol]

Here is the exact statement including the deleted forum post that might be archived somewhere

[hallow idol]

They can't change a "EULA" is there wasn't one in the first place

There was no signature, no agreement, no binding license

The assets where simple allowed to be used by anybody who did it non-commercially

And because of that, I also wonder "what can they do if somebody does use it commercially". So far the track record shows - nothing, either don't know, can't, or don't care since there are games that use those assets

[chilly silo]

OK lets look at this using the scenario you suggest.

Our 1999 Game historically had a licence allowing you to mod it.
An employee Dev (Not the IP owner or legal reps) then says in 2005 that you can use asset of the game in other games.
2009 The company that made the game is dissolved.
That company's IP reverts to the copyright creator or his creditors. Ownership is retained by someone.
2010 The IP is bought by a new company. Anything the original owner said (without a contract) is null and void. Cannot be used anymore.

For you to do anything with the 1999 game content in 2022 requires that you get permission from the new IP owner.

Anything else is IP theft/infringement.

You do not have a specific license terms stating how and when you can use that IP. You have a screenshot of a forum post that may or may not be real. The original forum is long gone and the Dev that made the statement is long gone.

The new IP owner is pissed at you for taking content from something he now owns and putting it into a game he does not profit from. You are undermining his/her ability to exploit the IP they bought by making a free competitor to something he wants to profit from.

Again you have no license.
They have no legal right to honour a possibly fake/dubious image of a forums post passed down through many hands.
They also have a vested interest in not allowing free competitors using their own assets.
At the point they bought the IP unless there was a clause set in the terms of the sale to them about honouring the forum post's comment about open modding/forward/cross porting assets they have zero legal obligation to anything. They have the right to set how the IP is used. It is their property.

[stiff jasper]

Rock you forgot to press enter 😛

[chilly silo]

The EULA can be updated at any time.
It happens all the time. The Steam EULA changes every few years. BI's Eula for reforger is evolving as we speak

Legally its not something that is set in stone.

The owner reserves the right to change the terms of use.

[hallow idol]

For you to do anything with the 1999 game content in 2022
My example & what I said before was about things made before said new company disallowed new content. Ofc they can disallow use of content after they own it.

[chilly silo]

Essays for the win

[hallow idol]

I didn't say a EULA can't be edited. I said it can't change what was done before a EULA existed about the matter, which it didn't in this case

[chilly silo]

They own the entire IP. That includes all the previous assets

[plucky vale]

The end goal is to own every IP, ending IP rights as a whole 😎

[hallow idol]

I know. I won't repeat myself again, just re-read if you care enough

[stiff jasper]

that's what Disney is trying to do

[plucky vale]

Just wait until we get a Disney+ show on Scott Miller

[chilly silo]

I said it can't change what was done before a EULA existed about the matter, which it didn't in this case
They can do what they like from the point of issuing a license change.

But the point here is the 1999 License does NOT specifically include a clause that allows you to use their assets outside of the original game. A dubious forum post made that claim.

It is not supportable

[hallow idol]

Regardless of either one of our positions on this, I doubt new GSC will disallow that anyway

[chilly silo]

Disallow or Allow cross porting of their IP? Your statement is a bit confusing.

[hallow idol]

I meant that I doubt they will ban people from using the old GSC assets for free mods

[stiff jasper]

That's why I messaged them to make sure, and to make sure that every time a mod with stolen assets is dropped from the Workshop, thief defenders won't bring up mods with assets from Stalker series as a defence

[hallow idol]

Maybe won't even ban use of new assets

[hallow idol]

People bringing up "But they are doing it too!" is never a valid defence.

[chilly silo]

I think they would if it became a big enough problem. Or they wanted to set a precedent. But my guess is they either arent aware of it or the issue is not at a scale they want to spend the money sorting out.

[hallow idol]

They are more than aware, they aren't blind)

[chilly silo]

Have you spoken to them about it?

[hallow idol]

I remind that GSC is a Ukrainian company, so they simply don't care

IP laws isn't a topic that people care about here, esp when it doesn't involve money

[stiff jasper]

Gaijin is a Russian company and they do care, putting eastern companies into one "not caring" bucket is not good

[chilly silo]

I seriously doubt that. Its more likely that sorting this stuff out costs a lot of money and they have a small issue of Russian Invaders to deal with right now.

[hallow idol]

Gaijin is War Thunder, right?

[stiff jasper]

yes

[hallow idol]

One of their devs sells all their models on a website

They don't care either)

[chilly silo]

I know a couple of Ukranian game devs that would dispute that. 😛

[hallow idol]

Then they would be lying or clueless

[chilly silo]

If its the one im thinking of thats because hes a contractor and sells Gaijin models under a non-exclusive contract. Completely different thing.

[hallow idol]

But you're right - putting all into "not caring" bucket isn't right, there are different people. However them being a Ukrainian company + the previous GSC allowing it + their current devs coming from old stalker modders make me think they won't be against it

[chilly silo]

Oh wow - so anyone that doesn't conform to your view is lying.
That explains so much.

[hallow idol]

No, anyone that speaks against my personal experience I don't trust)

[chilly silo]

You think but DO NOT ACTUALLY KNOW.

[hallow idol]

lol, sure)

[chilly silo]

How much game development experience have you got? I mean I've done work with a number of eastern European game devs. IP protection is always an issue.

[hallow idol]

Very doubt we're talking about the same person

[chilly silo]

Got a link?

[hallow idol]

Ofc not)))

Not gonna post that here

[chilly silo]

So you are lying then?

[hallow idol]

Yep)

[hallow idol]

I live in Ukraine, and I have many friends who do game development, including members of the old GSC

I don't know anybody personally in new GSC, but from what I know of them online, my previous statement stands

[chilly silo]

Sorry but I don't believe that.
Based on your previous posts here and my own experience working with Game Development Studios and your posted opinions here. I concluded some time ago you do not actually understand how IP law works. Pretty much anyone else that is knowledgeable here seems to think the same. So I'm just going to nod politely smile and walk away shaking my head laughing.

Have fun and come back when you have verifiable proof of your opinion from GSC's new legal team. I'll happily apologise then. until that time I'm going to keep repeating the same thing. The law does not support your argument.

[hallow idol]

You say you will walk away as you still stay in this channel and reply to every post)

I'm getting deja vu from having this convo with you once or twice before you left & rejoined))

Here's an actual question related to the channel - can anybody who uses this mod reported here?
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/524960828139765761/994609468186832956/unknown.png

and if so, what would the consequences for that user be?

[stiff jasper]

oh, it's the yuemod dude 💀

[hallow idol]

Not dude anymore* 💀
Nvm he's back to being Yura

[elfin mirage]

I’m so lost now on what is being talked bout

[hallow idol]

This, my question is unironic

[stiff jasper]

he definitely can delete screenshots of his work and ban people on his own community, but screenshot is not unlawful use of a copyrighted material so he definitely cannot DMCA a screenshot, there is also no such thing described in any of Steam EULAs. If I take a screenshot using his assets he probably could take the case to a court but there is a high chance it will be considered as fair use, especially if these assets were uploaded to Workshop for public use, I don't claim his mod as mine through making a screenshot and the purpose of my artwork is not to show disrespect towards him or any other person

[hallow idol]

I'm not asking about the screenshots, thats self explanatory enough & pics using his mods get deleted here often enough

I mean the "prohibit any use of my mod" part

[merry kestrel]

it sounds like he is pretty much making it were you cannot download and use his mod whatsoever, which makes you wonder why even upload the mod in the first place

[hallow idol]

He added the comment after some time

I'm assuming same thing as you said too

[stiff jasper]

he added it after people started distributing his "secret" mod that was stored behind patreon paywall

[fallen gale]

prohibit any use of my mod
then what the fuck are you supposed to do with it?! 🤣

[hallow idol]

My question exactly)

[atomic edge]

another question: is the workshop crawler down or is it just me?

[hallow idol]

Not exactly - he uploaded YuE 3.0 publicly himself, and then changed his mind and deleted it. Tried to have that rule for only YuE 3.0 but when it didn't work he made the rule for all YuE content

3.0 wasn't available to anybody, including Patreon - it was meant to go live for everybody once he got 270k rubles in donations on there

However, somebody with a made up BI-employee-looking email sent a mail to him saying smth along the lines of "You're invited to the CLDC program, send us the full version of your mod"

Once Yura sent him the files, the dude replied "Wtf you actually did it, you don't understand this is a fake email?" - after which he got very upset and made it public for all

Something like that, more or less

[hallow idol]

Anw question stands - should people who use his mod be reported here?

Afterall it's an IP rights violation

[merry kestrel]

I am pretty sure just using the mod even with his blessing would still be no no right?

[runic wraith]

I had trouble with it yesterday, so could be down at the moment

[small nexus]

This... Hurts my head

[vivid wave]

!purgeban 891447122367504384 90d randomly saying abusive language to everyone

[edgy coral]

*fires them railguns at @uneven nest* Ò_Ó

[rapid cypress]

^

[vivid wave]

If he loves me, it doesn't matter

[vivid wave]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2830582579&searchtext=
Looks like a ripped Apex content

[rapid cypress]

fyi @echo orchid possible rhs reupload https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2832072070&searchtext=

also @pliant oar JM star wars reupload https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2831996434&searchtext=

And another JM reupload

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2831428295&searchtext=

[faint nacelle]

Super smart people these.

[molten kraken]

Small questions: How do you use the workshop crawler?

[stiff jasper]

open it, drop a link to the source/base mod and hit search to find other mods that share similar pbos

you can go deeper to match single files but then your query should be limited to look only for copies of certain file or two or it will crash

[molten kraken]

So you need to provide the source file you're looking for?

[stiff jasper]

well crawler works like a database, if you want to find similar mods you have to provide the key for your query

if you want to find ace derivatives, you give a link to og ace and it will search for them

but there are other ways to find naughty mods that rippers do not know about 🙃

[molten kraken]

Because only thing I have is "give me a link", but I want to see if one of my old models is being used without me creating a mod for that specific model.

(going back to work, I'll see if I have reply later)

[atomic edge]

looks like the API of the workshopcrawler is still down

[stiff jasper]

potato servers

[small nexus]

bruh

[carmine beacon]

Forklift Certified

[ionic meadow]

I can't lie as a player over several years I can't help but feel that some of the mods being reported had not had any issues prior to this and a good amount of the player base will be left without items and so that they need for their community and or clans. People make the mods or ports to enable player to play in there favourite media and or universe and it feel as a bit of a hostile act against these players who have enjoyed these peices of work and content along with friends and so on

[rapid cypress]

Being around for a long time doesnt mean that a mod doesnt violate a rule

[ionic meadow]

I understand this I thought I would put my point of view over as a member of the community and there are many other who feel the same I am sure

[stiff jasper]

feels are never over laws and I'm sorry to point this out but being a Robin Hood is not legal at all in real life.

[rapid cypress]

Thanks for sharing your opinion politely

[carmine beacon]

Yes but that won't stop me

[stiff jasper]

I don't care, just don't get mad when your mods get dropped

[carmine beacon]

[ionic meadow]

I'm not saying I support criminality or a 'Robin hood' type behaviour however the 'purge' as the community is calling it is alienating players wich from a financial and advertisement point of view is not what is needed for the genre and game as a whole

I would like to go further on to say people are and will get angry they put work into mods and so on it going to happen people get why just dont expect the arma community to like and or support some choices made here

This Is all from me but someone had to say something for the people who dont or wont

[stiff jasper]

RHS, CUP and USP devs put a lot of workhours out of their free time too.

[ionic meadow]

I know

[stiff jasper]

the difference is that their state-of-art content is either done as OC work or bought with necessary permissions and if there's anyone having doubts about legality of these assets, they can fly proper papers around. No one gets hurt, everybody is happy and they have dozens of thousands of subscribers.

Rippers obviously don't have any of these because they do not understand the concept of any prevention activities and get angry once the banhammer is in action.

it's not that hard to ask EA to allow usage of their assets or anything just like Sentry got his perms for his CnC mod.

He preventively got the papers and now his community is not hurt in any way.

[ionic meadow]

I understand both sides I'm sorry I thought the communities point of view was relevant for you I wont do it again due to the fact you clearly like argueing

[stiff jasper]

and I guess this will be said 9000th time here, a modder nor IP owner can declare whether something is fair use or not. If you want your content be fair use, you take it to court and prove you have good intentions.

I'm not arguing, I'm explaining how this works from a point of view of person who was struck by C&D and I took it to a court.

[ionic meadow]

If this is the way it is you will need to purge 99.9% of your workshop I dought the majority have the relevant paperwork is a 'modification' that is not taking any monetary income from their work

[rapid cypress]

Ok lets stay calm peeps 👍

[stiff plank]

Actually, they can, there are clear laws on what is fair use and what not, if they follow those laws, they can declare it being fair use (or not)

[rapid cypress]

Just as a reminder, honger or veterans in general arent part of BI or the mod team

[rapid cypress]

oh god no please not the fair use discussion again

[ionic meadow]

You are not a criminal investigation body, law enforcement and or legal rep for the company itself so I would finish by saying you have little to no right to represent them in this manner

And I know pi

[rapid cypress]

👍 oki

just wanted to make sure

[stiff plank]

As an influencer I had to familiarize myself really Well with copyright laws

[stiff jasper]

you saying your content is under Fair Use has no legal power because you are not the neutral side to decide whether X is harassing someone's business or not.

I've seen numerous cases of that, especially in Europe, maybe some US states are more liberal regarding regional content.

[ionic meadow]

This Is possibly seen as an aft of hostile intent due to the fact you have no legal and or enforcement capabilities or represent the company in any way

This is a possible malicious act and o sought you tales to the relevant owners directly and or the companies who own the content and or ip's

Just because you got claimed against does not issue you the right to do it most companies see it as free advertisement for their content and or ip so have little issues with tilt and of they did they would be in direct contact and be taking legal action

[stiff jasper]

generalization has no legal power either.

[ionic meadow]

I know

[stiff jasper]

I recommend going through https://arma3practicalipguide.blogspot.com and in your free time to contact your local legal affairs lawyer for a free visit, if you are from Europe those should be free and easy to be booked.

[ionic meadow]

So why have these taken down or advise them to be taken down when you have zero ability or right to do so

Simples

[stiff jasper]

it's not us taking mods down, it's Bohemia that moderates the Workshop. If you think taking a mod down was not justified you can sue Bohemia Interactive.

(of course if you are representative of the taken down content)

[ionic meadow]

Anyway honger if your gonna keep banging on about it then that's chill but you yourself have zero ground to stand on and with regards to the BI staff moderating it that is their right but again I'm sure they would contact the telivent people with a team or request a team do it for them upon their own detection not a player or discord admin saying hey this guy did this. Due to the fact as I previously stated it could be a malicious act against that particular party or person

[stiff jasper]

it would be much easier for you to understand the aspects of intellectual property if you stopped making up stuff. I'm not reporting mods, I'm not deleting any of them.

BI has a legal department, they sort this stuff out. Making a thousand of reports throughh steam or here about USP breaking any rules won't make it go down.

[ionic meadow]

I'm kot making stuff up you started all this by coming at me for making my point known on behalf of the community and others I have spoken to directly about this

I am done with this conversation

[stiff jasper]

👋

[rapid cypress]

Ah

[ionic meadow]

Pi thank you for acting professionally during this conversation

[rapid cypress]

[soft egret]

why?

[ionic meadow]

ded probs cause of me, sorry if it got uncomfortable for people to see. but i felt attacked by honger for putting a point accross

[soft egret]

I don't see any rule violations here, where @rapid cypress ?

[pliant oar]

multiple IP infringement occured, dozen of mods and half dozen of people got ban ... the usual flame drama of who is to blame ensued

[ionic meadow]

pretty much ye

[rapid cypress]

Sorry, from the bits and bobs I could read while cooking it felt like the conversation was getting out of hand and it'd be good to have a mods eyes on ot, but it solved itself

[stiff jasper]

ping abuse

[rapid cypress]

[low spear]

didn't they have permission for it though?

[rapid cypress]

Who?

[pliant oar]

nobody provided me with single bit of evidence they have legally verifiable approval for some or all of the IP they used

[low spear]

Ah, I see, if they, in the future, can provide evidence will it be undone?

[pliant oar]

if they have anything to prove then sure i will unban it, but like i said, all i heard was whine, outrages, threats and fascinating stories about 'unofficially approved to use'

[ionic meadow]

thats fair enough, and again sorry if i come across strongly in the chat

[cedar loom]

@pliant oar what if the original owner of assets don't exist anymore?

[rapid cypress]

Not a lawyer but afaik that means that usage isnt allowed and nobody can give permisison

but thats really a question for a lawyer

[stiff jasper]

...unless the rights were ceded to asset creators or other private people or another company. From my experience dev studios usually try to deal with that before going dark

[pliant oar]

same applies, as long as you have no written approval for each and any IP you can't use it ...

IP is often passed down to next of kin or whoever bought out the leftovers of bancrupt company etc.

[rapid cypress]

Ah well if someone owns the rights to it then those can give permission

[pliant oar]

sometimes i wonder if people even bother to read STEAMworkshop, modDB, NexusMods or even our AR workshop terms ... it clearly states you need to own all the approvals or rights before you upload anything

[atomic edge]

no, they don't read.

[stiff jasper]

muh fair use because I think I'm not harming anybody

[next osprey]

Not a mod creator just curious for future reference
Where is the line drawn on what BI considers IP Infringement? If a mod uses say the Colt Platform to create a custom Colt M4 and calls it a Colt M4 in game would that be breaking the line? If they make a completely new concept but still call it Colt M4 is that the line? Just curious if BI aims more towards the model or if it effects the entire platform including naming

[stiff jasper]

Ofc I'm not BI but your question was asked here some time ago directly or similarily (referring to Crye G3, SCARs, HK etc). Regarding legality of usage of name "Colt" you could refer to General Motors v Activision case where the judge stated that they can name their vehicles Humvees because

"Featuring actual vehicles used by military operations around the world in video games about simulated modern warfare surely evokes a sense of realism and lifelikeness to the player who assumes control of a military solider and fights against a computer-controller or human-controller opponent across a variety of computer-generated battlefields,"
and
"Upon reviewing a copy of the Call of Duty game, the court explained that the uses of the plaintiff's name and logo easily met the artistic relevance requirement under Rogers because they have players a sense of particularized reality of being part of an actual elite special forces operation and served as a means to increase specific realism of the game."
This of course does not count Colt in but assuming the case is similar and being a mod, not a triple A game matters, might be tolerated

ACE changes gun names to the irl counterparts so you could ask them what do they use as a valid reason too

[glad coral]

might be

[next osprey]

I of course used Colt as a example, but you could stretch this fairly broad or very tightly legally speaking. For example - Where is the actual line of precedence set? Saying “Actual Vehicles used by the military” does not imply the use of weaponry would be allowed directly, it also doesn’t support a case against non-military arms dealers, a great example of that would be mods that add in Ford Focuses, or a non military/police issue pistol/rifle (Id have to look for specifics)

I’m far from a lawyer, but I could see that case being used against a company if the weapons or vehicles were not militarily purposed.

[cedar loom]

H&k would have a field day with cup and rhs...

[ember berry]

Brand names and non-military designations of objects are generally a Trademark issue, which is different than IP.
https://arma3practicalipguide.blogspot.com/p/trademark.html

[pliant oar]

most of 'from scratch unique content' mods burn themselves by using protected trademarks, logos and names or designs (like startrek) ...

[next osprey]

But would Trademark Infringement not be just as much of an issue as IP?

[pliant oar]

it would but it makes it even easier for the lawyers

they just fire C&D letter to whoever host the content, no need to waste time with DMCA

and that has been happening longer than DMCA exists

and if someone refuse to comply , because it's TM they can directly move on damage numbers 😉

so if you on the receiving side ,you don't want be anywhere near when that barrage lands

[next osprey]

My thought on it, if a mod creator named something very specific such as “Glock ##”, while a Glock is a standard police issued weapon, it isn’t a standard weapon of war, and the companies entire name is “Glock” - Would that not require every mod creator with a glock in their mod to get permission?

[pliant oar]

that's not the problem

[next osprey]

Some mods are smart are rename things, like Coke to Boke or something

[pliant oar]

i was hinting like naming your mod Star Gate : my mod

i can count it's existence as very short

[faint nacelle]

judging by the commo in their own discords etc, they are not going to do anything like that

[next osprey]

Of course, or if you named your mod “Glocks I hand crafted” I’m curious where BI’s stance is on the things within the mod, since the name only goes so far

[stiff jasper]

Tom Clancy used real names of guns and vehicles in his books without permission from trademark owners because the books are not direct competition to the gun or vehicle industry and he wasn't showing the companies in a wrong "light".

I mean he of course contacted the owners to make them know that this precedence happens.

[pliant oar]

yes this is another problem , especially in car industry

if you make model very close to real car brand and model ...

the companies don't like if that model can be wrecked and underperforms 😉

[night tendon]

Its why Grand Theft Auto has its fictional brands with cars that are almost their real life equivalents but not quite

[pliant oar]

also some car companies got used to making good money by licencing theirs brands/car models to movies, tv shows and games, so forget about getting free approval for random mod

[next osprey]

So from what I’m reading here, mods in Arma 3, Reforger, and when Arma 4 launches that capitalize on Trademark Infringement without proper approval should be treated like any other, be it a mod that has Colts and Glocks or one that has Starship Troopers bugs?

[pliant oar]

that's why most games are fantasy, historical, alternate universe or plain sci-fi.... because dealing with actual reality and trademarks and IP laws is more than just headache

[next osprey]

Also, if I remember correctly certain Camo patterns are also trademarked and would make them infringement if used without permission as well

I can think of a dozen different mods off the top of my head that could technically fall under that sword

[pliant oar]

artistic recreation of something is one thing

[stiff plank]

Just gonna say, but from what I see, Arma 3 is litterally still just alive because of mods, if we are going to remove every mod that infringes on copyright, we Will clear 90% of mods, wouldn't that than kill the community?

[pliant oar]

the cases we taking down is stuff ripping other games (or mods) and protected IP flat out

[next osprey]

So specifically models not the textures on them then?

[stiff jasper]

no, because mods violating any IP and containing stolen assets are a minority.

[stiff plank]

So, say a mod team creates a star wars mod, and creates to models themselves, would be safe?

Ish

[pliant oar]

if they name it StarWars it's already dead

if they used any of the protected designs, it's nearly as dead

[stiff plank]

Welp, goodbye Starsim community

[night tendon]

Protected design?

[next osprey]

Wouldn’t this directly effect almost the entire Milsim community?

[pliant oar]

some stuff got protected like ships designs, uniforms designs etc.

because it's licenses further (e.g. toy making)

[carmine folio]

some hardheaded people in here trying to thread needles from a mile away...

[stiff jasper]

yes, apart from a general EULA about "Disney Items" some designs or models are patented and they do not fall under EULA. Hhnce why you should always ask the owner and his legal affairs staff before making a derivative

[pliant oar]

it's similar like with StarTrek , it's not just name of the show, names of the races, some languages and other stuff is/was protected too

some things failed like the LCARS so called patent (but that would be expired by now too)

so unless those companies use similar tricks like Intel, to keep renewing the patents with new / extensions ... at some point the oldest design stuff can't be protected

but for example the StarTrek uniforms were protected ... so recreating them got people into troubles (if money were involved)

[next osprey]

When speaking on custom made races and content that falls under “Sci-Fi”

I’m more curious about Real world applications. Because these companies have rights over All of their weapons and Vehicles, the court case mentioned above only applied to the use of Military Vehicles

[pliant oar]

i'm sure there was similar court case which applied to weapon brands too

[stiff plank]

Could anyone Tell me if the Clone trooper armor designs (not markings but the actual armor) is protected?

[next osprey]

Go ask Disney

[stiff jasper]

Disney/Lucasfilms legal affairs department will know

[pliant oar]

the vehicle one decision was important because like 15-20 years ago, someone got sued for making plane in game from WW2 based on patented design of someone who kept the rights until modern day

it was absurd

[next osprey]

And while there may be a case on Military Weapons, there are major brands spread throughout Arma 3 mods that directly use non-military issue weapons

[stiff plank]

We already know they wont Respond, and if they do, BI might get a note slipped under the door

[stiff jasper]

they responded to my query within 8 weeks last year

[runic wraith]

Wait what rules did we break? Missed this whole conversation so curious how USP got brought in to all this.

[stiff jasper]

there was a suggestion that you break trademark/IP rules by using Crye/G3 symbols and/or camouflages without permission

[stiff plank]

So just looked up, neither Clone troopers nor stormtroopers are copyrighted, only the named individuals are

[stiff jasper]

Electronic Arts is not asking for licences to portray copyrighted guns since 2013 because they defend themselves with First Amendment "right to use trademarked weapons without the burden of licensing deals".

[cedar loom]

@stiff plank no but I'll bet bodyparts that their armor is

[vestal hazel]

the design is copyrighted the moment its created, that's how art copyright laws work. And since disney/lucas owns those designs it's theirs pretty much. Just the reality of how it works.

[runic wraith]

Oh gotcha, the usual complaints from those seeking to have some justification for their own wrong doings

[stiff plank]

In that case, just remove mods in totality, cause no mod would than not infringe copyright

[stiff jasper]

you don't infringe copyrights if you ask for permission to use copyrighted work.

it's all about that.

[cedar loom]

@vestal hazel welcome to the dumpsterfire, grab a
A stick and a Marshmallow...

[vestal hazel]

Well that's not the case. Look at optre, they have permission to use designs.

Depends on the IP holder and the company policy on it

whether they give permission or not

[stiff jasper]

saying "fair use" is not getting a permission.
lying about having license to use copyrighted assets while not having this license nor permission is not being permitted.
using copyrighted work without permission because others do that does not grant a permission either.

oh and showing Tarkov's EULA to justify using Call of Duty assets is not a permission granting thing eithher 😄

[stiff plank]

Looked into it further, turns out at one Point someone was Selling star wars armor replicas, lucasfilm brought him to court for copyright infringement, seller was allowed to continue as the armor was "not artistic enough to fall under copyright"

[river spear]

https://api-v2.workshopcrawler.com/swagger/index.html

[stiff jasper]

just bare in mind that if it's not bolded there that this is a case with global effect then it allows only this one seller to do such thing, any other person trying to do the same might get sued either and using this case's outcome might not be enough

[stiff plank]

Even when decided by supreme court?

[stiff jasper]

it's really much safer to preventively get proper permissions than fight over courts and loose money.

[vestal hazel]

I think the bottom line is historically under the current ownership, what is the stance of the IP holders. I dont know much about how Disney handles Star Wars fan projects, but I know that Lucasarts allowed a long fan art and films to be created without them removing said films

Hell even this fan film from 6 years has 31m views and has not been removed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Djo_91jN3Pk

I think long as the assets aren't ripped and its genuine fan art someone made for a mod project that isn't being sold, and the IP holder isn't taking down other fan art projects, its safe to say they probably allow it/don't care.

[next osprey]

So I just looked this up here - Multiple cases have been brought by EA specifically, and multiple different rulings have been concluded. I can’t find the final conclusion, but there is a large mix of responses here from judges. Some saying EA is to blame due to companies possibly being seen as “Sponsors” of their games, as well as some cases being in EA’s favor stating fair use and all of that.

So the question I have here, if the legal jargain and process is so gray that EA is still (I saw a case as recent as 2020) going to court over these things, would it be safer to draw the line somewhere? If BI axes all Sci-Fi mods that don’t have permission, it only fits that the milsim side of things would have the same worries no?

I’m not here to swing swords at Starsim or Milsim, I’ve been playing Arma for nine years I believe? I would like to continue of course. I’m just trying to find where BI draws the line officially. Because I’ve talked to a lot of modders that are in the “We might get axed we might not” zone.

[stiff plank]

It's not Disney that decides over star wars it's lucasfilm, if I Remember correctly, lucasfilm allows fan projects as long as you don't ask and/or accept money for it

[carmine folio]

lucasfilm sold his shit to disney years ago.

[vestal hazel]

well, that doesn't include ripped mods mind you. since the eula for their games ristrict decompiling/ reverse engineering files.

[faint nacelle]

all mods removed have been using ripped assets aka taken from some other game. just as well real life mods that use ripped assets get removed

[vestal hazel]

so that stance certainly doesn't defend ripped "fan projects"

[crimson ingot]

you underestimate the power of Disney ruining fan project

[stiff plank]

Never said ripping was allowed

[vestal hazel]

I know, I'm simply clearing that up for everyone else.

[stiff jasper]

"That court has now also ruled that the 3D works should not be considered sculptures, which means their copyright protection is 15 years from the date they were marketed, and had therefore expired.

But the judges agreed with Lucasfilm lawyers that the director's copyright had been violated in the US by Mr Ainsworth selling his costumes there.

They ruled that those infringed rights were enforceable in the UK, banning him from selling his outfits in the US."

assuming Steam is American and mods are distributed through American cloud this does not really include case of star wars mods

[next osprey]

Which 100% should be the case

Ripping from other games is the definition of stealing

[stiff jasper]

not to mention it's about selling the content and you cannot sell mods anyway so star wars case would require another court battle

[stiff plank]

No, lucasfilm became part of Disney, but lucasfilm is still an entity, just like the MCU is it's own entity under Disney, Disney also has no say on what the MCU does other than "I want this many shows for Disney+, you also not allowed to show these types of stuff to keep our family friendly badge"

[stiff jasper]

which costed more than $3bn, I guess it's much cheaper to ask Disney/Lucas to allow you making star wars mods with certain designs.

[night tendon]

Don't worry, when the day finally comes that the mouse owns the entirety of the entertainment industry, IP will be a thing of the past!

[vestal hazel]

I mean on an individual basis I would agree. But also there exists a lot of fan content which shows Disney/Lucas does not care or even approves of fan art projects.

If they have not removed a fan film with 36m views, I think its safe to say they wont try to remove a fan game mod (long as the assets aren't ripped).

Just my 2 cents. Clearly they are not taking action against thousands of other fan art projects on YT or other game mods.

[stiff plank]

So, as of now, which mods are safe and which aren't? As I understand it rn is
Using rigged content?
No: does IP Holder request take down? No: safe

[vestal hazel]

But at the same token, there have been court cases like you all mentioned over money, I think that's what they care about more, their IP not being used for profit

[vestal hazel]

anything with ripped assets from anywhere are pretty much not allowed.

the IP holder may not even be aware of the mod existing, so that's not an assumption that it's safe.

[stiff plank]

(I just need to know if my Starsim unit can stay or not XD)

[vestal hazel]

just read pinned message by dwarden.

if your unit relies on ripped mods, probably at some point yall will have to find new mods to play, idk. or play vanilla arma.

[stiff plank]

Well, the mods we use claims they don't use ripped assets

[crimson ingot]

can we see the claims?

[vestal hazel]

what's the mod called.

Yeah those guys make their own stuff from what I've heard.

Though I'm not 100% sure but yeah the reputation they have is that they make their own models

[slate yew]

All 100% there own models

[vestal hazel]

No idea never played it or heard of 3rd Army Systems

[stiff plank]

So, as long as the enforcement BI uses doesn't change we (relatively) safe

Well, thank you for enlightning me,

[vestal hazel]

I personally don't see Legion Studios or other star wars mods that use their own art getting axed. There is already a precedent by the virtue of all the fan art content on the internet which has not been axed. Sure while Disney/Lucas can rule on an individual basis who can use their IP and who can't, it seems like they're more for letting fan art projects exist, so long as their other rules/ eulas like ripping content or making money off their IP isn't broken.

I.e like the Darth Maul fan film with 36 million views. For sure Disney has seen that and that has not been taken down.

Not to forget to mention the star wars mods for other games with their own art which have not been requested to be taken down.

While that's not an outright yes anyone can use their IP for fan projects long as it doesnt break any other rules, it definitely doesn't seem like a no if they allow large fan projects to exist.

[elfin heron]

Youtube video versus a game which people have to pay for that isn't owned by Disney

Weak comparison

[vestal hazel]

I mean Star Wars Galactic Contention for Squad has 140k players

[elfin heron]

Thanks to exposure from popular youtubers

[heavy moon]

Fan art is one thing and companies generally tolerate that up to a certain extent as it is free advertisement by their fanbase and usually draws more people into their IP/franchises.

Making things that would compete with their commercial interests and products (aka video games / mods of video games) is dangerous legal territory as you are then not only infringing on copyrights, trademarks, IP etc but you are competing with their commercial interests - even if you release things for free you would be competing with commercial products.

Companies will vigorously pursue you for that through the courts since if they do not it may lead to the invalidation of their copyright/trademark/etc claims, which is what allows them to generate revenue through the marketing those claims commercially in the products they create that you purchase.

[vestal hazel]

So then why does disney/lucasfilm not remove Galactic Contention? You could argue that directly competes with Battlefront.

Not disagreeing with you btw, you make a valid point

but the truth is it seems like Disney allows these kinds of fan projects to exist

[heavy moon]

Go ask Disney, that is a question for them rather than for me to apply my viewpoint to.

[elfin heron]

They would definitely take it down if BF3 was being made, but yet again the battlefront series has been put down like a 15 year old lame dog

[carmine folio]

So is star wars allowed or no?

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2162749089&searchtext=Legion+Studios

https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=2058554822

[elfin heron]

Ask disney

Ripped assets aren't

[carmine folio]

i mean personally i wouldnt mind them beijng taken down anyway, this game started as milsim and should remain milsim

starsim is just a toxic wasteland

[elfin mirage]

You hopped into servers to start problems with everyone and your calling it a toxic wasteland that is straight clown behavior 🤡

Anywho

[heavy moon]

quit the personal attacks and throwing insults around, keep things on-topic please.

[elfin mirage]

I see more as an insult than a personal attack since I don’t know anything bout the guy irl however

Yes let’s get back to the topic

[vestal hazel]

Probably safest thing for the star wars mods to do is ask for permission.

[elfin heron]

Most of them have

With no response from disney

They want to keep the door open to sue people if they want 🤷

Makes sense from a business perspective

[glad coral]

hi reign

[carmine folio]

i was asking a question to the moderators but all of the star wars fans are now attacking me

[loud socket]

You literally invited that upon yourself tbh

[elfin heron]

Maybe read what's been said in the channel before then lul

[carmine beacon]

You asked for that shit 🗿

[vestal hazel]

bro you were just being straight up not nice lol

what do you expect.

[carmine folio]

@heavy moon

[loud socket]

As the saying goes

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

[merry kestrel]

"Star Wars fans are attacking me"
Was saying Star Wars fans are toxic and should leave

[carmine beacon]

"Wow I think all these guys are toxic assholes and they should be removed"

"Wait why are people mad at me"

[carmine folio]

you are proving my point

[heavy moon]

I just asked you all to quit the personal attacks in throwing insults around, they do nobody any favours.

[carmine beacon]

🗿

[night tendon]

🗿

[glad coral]

rude of u reign

[golden galleon]

UH OH

[jolly basalt]

oooooohhshh

[elfin heron]

Whose unit did this guy get banned from 😭

[carmine folio]

@heavy moon

[pine rampart]

[carmine beacon]

Mans being brutalized

[heavy moon]

@glad coral posting unverified images with old dates in order to enflame the situation here is not a smart route to go down.

[elfin heron]

How would one verify those images then 🤔

[carmine beacon]

[pine rampart]

he did it to me as well

[glad coral]

Sorry my lord

[heavy moon]

@carmine beacon quit with the image spam, its entirely off-topic.

[carmine beacon]

They are reactions

But I shall accept

[heavy moon]

they are stickers, still spam and off-topic.

[carmine beacon]

Ok

[faint nacelle]

gifs, stickers, whatnot are priviledge not to be take advantage of. too much is too much

[tardy seal]

all of those models are modified assets, everything was hand made

[carmine folio]

is that verified

[tardy seal]

@upbeat whale ^

[pine rampart]

yes its verified

[carmine folio]

by who

someones word is one thing

[elfin heron]

And them live streaming making it is another

Stop talking about things you evidently have 0 clue about x

[glad coral]

hows ur wife

[pine rampart]

try find them online. I'll spoil it for you, you wont

[carmine folio]

and here comes the toxic starsim members again unable to have a civil conversation..

i came with the intent of asking a question

stay on topic of the channel

[dusty nimbus]

Question, is plugging a patreon account into a mod allowed? I’d like to let people support my mod by letting our team commission/purchase more models.

[night tendon]

I can't say for certain, but I don't think you'd get away with plugging that I'm afraid

[next osprey]

I’ve seen it many times, curious as to what BI thinks

[faint nacelle]

in case said mod is using IP on "non commercial" basis then yes that would be a problem

if its your own stuff have at it

or well

actually might be best to ask BI legal department on that 🤔

[night tendon]

Think Moose has a patreon but his mod is quite literally his own setting

[faint nacelle]

donations have been ok

but patreon is not donations

its sale of access to "premium" things etc

[dusty nimbus]

Assume I’m purchasing models from third parties, and the only perks are discord roles and oversight over funds spent on the mod

[faint nacelle]

Id still verify if BI thinks its commercial use through their legal department

[dusty nimbus]

It might be iffy with asset licenses

[faint nacelle]

if you dont offer anything Arma related then that probably could be ok

[onyx iron]

but only if those premium things are made with a3tools, right?
Say I make a mod and people can a) just support me on patreon monthly and get nice preview pics b) don't donate and just get the mod

[faint nacelle]

well if the preview pics are made with Arma

but if they are renders in 3D modeling software that sounds like it could be ok

[soft egret]

Yes. If it respects the EULA.
If you use your patreon to give people exclusive paywalled access to files that cannot be commercially used (like mod pbo's), then it would be a violation of the A3Tools EULA.

Preview screenshots are ok, using money to buy content to put in mod is ok, Discord roles are ok, exclusive mod access is not, that would just be "selling" your mod.

[hallow idol]

Would locking a public update behind patron goal be allowed, not, or grey?

Basically what YuE did. Just curious

[soft egret]

Thaats maybe something for legal to answer

[hallow idol]

Where content isn't exclusive but open to all, but only available once X amount is donated

[manic laurel]

going out on a limb I would say "no"

[soft egret]

I would like if that were allowed. But I don't know if it is

[stiff plank]

According to most terms of use, no, it is seen as gathering money to make the project

Accepting donations is not allowed when doing a fan project

[vestal hazel]

not every mod is a fan project

[glad coral]

best ones are

[soft egret]

It is. Donations are no problem.
But often the question is "is this a donation, or a payment"

Donations are okey, payments are not.
"Hey I like what you do, have this money and give me nothing back in return" is a Donation.
"Hey I want this thing, here is money, now give it to me" is not.

Many people pretend to not know the difference.

[stiff jasper]

so technically this: https://www.patreon.com/BSP_Group ("early access to our [Arma 3] projects and missions") is illegal?

[soft egret]

Yes it is, that guy has been banned half a dozen times (he keeps making new discord accounts to ban evade and advertise that stuff everywhere)

[stiff jasper]

iirc last time I spoke with this dude he said that he was discussing being a potential cDLC partner and because you didn't accept his proposal he's very mad and still selling access to his missions and spamming videos everywhere.

(I was toxic because I asked him why is he paywalling his missions)

[runic wraith]

My interpretation of that is he is requesting money to release a mod that was made using a3 tools, which to my understanding would be commercialization. If that isn't considered commercializing, then guess he found a loophole others could use to profit from their mods.

[carmine folio]

So am I allowed to make a Star Wars mod for Reforger, using custom assets ofc

[granite jewel]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[carmine folio]

Or is the same thing that happened with the Squad Star Wars mod when I first created it, going to occur, being told I can't make it because Disney is going to come lmfao

[atomic edge]

Ask Disney first. If they don't answer, don't do it.

[carmine folio]

No

[atomic edge]

Best thing to do imo

[carmine folio]

We both know they won't answer lol

[atomic edge]

It's not worth it to get banned

[carmine folio]

But I don't think that's an excuse to stop someone from making a mod

I can see if it were a game, but a mod?

[atomic edge]

You're free to do whatever you want but you might get banned if your content doesn't follow BI's workshop TOS

[granite jewel]

lol

It's fully custom assets nothing ripped all scratch made

[carmine folio]

Yeah all my assets are custom to begin with

[granite jewel]

Show the gamer pics

[carmine folio]

I can't post images

[granite jewel]

true

[echo orchid]

you are not

[carmine folio]

Why

[muted grove]

Just call it space wars and design your own clone troopers and vehicles that don't look like star wars, problem solved. The idea of clone troopers isn't copyright protected in it of itself, just Lucas/Disneys expression of them.

That's a very core part of copyright that too many like to forget, you cannot copyright ideas; This is from the US copyright office's website FAQ "Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something."

Those latter are either not protectable at all or the likes of patents and trademark etc

[manic laurel]

See https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Intellectual_Property
Not allowed without permission from the IP owner

[carmine folio]

The point is to make a Star Wars mod, not make a parody of it lol

[manic laurel]

then you need Disney's permission 😉

[carmine folio]

Damn I wonder why Disney didn't come after us for making the Squad Star Wars mod

[manic laurel]

most likely because they don't know about it

and two wrongs don't make a right

[carmine folio]

How is it wrong, we didn't profit off the IP?

[manic laurel]

as said above, even without profit, you need permission

I get it sounds stupid, unfortunately this is how it is

[carmine folio]

Battlefront modders should be given a C&D, also I thought this more so pertained to games and not mods

[whole silo]

Doesn't user generated content based off of star wars fall under disney's clause?

[carmine folio]

CGTrader artists should be sued as well for selling their art pieces that're star wars

[manic laurel]

most likely

[manic laurel]

not from what can be found on internet; if you provide an official source allowing free mods (ofc not ripped), we will lift this rule for SW content

[carmine folio]

💀

Does Halo have a source for that too

Warhammer as well?

Are those allowed

[crimson ingot]

Halo doesnt have any issue, they got approval from the owner of the IP

[whole silo]

https://disneytermsofuse.com/english/#Submissions-User-Generated-Content-DMCA-Takedown-Notices

Section 7 Appendix B second paragraph

They reserve the right to ask you to take it down however they do not claim ownership of user generated content.

As long as you aren't making money from it

[carmine folio]

That's what I said earlier

Non-Profit

[whole silo]

At least thats how I interpret it.

[manic laurel]

Not Warhammer afaik
See https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Intellectual_Property, I listed some
Note that the table is about authorisation-less usage

[carmine folio]

In most instances, we do not claim ownership of your User Generated Content; however, you grant us a non-exclusive, sublicensable, irrevocable and royalty-free worldwide license under all copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, privacy and publicity rights and other intellectual property rights for the full duration of those rights to use, reproduce, transmit, print, publish, publicly display, exhibit, distribute, redistribute, copy, index, comment on, modify, transform, adapt, translate, create derivative works based upon, publicly perform, publicly communicate, make available, and otherwise exploit such User Generated Content, in whole or in part, in all media formats and channels now known or hereafter devised (including in connection with the Disney Products and on third-party websites, services, applications, and/or platforms), in any number of copies and without limit as to time, manner and frequency of use, without further notice to you, without attribution (to the extent this is not contrary to mandatory provisions of applicable law), and without the requirement of permission from or payment to you or any other person or entity. You agree that submission of User Generated Content does not establish any relationship of trust and confidence between you and us, and that you have no expectation of compensation whatsoever (except as may be specifically stated in the provisions of the Disney Products in connection with the submission, or arising from it).

[whole silo]

Any comment in regards to the Disney TOS?

[carmine folio]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/925225229612089409/995234308044365865/unknown.png?width=1920&height=509

I emailed head of licensing awhile ago, this is what he said about GAMES, not mods.

[whole silo]

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for ripped content being banned... But original works? I for one think its covered by their TOS...

[muted grove]

"To the extent that we authorize you to create, post, upload, distribute, publicly display or publicly perform User Generated Content that requires the use of our copyrighted works, we grant you a non-exclusive license to create a derivative work using the specifically referenced copyrighted works as required for the sole purpose of creating such a work, provided that such license shall be conditioned upon your assignment to us of all rights worldwide in the work you create for the duration of copyright in the User Generated Content, in all formats and media known or unknown to date, including for use on Disney Products and on third party sites and platforms. If such rights are not assigned to us, your license to create derivative works using our copyrighted works shall be null and void"

"in all formats and media known or unknown to date"

"Disney Products and on third party sites and platforms."

Interesting

[carmine folio]

I don't see a no

[muted grove]

[whole silo]

They may be consulting legal XD

[carmine folio]

[manic laurel]

If that's a yes, I'm genuinely glad to let (original content) SW mods be really

Will have to be checked (and Disney can at all times grab your stuff, but until then it should be allowed)

[heavy moon]

Section 2.B of that document also outlines what you cannot do.
This includes derivative works (anything based on their IP) and reverse engineering (ripping).
Selectively quoting parts of a licence is dangerous turf, you need to take the entire document into account.

[whole silo]

Which is why I did not directly quote it and instead presented a link

[heavy moon]

yep, my comment was more for the benefit of Jayvon

[carmine folio]

[muted grove]

" You agree that as a condition of your license, you will not:"
"iv. create derivative works of the Disney Product or any part thereof, except as and only to the extent that any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law;"

[whole silo]

He is correct though. Directly quoting something like that can be dangerous. You are better off just providing a picture or link and giving your interpretation, letting everyone know (like I did) that thats how you interpret it. Everything with legal can be interpreted differently.

[muted grove]

"To the extent that we authorize you to create, post, upload, distribute, publicly display or publicly perform User Generated Content that requires the use of our copyrighted works, we grant you a non-exclusive license to create a derivative work using the specifically referenced copyrighted works as required for the sole purpose of creating such a work[...]"

[heavy moon]

thats why you pay lawyers and get a licence, so you are legally in the clear. 😁

[muted grove]

No

[whole silo]

Yep. Or you're like me and just are well versed in Legal jargon...

[carmine folio]

Acquiring the game license for a mod?

[whole silo]

Acquiring a license to use their IP.

[muted grove]

You're just wholly misreading the text lol

[whole silo]

In ANY capacity...

[heavy moon]

it could be seen by them to be competing with their commercial interests, you would be modifying one game which would potentially compete with Disneys games.

[whole silo]

Yes but at the same time then they could just ask you to take it down.

Not to mention I can't see disney building a platform like arma to begin with.

But it does also do a bit of advertising for them in the long run so I don't think they mind all that much.

[muted grove]

"If such rights are not assigned to us, your license to create derivative works using our copyrighted works shall be null and void."

This is them saying if you don't have all the necessary rights to be able to give it to them then the derivative license they have given you is null and void.

[heavy moon]

all of these are questions for Disney to answer in an official context, which I somehow doubt they would agree to do as it would mean open-season on their IP.

[granite jewel]

BF2 modding going crazy lol

[carmine folio]

Execute order 62 @granite jewel

[muted grove]

This all very clearly stipulates that your work must not be infringing on other copyrights or IP's without a sublicenseable license there of complying with the requirements it the derivative license, to receive a license to make derivative works based off of their IP

[granite jewel]

[heavy moon]

no off-topic and no spam.

[granite jewel]

BI only cares if they are given a email

Even with perms from devs i had my stuff taken off till a written email is given

Just gotta pray you get a write back from the company

[whole silo]

Personally I think they would just refer back to that document... Legally they don't have to say anything which means its back to legal interpretation...

[heavy moon]

which is back to no licence = no licence, and we've gone full-circle.

[muted grove]

BI just needs to accept that license as the license it is and stop demanding emails that are redundant

[whole silo]

But at the same time they've provided one in a sense...

Until they tell you to take it down...

[granite jewel]

it is what it is

I worked with Void interactive on getting RON gear put into reforger

[muted grove]

Unless Disney sends that specific mod author a C&D, the license is valid as it says it is

[granite jewel]

Got nearly tons of gear in and still got taken down till they get a email from the void team

Even after they got into contact with void and they said i was allowed to use their content

[muted grove]

Well the difference here is that an explicitly written license exists

No email is required

[whole silo]

Its like saying don't park on the sidewalk... but part of the sidewalk is a driveway so parking there is ok but if you park anywhere else you're doing it illegally...

It's a weird analogy but it works.

[onyx iron]

Someone could "just" pay an IP lawyer for an hour of their time to give legal advisory what that hunk of text actually means. Sending that to BI might work since Disney probably won't give you a straight, legally binding, answer.

[whole silo]

Its all up to legal interpretation like I've said...

The lawyer may say one thing and the next may say another...

When you build a TOS you need to make it concrete and think about all the ways someone might get around it...

Unless you intend for there to be a way for someone to get around it of course.

[onyx iron]

Nah you don't, same way you write all sorts of stuff in your EULA that wouldn't fly in 90% of countries.

[whole silo]

There are ways to make it concrete...

Legally there is a way to make it float on a legal basis regardless of the country...

[onyx iron]

Well yeah, but the more concrete you make it the more leverage you give the opposing in a lawsuit.
Say you allow some specific usage the lawyer can now argue that their usage is that, if you just write "meh, depends on how we feel" they can't.

[whole silo]

Thats not at all what I mean by concrete...

90% of all legal documents have a loophole...

Get rid of the loophole and it instantly becomes concrete...

[onyx iron]

But then again isn't that the reason you don't get a straight answer from them via email?

[whole silo]

Its because the more they say the more people have to go on... thats why having a TOS document or statement on such matters is important for large companies... they just refer to the document and then leave it for interpretation.

[onyx iron]

Then we agree. There's nothing in it for them and at the end if they don't like it it gets taken down.

[whole silo]

Free advertisement really...

Cause if someone hasn't heard of star wars not likely but its an example and they play arma, and you introduce them to it... they suddenly know about it....

[onyx iron]

yup, I wonder how the guy does it who sells custom lego star wars minifigs

[manic laurel]

Anyway.

[onyx iron]

can't imagine Disney allowing that yet that shop as been around for 10 years

[granite jewel]

Bro

don't even know CAC

He's doing great

[muted grove]

That's basically what the license says from my reading, so long as you comply and they don't otherwise object and take it down, you're good to make your own content derived from the required IP. No matter though they can still yeet it at any point.

[whole silo]

Which is fair.

[elfin heron]

Disney deliberately don't give permission so they can sue your ass if they feel like it

[whole silo]

Thats last resort in this case... They have to follow their TOS and provide documentation to make a lawsuit viable.

[elfin heron]

Their copyright team are utterly awful at responding to virtually any enquiry around the Star Wars IP which just goes to show how little they care for the fanbase

[carmine folio]

What mod team have they C&D and or sued lol

[whole silo]

Work with what we got shrug. They provided us an answer un intentionally and if they sue bohemia or us for it then we can simply dispute it with "Where was your C&D?"

[elfin heron]

Doesn't matter if they have or not, they still have the ability to do so and they want to keep that door open

[carmine folio]

Well ofc, it's only fair

[whole silo]

No it does actually.

[carmine folio]

Nobody is denying it

But they haven't yet

[whole silo]

According to their TOS they have to send a C&D to take it down... which they haven't...

[elfin heron]

I can guarantee you that if BF3 was coming out the galactic contention mod would be hit with a C&D

[carmine folio]

No it wouldn't

[elfin heron]

Actually that'd probably kill most of the playerbase FOR bf3 off so nvm

[carmine folio]

No it wouldn't wtf

Lmfao

[elfin heron]

Yes it would

[carmine folio]

No it wouldn't

[elfin heron]

It's taking profits away from disney to squad when there's more players of GC than there is BF2 💀💀

[whole silo]

Like I said its giving them free advertisement by these mods existing... so C&Ding them would be counter intuitive to their main goal...

[carmine folio]

BF2 has been died

[elfin heron]

Free advertisement

for disney.

[carmine folio]

BF2 had more players than GC on launch

[elfin heron]

Yeah on launch lul

[carmine folio]

Exaclty and they came out around the same time

[elfin heron]

Now it's dead as fuck and you can barely get servers

[carmine folio]

So how is that taking profits away from a dead game

If BF3 came out, everyone would be playing that

[elfin heron]

Yeah and which had a multi million company pushing ads for it and exposure from youtubers??

Don't understand your point there

[carmine folio]

That doesn't go to say that GC would be dead, because it wouldn't be

But GC isn't killing an anticipated game like BF3

[whole silo]

Gotta keep in mind that a mod is modular... it can conform to what the community wants... a game is essentially a platform... whether that platform is modular is up to the developers and can shorten or lengthen its life... Like Arma3 for example... imagine how fast it would have died had it not been modular...

[carmine folio]

It's a mod

[elfin heron]

Yeah because BF3 isnt happening bruh

[carmine folio]

With limited potential

If it was

That's the point

It's not killing BF3

[elfin heron]

Because it doesnt exist

[carmine folio]

IF IT DID

It still wouldn't

[elfin heron]

Hmm lets check concurrent players for one game franchise and another

[whole silo]

Theres too much to take into consideration to do that properly

[carmine folio]

Squad and BF are not the same in the slightest in terms of gameplay, BF3 is also anticipated, how is GC. A mod with limited potential killing BF3?

[whole silo]

The only proper way to display those analytics is to ask: How many people are playing these games 100% unmodded?

[elfin heron]

BF3 is not anticipated in the slightest lol

[carmine folio]

WHAT

[elfin heron]

Nobody 💀💀

[carmine folio]

WHAT

💀

[whole silo]

facepalm

[elfin heron]

Squad killed itself off with poor gameplay and lack of varying content

[carmine folio]

GC doesn't add anything, it's a reskin

[elfin heron]

BF2 killed itself off with poor map design and lack of varying content

[carmine folio]

So how is it killing off BF3

If literally it's Squad at its Core

[elfin heron]

BF3 doesn't and won't exist bro there's no point arguing that 💀💀

[carmine folio]

So why did you mention it lol

[elfin heron]

Because it would be directly competing with GC

[carmine folio]

No it wouldn't

[elfin heron]

Players want proper combined arms shit now which is what squad offers

[carmine folio]

💀

[elfin heron]

BF2 is incredibly seperate

[carmine folio]

How are you speaking for an entire fanbase

lol

[elfin heron]

I am the fanbase

That's me

[carmine folio]

BF3 wasn't going to have combined arms styled gameplay, but everyone still wanted/wants it

[whole silo]

You are <1% of the fanbase...

[crimson ingot]

i am the senate
you guys are slowly going offtopic

[carmine folio]

Lol

[elfin heron]

???

Yes it was???

Ground to space combat???

[vivid wave]

Excuse me, why we're talking about BF?

[carmine folio]

Squad isn't ground to space

LOL

[crimson ingot]

Battlefront

[whole silo]

It stemmed from an IP_rights conversation about star wars mods and Disney's TOS

[elfin heron]

Because GC would compete with it and disney would take it down if they were releasing another BF title 🙃

[carmine folio]

[elfin heron]

My point has been derailed massively about the aspects of both games though lul

[vivid wave]

Then stop please, try not to be too offtopic

[plain rivet]

Can’t figure out if this is IP talk or GC talk

It’s all over the place

[elfin heron]

who knows

[pliant oar]

don't spill fairy tales, i'm still waiting for those emails

also there is one factor you seems to overlook, what if those who run the service / workshop do not want any problematic content in first place

that last thing someone want is his platform to be associated with 'w/e' shady and stolen

like what what comes to your mind as first when someone mentions turbosquid and cgtrader ? (don't asnwer if you not at least 10 years in industry)

[glad coral]

Depends on the license you’re buying or downloading from doesn’t it

[rustic copper]

tbf... no need to be in the industry for +10 years to know what is shady and what not... common sense is required though...

And Dwarden, perhaps just make it simple for everyone: "we don't care about what you think the license, laws, your lawyer says... we, as BI and the community, don't want it in our platform". Solves a lot of problems and discussions

[glad coral]

Spite is a good motivator.

[atomic edge]

No problem with Halo (you just need to make your own models 👍)

[rustic copper]

This also means "if we don't make money because of it", so having Disney content in a non-Disney game means they won't get money for it if people buy Arma for the modded content.

And it also says that you give them full rights of your content (7B, par2), which for example is not compatible with any license you put on the created content and is not compatible with the Steam Workshop EULA.

[somber topaz]

gonna model mickey mouse and upload it to the workshop goodluck finding me disney

[rustic copper]

Same applies to most game content licenses, they are simply not compatible with anything other than using it within their own games or non-game environments

[whole silo]

When you buy Arma you buy a platform not the mods the platform supports...

[somber topaz]

well you could argue for the DLC

[whole silo]

If it was dlc then sure. But we aren't talking dlc.

We are talking about making Star wars mods for Arma.

[rustic copper]

Star Wars is a trademark, so not allowed to be even named or made to look like without explicit permission...

[whole silo]

In that capacity it's valid. I don't buy Arma specifically for a mod and I highly doubt that anyone bought it for any one particular mod out of all the mods on the workshop.

It's owned by Disney therefore falls under there TOS.

[somber topaz]

did arma shut down the star wars mod again

[whole silo]

No.

Not to my knowledge at least.

[rustic copper]

BI did do a big ban round on the Workshop for illegal content, so a lot of mods got removed and creators banned from publishing on the Workshop

[whole silo]

Which is fair if the content of those mods was violating an ip

Original star wars mods don't break an ip

That means the creators of said mods 100% made the models and textures and didn't rip them.

[rustic copper]

Which still breaks trademark laws, and those are a bit more aggressive than copyright laws.

And reading a TOS/EULA/License in a way which fits your needs is not the way to go... Or random people on the internet who claim they can read...
Either ask permission, or have an IP lawyer which can tell you what is and isn't allowed...

[whole silo]

It doesn't.

And I didn't.

It's called legal interpretation.

[rustic copper]

good luck in court with that...

[whole silo]

Each person and court will have it's own opinions on how to interpret laws and legal documents.

[manic laurel]

No, and now let's not pretend on this server that laws are random and anyone can do whatever they want.
Or that's the door; I'm tired of seeing again and again the same chat in here

[rustic copper]

I guess a the following list is a good start in case people are wondering: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Intellectual_Property#Other_Intellectual_Properties
(not a legal reference)

[muted grove]

No? Like, not at all?

The license you give disney is a non exclusive license, has nothing to do with what you license it as in the workshop.

Multiple licenses can coexist if they do not interact with each other what so ever.

[rustic copper]

By default Disney adds a license to your content, which can't be changed to another license. And eg. Valve requires you to give full permissions and adds their own license to your content... which is not compatible

by default sublicensing is not allowed, so the only way to get around that is by getting a custom license

[muted grove]

Where do you see any of this?

[rustic copper]

https://disneytermsofuse.com/english/ 2.A

[muted grove]

Can you be any more specific than gesturing at vague portions of the license?

Because what you just referenced, is the consumer license, not the user generated content license.

[rustic copper]

it applies to everything related to Disney

[muted grove]

Yes, except for the fact that it does not apply to the user generated content, because it's for the consumption of the content.

"To the extent that we authorize you to create, post, upload, distribute, publicly display or publicly perform User Generated Content that requires the use of our copyrighted works, we grant you a non-exclusive license to create a derivative work using the specifically referenced copyrighted works as required for the sole purpose of creating such a work, provided that such license shall be conditioned upon your assignment to us of all rights worldwide in the work you create for the duration of copyright in the User Generated Content, in all formats and media known or unknown to date, including for use on Disney Products and on third party sites and platforms. If such rights are not assigned to us, your license to create derivative works using our copyrighted works shall be null and void."

"we grant you a non-exclusive license to create a derivative work using the specifically referenced copyrighted works as required for the sole purpose of creating such a work"

[rustic copper]

but as Lou already said, it's useless to discuss because in the end it's not allowed... and we don't have to go into loops for years...

which is already case...

not to mention, this is the wrong channel for this... #other_ip_topics is the correct place when it's not about BI IP's

[muted grove]

It's not the wrong channel?

Literally in regards to star wars mods on the workshop

This is reminding me an awful lot of the time you all insisted that the steam workshop agreement 6a/b said no one but the original author could be the uploader of content on the workshop, even if they had express permission from the author to do so, and steam came back and said you were all fundamentally wrong.

Sorry, 6.D, not A/B, though D does apply to both A/B

[rustic copper]

Where and when did Valve come back to that? And to who?
Because I follow this channel a lot and have never seen any official statement about it

[muted grove]

Someone emailed steam about a clarification and posted it here.

[brisk ember]

I'm not sure when anyone said you can't upload content even with permission from the (original) creator

[muted grove]

It was a long held BI belief until about half a year ago when a bunch of people told them their interpretation was fundamentally flawed.

[next osprey]

@thorny lance 😉

[thorny lance]

😉

[rustic copper]

Steam/Valve says that you are not allowed to upload content when you don't have the full rights to do so, so if you don't have permission from the original creator it's not allowed (which always has been the rule within the community). Same applies to content for which you don't own or control the rights of copyright, trademarks, patents or IP.

So if you have permission to (re-)upload content, no one will say a thing about it. Problem is most people do not have permission and can't provide actual proof that they have.

[brisk ember]

Much better explanation that

[crimson ingot]

P.S Dwarden still waiting for that email

[muted grove]

Ok so how about you don't strawman me and twist what I'm saying?

I never said, under any circumstance that I was talking about if you DIDN'T have permission, I expressly, /explicitly/ said, if you had permission from the original author, steams agreement does /NOT/ prevent you from uploading the work. They do not need to be listed as a contributor or creator in the contributor segment of the workshop, unless that author make that a requirement for you uploading it.

[rustic copper]

If you have full rights to the content from the creator, no problem (either by Steam / Valve or by BI / community). Never been different

[muted grove]

A screenshot of that email with steams clarification was posted, just spent half an hour trying to dig it up.

[muted grove]

Except BI's interpretation used to be just that#ip_rights_violations message

[molten kraken]

#ip_rights_violations message

You looking for this @muted grove ?

[muted grove]

Yeah

That's why I glossed over that

I was looking for the image not a code block xD

[molten kraken]

Screenshot deleted

[rustic copper]

Reuploads... Meaning you don't have the rights of the content (aka no permission)

I've got an Arma 3 mod released on the Steam Workshop which contains models and textures made by someone else, but I have explicit permission from him to modify his mod and (re-)upload his creations to the Workshop. And if BI (or moderators) would like to see proof of that I can provide it.
And even Dedmen has a re-upload on the Workshop called TFAR Beta (which is not the same as the old TFAR mod), for which he has all rights and permissions.

[brisk ember]

I somehow doubt Dedmen meant to imply that even if your rights to the content are in order you can't upload it

[muted grove]

Can you please, stop strawmanning me?

Reuploads doesn't automatically mean you don't have rights from the author to reupload. Some authors do permit it, we're not talking in the slightest bit here about any cases where you do not have permission to upload something.

[rustic copper]

If you give a false statement I correct you.

[brisk ember]

You both agree on this, why is there still a discussion going 😛

[muted grove]

Literally, look throughout this channel, pre the email from valve, it was BI's stance that all reuploads, or uploads from non original authors were against the steam subscriber agreement, regardless if they had all the necessary permissions or not.

[brisk ember]

Why are we looking at 5 year old statements tho

[muted grove]

Because that was the quickest one I could find describing the example.

[brisk ember]

dedmen wasn't even in BI at that point iirc

[muted grove]

It was policy until last year?

[molten kraken]

Because people doesn't learn from history?

[molten kraken]

Same goes for rippers?

[muted grove]

Anywho, my point is, just because one thing has been held as a truth for a long time, does not mean it's correct, hence forth we discuss, especially when new evidence is provided, the disney agreement link is one such thing.

[brisk ember]

Because the person who made that statement wasn't a BI employee in 2017?

[rustic copper]

I've been in this Discord since the start, and part of the community since Arma 2... And I never heard anything else than "if you have permission, no one cares", the statement by Dedmen in that specific case was about reuploads of random mods by random people, and he pointed out the fact that you needed the right/permission to upload content.

[brisk ember]

Feels a bit out of context with just the statement from dedmen

[rustic copper]

well, context is everything

[molten kraken]

message links up above @brisk ember

[brisk ember]

Are we talking about the link on the 2017 message from dedmen or the one from RKSL?

[muted grove]

Let me go dig up the half dozen other examples then

[molten kraken]

both, since one led to the other

[brisk ember]

Because I find a statement from someone on a different context at a time where they aren't BI employee a very odd ground to justify saying it was company policy

[brisk ember]

Those comments are 4 years apart

[rustic copper]

@muted grove It's funny that even last you had the exact same "discussion" with the exact same outcome, and still try to make a point which doesn't exist... And I'm sure I can go further back to see the same happening over and over again...

[brisk ember]

How is one directly cause for the second?

[muted grove]

Iirc Dedmen was part of BI when that conversation took place.

[brisk ember]

Eh @soft egret could you confirm this? We're a bit confused

[muted grove]

#ip_rights_violations message
#ip_rights_violations message
#ip_rights_violations message

[molten kraken]

Sorry, it's not the message from Dedmen (2017) specifically that led to RKSL Rock (2021) asking for clarification, but the same kind of message and misinterpretation of the clause given in Dedmen message

[brisk ember]

ah ok

[muted grove]

Both Dedmen and Lou holding that position

Pre Steam correcting them

#ip_rights_violations message

This btw

Is what Steam said it was, which is what I was saying it was all along.

[brisk ember]

Alright alright, but what is the point of the discussion again? Two employees had their interpretation corrected, but does that make something company policy?

[crimson ingot]

let people enjoy saturday morning

oh wait its somewhere at 5 pm in eu

[brisk ember]

UK only I think

Rest is 6pm or later

[elfin heron]

1645 here

[muted grove]

Anywho, I'm not going to beat that old horse, my point with it was that you seem to get entrenched in ideas, truths and other interpretations as if they can't be false, or change over time @rustic copper, this entire cycle started back up again when someone pointed out disney's actual terms, which is somehow, frankly harder to understand than an old english book from the 1600's.

[molten kraken]

From this point and onward I guess?
#ip_rights_violations message

[elfin heron]

That's intentional on their part lol

Disney always want to be able to sue people if they want

Never close a door to money seems ro be their viewpoint 🤷‍♀️

[molten kraken]

why would you do that?

[brisk ember]

Seems to be going very off-topic then 😛

[muted grove]

The latest dent in that license that I've been trying to understand is this "B. User Generated Content. The Disney Products may ask for or allow you to communicate, "

[pliant oar]

best to invest into your own universe and lore, if it's successful, you can always sell it to Disney later 🤣

[muted grove]

Which seems to indicate that they must grant you that section of the license on a per case basis?

[elfin heron]

So that your community doesn't utterly hate you and almost all of the content you make for that franchise

[muted grove]

Truth!

[elfin heron]

Dward troopers

[molten kraken]

Real advice here

[molten kraken]

straw-men fighting tends to go "off-topic" yes

[elfin heron]

Dwoopers

[brisk ember]

I see, fair enough

[muted grove]

Dwoopers is filmed on location with men and women of law enforcement, all suspects are guilty until proven innocent, these are their bloopers.

[brisk ember]

Dwoopers Academy

[rustic copper]

off-topic? #rules

[brisk ember]

yes officer sorry officer

[molten kraken]

Rock woke up to the current shit-fest and is going to drop a paragraph again to straighten things up

[chilly silo]

So to throw another match on the Star Wars fire.

Not that its hugely relevant, I had an interview in Paris with Disney on Friday. (Nothing to do with games or IP but Process Engineering) Friday I had lunch with two of their execs and one of their managers.

NOW THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART - THEY WERE NOT LEGAL TEAM MEMBERS.
However one of the people was a former Disney brand manager that dealt exclusively with licensing.

While making small talk I asked the question about Disney's policy on Mods. No one at that table could officially comment. Her response was interesting.

1. She said that no matter what Disney IP product line you choose, Star Wars, Mickey etc Disney reserve the right to claim your product/mod/content/story etc if they so choose. its in their licensing terms and fan/community guidelines..
2. In her experience Disney would never allow a derivative product based on their existing product/models (ie content ripped or ported) to be released.
3. Typically 100% Fan made content (ie uses zero asset content made by Disney or their licensed partners) is tolerated as a gesture of good will in the spirit or the community and the IP. But only up until it competes with an established product.
4. Content that does not use their branding or logos is likely to be less of a concern as Trademark cases are far easier to prosecute than "Copyright" infringements.
5. If any "fan-made" content damages the image or perception of the brand in anyway Disney would typically take legal action.
6. She was aware of Star Wars mods being taken down by Disney for computer games but did not know the details.

When I asked about contacts she just suggested using the main Disney legal contact info on the main website and ask for a specific contact for the IP and licensing for that product. As each product type (eg physical merchandise, apparel and computer games etc) all have different usage terms and are subject to different licenses. Each with regional variations. But she also said the majority of Star Wars computer games are subject to licence enforcement by the publishers and game studios themselves and not Disney.

So its best to look at the specific product licences rather than the global Disney terms or service. However both Disney's and the Publishers terms of service for the affected product will apply.

Bottom line its complicated.

• Making anything that uses content (eg sounds, models and textures etc) from any Disney or Partners is not tolerated.
• Trying to interpret Disney's global licence for every scenario isn't going to work. The Creating studio and publisher are the best first choice. They pay Disney for a licence. Making a derivative of their product is their concern. Disney is not likely to be interested unless you ruin the image of their brand. So for example, you rip Star Wars Battlefield. You need to be asking EA for permission not Disney.

[chilly silo]

I havent actually read the last few days posts. Ive just sat down to write a few updates for the "Practical Guide to IP website." Give me some time and ill have a read and reply if there's anything interesting to add.

[molten kraken]

So without reading you already started to reply to them

[chilly silo]

I was just adding new info on the Disney drama from the last few days. Nothing specific from Friday or Today

[rustic copper]

Basically not new, other than confirmation (by non-legal employees) to common sense.

[chilly silo]

Id argue its informed common sense from someone that knows a hell of a lot more about Disney's IP and Licensing terms than everybody here.

[elfin heron]

This is the issue -- when star wars mod developers (NOT rippers) do try contact the legal team, afaik they either:

• never get a response
• get generic copy paste bullshit
  so the end result is they just shrug and do it anyway and appreciate that disney and such may come and bite their ass at a moments notice.

I should clarify I'm not a star wars mod developer -- I'm purely going off what I recall from memories which may be incorrect ^

Ripping is only done by a small subset of the starsim community however it is often the most publically seen (Sorensic steel etc using SWOP) so ends up giving the entire community a reputation that is hard to escape (that being that 'everybody' is chill using ripped content, which is just incorrect)

[muted grove]

Thank you for doing all that btw.

Having someone clarify the licenses and what they're about makes it a lot easier for everyone else.

[chilly silo]

Yeah i get that. And I wish it would be different.

But the problem is i don't think anyone at Disney wants to be the one to make a policy decision on their own. No one wants to be the one to set a precedent that could come back and bite them in the arse.

Until a mod developer actually gets to talk with the legal team I don't think we'll ever get an answer.
But the important part i got from this conversation was not that.

it was that Disney isn't the one responsible for the models and assets being ripped from the games. its the developer and publisher. So its not Disney's global policy that's controlling this. its the games EULA and you should be talking to the Publisher and worrying about their terms.

[chilly silo]

To be honest it saved my arse and made for a more interesting lunch. There not a lot of fun in Continuous Improvement methodology. But talking about IP and Licensing made for a very animated chat.

[vestal hazel]

Yo quick questions about the A3 samples stuff. Are we allowed to reupload anything from there into a pbo on the workshop?

I.e anything in samples like the weapons or character.

[chilly silo]

Dear doggy you lot can really post.... you are going to have to let me catch up.

[molten kraken]

What?

[vestal hazel]

So conclusion then is, without approval, star wars mods even if they have their own art are generally speaking not allowed.

[elfin heron]

Yeah, it's understandable on an employee level but not really on a company level

The main confusion in the starsim community right now is whether "home-made" mods are allowed or not -- keyword being made, not ripped. From what you've shared on point 3, I'd imagine Disney are okay with it -- it's not exactly like they have a milsim game out there lol -- though is still not legally binding which is what the majority of people are concerned about what with BI not wanting any liability for any IP infringements.

I'm unaware of any starsim mod creators who don't think that they are completely immune from being sent a C&D at the least, and are totally aware that they cannot monetise it either afaik and I've seen no examples of this, however I am aware there's been a handful of units doing helmet textures etc for monetary exchange which one of the main mods doesn't allow in their own terms of use to cover their ass in that regard.

Honestly now SWOP is gone I hope people will shift to mods without ripped content as not only does it bring the community closer together but also gives a better reputation though that's just wishful thinking -- pros of ripping regardless of how you look at it are you don't have to put in very much effort to get tons of content out, which is why people liked SWOP -- it had tons of sci-fi content, especially props (which are considered to be the boring stuff) which filled a niche nobody else fills

[elfin heron]

What? Ripped content is not. Read point 3

[vestal hazel]

im not talking about ripped content

[elfin heron]

Yeah read point 3

[vestal hazel]

oh I read that as "not tolerated".

well yeah that's what I've been saying over the last few days. Seems like Disney tolerates fan art projects

case in point that Darth Maul YT fan film with 36m views

or Galactic Contention with 140k subs/users

[elfin heron]

I never really used SWOP myself as it bloated load times tons -- considering getting into making the props and shit that is missing from most starsim mods which turns people to stuff like ripping

[chilly silo]

The conclusions I drew from that particular conversation and my own understanding of Disney's IP policy. And EA's licenses are:

1. Mods that use model/textures/sounds/assets etc that are ripped/ported/take/translated/transplanted from a Licensed game are Illegal and go against Disney and EA's polices regardless of what the Disney Community Guidelines may imply.
2. Agreement less use of The Star Wars IP/branding etc is not allowed without a clear statement from BOTH Disney and related developers and publishers. - This is more about modding an original game ie making a model for SW Battlefield and NOT about porting content from that game too Arma - see point 1 for that
3. Making a mod with 100% your own hand made models and content will likely be tolerated and overlooked if you do not use any of the Star Wars branding or trademarks.
4. The licensing for the SW IP is horribly complex and in the specifics of video games the Publisher's licence will trump any of Disney's Community/Fandom Guidelines.
5. Writing fan fiction or making a SW themed costume or one or two off replica props is not the same as making a mod that is going to potentially compete with a licensed product.

eg: Star Wars Battlefield vs insert "Star Wars themed Arma mod" of your choice.

I don't think I'm saying anything new or controversial. To me this is common sense. But from the bits i've read so far on here in the last few days. The removal of any mods using ripped game content would seem to be inline with EA and Disney licensing not to mention ethical and "moral rights" etc.

I can't comment on whether or not any mods were using ripped content. But if they were I doubt any publisher or Disney would want them to be publicly available.

As for moderation choices here and on the steam workshop. Its BI's house. Their Rules apply in their domain.

[chilly silo]

The main confusion in the starsim community right now is whether "home-made" mods are allowed or not -- keyword being made, not ripped. From what you've shared on point 3, I'd imagine Disney are okay with it -- it's not exactly like they have a milsim game out there lol
But EA does have SW Battlefield. A licensed long running product that makes them millions.

[elfin heron]

Battlefront has been discontinued yet again

It's been announced battlefront 3 is not going to be produced in the near future

Also battlefront and arma are very different from my perspective of being a player of both - similar to battlefield and armas differences imo, barely anybody plays battlefront first person for instance, it's never particularly been considered to be an FPS

Do you have any further info as to what is meant by star wars branding or trademarks btw

Like not pretending you're officially affiliated with disney/star wars franchise etc?

[chilly silo]

I'm not in a position to make policy statements for Disney or EA. But the game is still for sale and its still a licensable product from which Disney can make money from so I wouldnt be surprised if Disney would get upset about it.

I dont know but logically SW mods are a potential competitor for any SW themed FPS shooter etc

And the terms of the licenses and community guidelines are very grey about where mods would fall. I think its better to err on the side of caution myself.

But im not a SW player or SW mod developer

[chilly silo]

Sorry was looking at the amount of posts since i last looked on here on Thursday night. insane amount of posts

[elfin heron]

I cant personally see BF2 being considered a competitor for any Arma mods -- galactic contention would spring to mind first and even then you can buy BF2 off sites like G2A for literal pennies (like I did).

Honestly the only SW FPS we have out there is Republic Commando which was made in the noughties if memory serves me correct -- hardly a competitor but that's my opinion which will almost certainly be called incorrect by somebody

Yeah, I mean I'm not making any of these mods and such so it's not that much of an issue for me, just interesting to discuss and such

[chilly silo]

I dont think the age of the game matters in legal terms. its about the IP rights and potential sales. Is Disney willing to tolerate mods for other people's games? Does another Studio (EA or someone else) want to create another Tactical Sim/FPS game there could be in competition with a free mod. Disney make a tonne of money selling licenses to the Star Wars IP. Logically, having something like Star Sim out there for free kind of undermines that business model don't you think?

My interpretation of the EULA and experience suggests so but I dont have an answer from Disney about that so like everyone else here I am only guessing. But the more i learn about it. The less I think it would be tolerated if Disney was aware of it or wanted it gone. Only my opinion but i'm just following the logic.

[elfin heron]

Yeah, I know -- I'm talking about sales too there. Republic Commando is the only game in that niche, and is so old that in my mind if disney wanted to put something else in that niche they would've announced something by now. If they were to start working on an FPS or similar then I'd be thinking differently, but there's nothing to suggest that's being worked on.

Makes sense, tearing about while leaving it unclear whether your unofficial mod is unofficial or not is generally a bad idea regardless

[whole silo]

I think as long as it's not derogatory and it's not ripped in any way shape or form Disney is ok with it.

[rustic copper]

but other companies may not (like EA), because they paid a lot of money to be able to use licensed materials...

[chilly silo]

I dont think we can guess what Disney's plans are.

I got the impression that "shooters" were in a grey area with Disney's "Family Friendly" first polices. But if there is money to be made and the right developer and publisher comes along the policy may change. I dont know

[whole silo]

Yes but at the same time EA doesn't own the star wars IP

They bought a license to use the IP

[elfin heron]

At this point yeah tbh with the revan remake 💀

Eh, modern star wars media would leave that in doubt -- Jedi Fallen Order has limb removal, Kenobi had a stormtrooper cut in two and a child nearly get tortured so eh.

Either way no point really guessing

[chilly silo]

Do you have any further info as to what is meant by star wars branding or trademarks btw
Sorry missed this in the wall of text and rush to reply.

Again my understanding is anything that Disney/Lucasarts have created to convey an association with the Star War universe. So logos, fonts, unique styles of branding etc.

Its a dodgy area because so much of this is about Trademarks - which has to be registered. But the rest of it is about Copyright and the Moral Rights of the creators to protect their creations so if can be almost anything that can be said to be uniquely Star Wars.

[whole sedge]

If Lucas arts/ Disney likes the fan art they'll just steal it

[elfin heron]

This becomes an issue when they've used clone troopers and storm troopers and such on their branding. Just made to be deliberately vague thanks to lobbying from what I understand

[rustic copper]

If Lucas arts/ Disney likes the fan art they'll just steal it own it
fixed it for you 😉

[whole sedge]

Nah I had it right the first time

[chilly silo]

I get exactly what you are saying. But what i'm hinting at is with the rise in mass shooting incidents in the US and with the social and political divide in the US I think Disney may want to keep their products out of that arena.

The TV shows are another topic. The TV shows are seen as something less controversial as allowing a pre-teen to commit atrocities in a virtual world etc.

But with this line of discussion we are now on another topic than IP.

[elfin heron]

Yeah, that's true -- probably why they've not released star wars nerf guns in a hot minute too afaik

[chilly silo]

Well my understanding is that Anything in the official Star Wars universe is now protected. Shapes of speeders, light sabre designs, suits, logos, fonts etc.

I saw someone reference the Prop Replica case about the guy who made the original Star Wars Armour. That's hugely complicated and I'll be honest if that case was tried today I don't think he would have won. I think the way that Star Wars has saturated world culture that almost anyone in the world would now say that is a uniquely a star wars thing.

But from the info i do have about SW properties and cases the shape of clone troopers etc are now protected in certain product categories for "trademark" use. eg Licensed toys and books. TV shows, cartoons etc. Fan-made mods maybe a grey area but its a hard call as its usually up to the court's understanding of the product on the day.

[muted grove]

Are we even talking about the same company? Did anyone miss Deadpool? In all seriousness, it would be nice if they just outright allowed all non commercial fan art in accordance with their normal rules, worst case for them financially? They monetize it.

[elfin heron]

Yeah, deliberate obscurity about protection in that regard just seems to be a way of letting the company dick over fans and such but oh well. 🤷‍♀️

[whole silo]

So I can see how that can go both ways... The way the models are made in arma is a very in depth process and each model is in itself unique in it's own way... So it could be argued that even though it looks the same, it actually isn't...

[elfin heron]

Marvel has almost always been targeted at older age groups though. Star wars is a noble story about the son of a fallen knight who seeks to bring redemption to him and they all live happily ever after except he dies -- different franchises have different audiences and star wars is... aimed at younger ones, hence star wars visions and such

[whole silo]

Star wars is aimed at everyone... Not just kids.

[muted grove]

Episode 3, arms cut off left and right, I don't see that as any different from Deadpool, but that's getting off topic.

[elfin heron]

I suspect the reason Kenobi was able to have children getting killed onscene was because it was aimed at people who watched kenobi in the prequels when they were kids -- who are now much older

[elfin heron]

With very little blood and gore, just seperation of limb from person with some heat

[muted grove]

Anyways, going back to the IP, it would be really neat if someone was able to get a star wars licensed cDLC going.

[elfin heron]

Would almost never happen

Disney's copyright team would actually have to respond to emails and the license just wouldn't be happening

[whole silo]

I doubt they'd allow that anyways

[elfin heron]

It'd also likely result in the death of free SW mods, as going back to what rock said they would be in direct competition with it

[whole silo]

Mmmm yes and no... Not entirely anyways... If the cDLC openly allowed use of the spp files for retexture then one could argue that you could in theory have custom armor mods.

Which wouldn't be pulling profits

[elfin heron]

You can have that anyway as is

[whole silo]

Most mod authors don't allow 3d texturing...

[elfin heron]

cDLC would kill off people who do crazy shit like making walkers and all that cool shit

[elfin heron]

Ok but starsim ones do

[whole silo]

Not all of them

[elfin heron]

Almost all of them

[whole silo]

Incorrect...

They allow 2d texturing

[elfin heron]

I literally do this dude

[whole silo]

So do I

[elfin heron]

Then maybe start getting more informed 🙃🙃🙃

[whole silo]

I am actually...

[elfin heron]

Then you'd know most of them allow 3d texturing

[whole silo]

:l

[chilly silo]

You are kinda missing the point and a bit of context.

Deadpool/Obi Wan/Rogue One /<insert any other movie here> are guided stories that you watch and do not actively participate in.

where as in the eyes of the press and the law makers in the US computer games are allow you to commit crimes and other acts in a virtual world that some believe will encourage your to do the same in the real world. Recent school shooter recreated and practiced his killing spree in a custom made quake level and so on.

[chilly silo]

That's more about ensuring they get to pick and choose their fights. its a common practice in my experience. It doesn't rule out any options later and it is allowed under law.

[elfin heron]

Yeah, I know and it makes sense financially -- doesn't mean it's any less dicky though

[chilly silo]

Actually no in the case of Trademarked items it really cant.

You can make an artistic representation of Luke's speeder. That's fine, Its your model. But its Disney/Lucas Film's design.

You use the Official Star Wars Logo and any other branding and that's misuse of a registered trademark.

You can also make derivatives of a design of that speeder eg remove one of the pods, add guns, add 4 more pods etc and that's OK too. But add a racist logo or word on it then you are in contravention of their EULA and Community policies.

[chilly silo]

I know what you mean but its the law so we either accept it or lobby to change it.

[elfin heron]

Yup, though disney appear to have a fair amount of say over copyright law so little can be done worldwide sadly

[chilly silo]

There should be a license files with each of the downloads. But different "samples" may have different license terms - best to check.
Info here https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/licensed-data-packages

[carmine folio]

True

[delicate hamlet]

So this mean that even if Disney do not actively pursue any of the mods that are not ripped content, BI and Steam still have the power to take those down due to the user not having a legal document stablishing the explicit licensing, right?

[carmine folio]

Yeah

[delicate hamlet]

If this is the case, a lot of ppl will not be happy, but atleast it would clarify the exact concrete reason as why it is being done

[carmine folio]

But steam has only acted on the behalf of the devs when it comes to removing that content

There's lots of Star Wars mod on the workshop, that haven't been taken down by just steam

[faint nacelle]

I think the difference and unique position of that case was that the dude actually made the original movie props wasnt it? And then continued to produce same props and sell them and there was some contractual controversy or something like that. So that case does not really apply to any other where someone makes a copy of a star wars design.

only ones who could be in same position would be the companies that make the movie props today