other_ip_topics

[shell scaffold]

why does it say that SCP its not Agreement-less usage? https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Intellectual_Property

[meager fractal]

because the license is super open and states content should be released under the same license, and publishing on the Steam Workshop restricts a part of it AFAIK

[shell scaffold]

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

the only thing that I could find that is not allowed to use is a old outdated character

I found something talking about such. the only problem with workshop content is not attributing the original authors.

[graceful hill]

scp is kind of entering "kleenex territory". They only have their name and existing scps that they "own" If I was going to make an SCP game, I would make a game that in all ways had the "heart and soul" of SCP. Just never calling it "scp" They certainly don't own the idea of "mysterious government agency investigates paranomal things" They don't own the idea of "story information delivered through documents" So if you made a game that was really SCP like, people would probably call it an "scp game" and as long as you yourself don't call it scp then it just is what it is.

like how "kleenex" is a specific brand name but people use it as a general term now. Same with "Band-Aid"

[south remnant]

i think the closest analogy is probably hoover rather than kleenex or band-aid

though i feel this is probably more region dependent

[twin mauve]

If I get permission to use an ip can I make a mod or does bohemia not allow shit cause I been struggling to find a clear answer and I don't really understand all this

[vast stump]

If you have permission then no problem

[hardy bone]

Just remember to keep a written version of the agreement

[inland sphinx]

And/Or screenshots, definitely have proof ready

[twin mauve]

Ok cool

[hollow harness]

true

[vast stump]

this belongs to #other_games_chat

[shell scaffold]

sorry, wrong channel

[frozen jackal]

so? report this to BI, this is not a reporting channel

hmm actually dcription says these are from BF3, I know how A2toCUP humvees look like and they are different to what is here.

[vast stump]

looks like its not indeed arma related and could be best to not post links to known rip sites like that

you can report that to EA though if youlike

[mossy yarrow]

The Stretches, Tent toll and Red Flag Decal are all A2.

[frozen jackal]

then report this to BI, there is a mail pinned in #ip_rights_violations

[fading linden]

Is it Possible to see what which license the user uploaded it to the Arma Reforger workshop?

[zealous ore]

if no license present, most strict one should be presumed

[fading linden]

is there still a way to see what they use or not?

[meager fractal]

there seems not to be any UI info

https://reforger.armaplatform.com/eula

For the benefit of the entire User community, You give us an irrevocable permission to use, copy, modify and adapt anything You create using Our game and share with other Users of Our game in multiplayer or as an online download. You also agree that We allow other people to use, copy, modify and adapt Your content under the terms of this license.

. . . I dislike this

[zealous ore]

i asked bi legal. each mod can use whatever license the author deems necessary

[meager fractal]

this license text rework is long overdue!

[fading linden]

Will there be a ui for it soon Or Not?

[abstract crest]

Funnily many ripping others' IP in the DayZ workshop use the similar statement in the DayZ EULA to justify their doing so, effectively saying "BI said we could"...

[meager fractal]

for now, if it is not written explicitly in the mod description, there is no license info — I have no other info about it

[inland sphinx]

Is that stuff STILL not fixed?

Gears sure are turning at...... a speed..

[abstract crest]

Will it be fixed? DZSA has the same clause...

[inland sphinx]

Well I thought so

But apparently not all people think so

[abstract crest]

As I mentioned, in the DZSA community rippers use the fact that that clause exists as a justification, claiming erroneously that no one owns their own IP LOL. They have recently been trying to use that to justify ripping Taviana again, despite the fact that even if it did mean what they think (it doesn't), ARMA 2 (and 3) do not have such a clause (they assume that they do...)

[inland sphinx]

Its news to me that reforger just copied that from DayZ apparently.
Should push the DayZ community managers a bit too then

[abstract crest]

Yeah, DZSA's is: ```If You create any content ("content") using the game or make it available through the game, You may do so, but there are rules.

• This content must not infringe anyone's copyrights or author rights, it must not be offensive to people or illegal in any
  other way.
• For the benefit of the entire User community, You give us an irrevocable permission to use, copy, modify and adapt anything You create using Our game and share with other Users of Our game in multiplayer or as an online download (including but not limited to in-game objects or terrain composition). You also agree that We allow other people to use, copy, modify and adapt Your content under the terms of this license.```

Remember when ARMA modders quit after the move to Steam Workshop and the clause there about IP ownership? 🙂

Interestingly, they are probably not talking about mods in this clause, rather missions and compositions, but if it remains then the language should be tightened up. After all, mods are covered by the Tools EULA and the variety of APL, DPL, etc. licenses. But bad actors in the community have been trying to persuade the wider community that they are doing nothing wrong by only focusing on the game's EULA. Fascinating spaghetti logic, but annoying nevertheless.

[potent moat]

Wait so you can't copy other mods in Reforger with e.g. APL-ND but then you can cause the "You also agree that We allow other people to use, copy, modify and adapt Your content under the terms of this license."?

[celest sundial]

As I said when this originally surfaced - they secure the rights to do so - they do not automatically give third parties any additional rights that you as mod maker were not expecting them to have. They just could if they had a reason for that. This is because they share your files via their workshop (or steam workshop for that matter). And they want rights to e.g. use your mod in promotional material. They need to change the wording to make this more clear - and maybe not have a typo in it (we must be lower case).

The clause

You also agree that We allow other people to use, copy, modify and adapt Your content under the terms of this license.
does explicitly not state "redistribute". So yes I can download your mod, and change it if I want to, but this licenses DOES NOT grant me permission to share that again anywhere.

But is is easy to understand this differently if you have no legal background and are not used to how literal something like an EULA has to be read. It would help if BI explained it in more common terms to people - or if they made the eula lile 4 sentences longer to make their scope more clear 🙂

[inland sphinx]

" We allow other people to "
Should really have been
" We can allow other people to "
or
" We may allow other people to "

That change recommendation has been brought up a year ago and nothing happened since then

[fresh nimbus]

I'm curious after reading the EULA and all that jazz about the IP stuff mainly about the Star Wars section, isn't the main reason no one could "legally" do mods/games because EA had exclusive rights to the name until this year? So with that ending wouldn't people be allowed to make Star Wars mods since they wouldn't make money off of it and not have to worry about getting a Cease and desist, because from reading everything I didn't see anything say anything about mods of the sorts.

[vast stump]

No, Disney's own eula does not allow it, nothing to do with EA. You probably could make a licensing deal for a game now that EA does not have exclusivity.

Anyone wanting to do that would have to get green light from Disney, which nobody has managed to do.

(and even if someone did get it, it would very likely to be only for their project)

[fresh nimbus]

where does it say it for mods tho? like i said havent seen it stated anywhere about that

[abstract crest]

The point is that this statement is incorrect: "isn't the main reason no one could "legally" do mods/games because EA had exclusive rights to the name until this year?" Disney own the IP and they do not allow anyone to use their stuff without permission, doesn't matter that they licensed stuff to EA. In addition, whether EA still have exclusive rights or not, they still own the IP that they produced for the games, at least those not covered by Disney's IP rights...

[fresh nimbus]

So no matter what you're technically not allowed? So if I made a Star Wars mod for here would it get flagged/taken down? I mean theres already Star Wars mods out there that haven't been taken down even in ARMA 3

If it was truly a huge thing that they cared about wouldn't they take action about it?

[meager fractal]

you can obtain permission by asking

[fresh nimbus]

I doubt any mod authors previously got permission tho, so if I made a Star Wars mod would it be taken down or not is the real question?

[inland sphinx]

Car thief's also didn't get permission and are doing it anyways.
So that means it's fine.

That's not how the world works even if it would be nicer for some people.

If you want to be safe, you can ask them for permission.
Until then you're violating their trademark rights

[fresh nimbus]

I mean I haven't heard them going after people making mods so it's gotta be just as safe as asking for permission

[cursive sedge]

https://kotaku.com/star-wars-kotor-fan-remake-shutting-down-after-cease-a-1829720602

“Notwithstanding Poem Studios affection and enthusiasm for the Star Wars franchise and the original KOTOR game, we must object to any unlicensed use of Lucasfilm intellectual property,” reads Lucasfilm’s letter. It goes on to call Apeiron’s use of Star Wars characters, artwork, and images on its website and social media “infringing” and demands that 1) Star Wars materials are removed, 2) the Apeiron team ceases development and destroys its code, and 3) they don’t use any Lucasfilm properties in future games.

[graceful hill]

If they find out about it. Probably.

[fresh nimbus]

Excluding Empire at War mods (since that game is owned by Disney) the biggest games I've seen that has Star Wars mods would be Squad and ARMA 3 and those are all over the internet. Would be kinda hard for Disney not to notice them

[fresh nimbus]

That I've heard of but remembering correctly they were basically making a new game from the original in the new engine and not as a mod

[meager fractal]

the real question is why do you absolutely want to do something forbidden and ask for guarantees

ask for permission, when you have it you know you can work on it.
if you are asking for law/IP rights workarounds you won't find them here; we might also invite you to look at this server from the outside.

do the right thing, contact people. you already have the no, all you risk is a yes

[cursive sedge]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2900051266

DESCRIPTION

--Tavaiana map

--cus it got taken down

--iam not the creator

[graceful hill]

It is what it is. Disney is known for being a company that aggressively enforces their IP rights. The best answer anyone can give is that it will likely be taken down if it ends up on their radar. Projects like those are usually just cursed from the start. Sure some random person can make a star wars mod and Disney isn't just going to magically know about it. But if it starts getting cool and popular, that's when they will likely know about it. And when it's the most likely to be taken down.

Why work on a project where you know that the project being successful is the thing that will end up killing it. That's a cursed project if I've ever heard one.

[south remnant]

Who here emailed asking about galactic contention? Was curious what the response was as no way its not on disneys radar

[hardy bone]

my discord doesn't want to load further but somewhere around here:
#other_ip_topics message

[south remnant]

Ah was arkensor, expect he'll read this channel soon anyways

[celest sundial]

Never got a reply from general purpose contact or the individual email from that guy that previously responded to a similar inquiry. So no idea whats up with the squad mod. They do try to at least not mention starwars agressively anywhere, its just visually obviously starwards, but not trademark useage, only design patterns. maybe that is why disney does not care enough about it.

[south remnant]

My prediction was correct 😄

Possibly, though no response is certainly odd; it's not like not mentioning star wars etc is enough to keep Disney's lawyers at bay 🤔

Though the KOTOR fan remake getting shut down was due to it conflicting with an upcoming disney project; Arma is too niche of a market really, so may ask and see if I get any reply at all

[heavy gate]

The optimistic interpretation is that Disney is only enforcing trademark violations as far as they have to to not loose their rights to it. The pessimistic and probably more realistic interpretation consindering their fucked up stance on copyright is that a big company is slow and they're still drafting the cease and desist.

[south remnant]

they are 100% not that slow with how long galactic contention has been on the radar of most star wars fans

i get clips from it appearing on my instagram explore quite often and i've no interest in squad at all; its purely due to the SW content i consume on it

either way, interpretation doesn't matter

[fresh nimbus]

Their def not slow have you seen the lawsuit about the guys car that "looks to much like Lightning McQueen" that guy got hit pretty quickly

[fresh nimbus]

They honestly probably straight up don't care, it's not like they'll lose much of anything with the Squad/ARMA 3 Star Wars mods even tho they're pretty huge.

[vast stump]

you are free to make such assumption, but nobody here can confirm it for you or give you a go-ahead. You will also then bear the potential consequences if any ever come up. But if you end up starting one, help here stops since it is not IP owner sanctioned and we cant support that by helping in it either.

[fresh nimbus]

I don't really need someone's go ahead to do it, and I seriously doubt any consequences will happen while there is already Star Wars mods out there and I doubt BI would do anything since they haven't done anything about the ARMA 3 mod but I appreciate the heads up for when decides to do anything which won't come to fruition.

[vast stump]

well first off you might get kicked out of here for blatantly ignoring IP owners licensing. Might not mean anything to you but we do take that stuff seriously. Mainly because we have a lot of legit people who make their own stuff and deserve their rights to be protected too

[fresh nimbus]

You say that you take it seriously but still doesn't seem BI does care tho? ARMA 3 still has it's Star Wars mods even reforger has a Star Wars mod on it based off a character of the franchise.

[vast stump]

then you can report the mods and they will be reviewed once their tickets come up. There isnt really any active search since nobody has that kind of manpower

[potent moat]

Im still waiting for an answer (10 weeks now) from Disney to make a star wars mod

[twin mauve]

Gaw damn

[graceful hill]

If you have it all figured out then it is unclear why you continue to post about it.

[meager fractal]

he's been thrown out after trolling.

[abstract crest]

I guess that making money on Youtube by playing on a ripped ARMA 2 map in DZSA and advertising the server running a ripped map, encouraging people to play it, in violation of the APL license and demonstrably forbidden by the map maker is pretty acceptable now? 😦

[vast stump]

Probably is not accepted. Author should be able to dmca the video maybe?

[abstract crest]

Hmm, a "Veteran" here even retweeted a tweet linking to the video too. I'll give you one guess which map 😉

[vast stump]

Being veteran here does not always mean right things are done. Though it can be lost if enough shady business happens.
However handling of such things usually start from the author

[abstract crest]

Yeah, I messaged them

[glacial hull]

@vast stump Just out of curiously how do you detect ripped assets from other games

[vast stump]

Why does it matter?

[glacial hull]

just asking

[zealous ore]

kind of a weird question…each has his own methods

[frozen jackal]

we feed the Big AI with files and it returns personal data of rippers

[hollow harness]

good system

[lavish basalt]

“The AI rips our game!!!!”

[graceful hill]

lol what?

[fiery egret]

You didn't know? 🤨

[graceful hill]

AI isn't just some magic genie in a bottle. You can't just feed it files and have it spit out information that isn't there. And if the information is there...then you don't need AI to find it.

[abstract crest]

That's what they want you to think 🤣

[graceful hill]

I am "they"

[dark tulip]

Actually, that's exactly what current and next gen AI is doing.
Otherwise it's just a database

[graceful hill]

simply put, in the specific case, You can't feed it files and have it magically spit out personal information that you couldn't just locate in the file. That isn't a problem that Ai can solve.

There are already tools you can use to scan through files and pull out any interesting "information" it finds, even if it's some obscure stuff, no AI needed. just regular software

[rigid oracle]

Am I the only one that noticed honger's comment was a joke?

[abstract crest]

I think only one person didn't get it 🤣

I think the second person taking the conversation seriously never read the original comment. I think both didn't read the comments before that set up the joke... 😭

[dark tulip]

This channel is full of dumb comments and people who need education, so I did my part to solve that 😉

And honger wouldn't be wrong though, it would most certainly be possible to make an AI which could detect ripped content and match a database with the "creator" and their personal data.
Would be a lot of work to set up and train (and gain access to personal data), but technically very possible.

[hardy bone]

personal data crossing with the "creator" data would be, "at best" in the grey area of the law and at worst strictly illegal (depending on the means of acquisition)

[meager fractal]

aaanyway, back to the topic of this channel 😉

[graceful hill]

sorry for seeing how dumb they wanted to go with it. Sometimes you just have that morbid curiosity.

[zealous ore]

@rugged coral

A.) Bi has total ownership of Al workshop content and therefore 
B.) they say anyone can use anything another modder makes in their mod however an automatic dependency is made,  I’m sure there are complications with things like purchased assets and obviously you can’t extract a mods models and edit them in blender```
the premises is 100% false. BI does not own mods. It has been discussed yes, and also has been checked with BI legal. So nope

[rugged coral]

BI has some sort of responsibility for it at the least right?

As with any platform ownership

[zealous ore]

@storm dagger - if no license is present, then the strictest one applies

[zealous ore]

yes, to make sure the uploader respects their TOS

for the Nth time -> BI does not own content from 3rd party

RHS owns all RHS content, and RHS EULA 100% applies

[storm dagger]

If that's the case then why can't people have mods for things such as Star Wars? If BI has no legal hold over it

[zealous ore]

Because it breaks their workshop TOS, which is somewhat similar to Steam's (Valve's)

hence the recent heavy hammer of COD ripped content

1. you need to own the IP for the content that is uploaded (so you need to own the files)
2. you may not infringe on other's people's IPs (so you cannot use Disney own stuff - or other's)
3. you can use any existing (or make your own) EULA for the content you upload if 1 and 2 are correct

current RHS eula - CC BY-ND 4.0 is then possible.

[vast stump]

disneys IP and licensing applies too

[zealous ore]

same goes for other mods out there, so this isn't an exception. I know a lot of people think BI owns content uploaded to their workshop, but that is 100% false, and would be (legally) a huge can of worms for any company that has no real control (besides bans and blocking stuff based on user reports) over what is being uploaded

[vast stump]

if people can get permission from disney, all good

this is not very complex thing. people just need to let go of their selfish "I just want" attitude

[graceful hill]

For me I don't personally have a horse in the race of other people's IP. I'm not gonna get upset or bent out of shape on Disney's behalf if someone makes a star wars mod. But it's funny when they want to create whatever they want to create and then use other people's services to host it, and want it to remain untouched. The gall.

[vast stump]

its not just about disney. Thats just stupid to say. But if breach of Disneys IP rights were ok like you kinda hint you feel like it is, then what would keep the next guy infringing on some small indie devs or modders rights

[abstract crest]

Yeah, it's the big IP owners that generate the legislation that protects all of us... for this particular issue

I mean, look at the Hell Martin is going through right now with the DayZ modding community...

[graceful hill]

I don't think It's "ok" it's just between them and disney.

[graceful hill]

And nothing stops people from infringing on anyone's rights, the ones that do. do. We see it in here all the time even for things like arma mods, which are pretty indie and obscure in the grand scheme of things.

you just enforce it where you can. Play dirty if they play dirty and thats all you can do in life.

[vast stump]

That attitude is part of the problem. You accept it and it does not really bother you.

So basically you say OK by me go ahead. You don't say don't do it it's wrong

[graceful hill]

I'm literally advocating to defend your own rights,up to and including "playing dirty" (whatever that means to you) if someone else is playing dirty by infringing on your rights.

so take from that what you will

It's not like you can actually do much to defend the rights of others without their specific authorization to act on their behalf

[dark tulip]

Wait... so just because it's possible to steal a bike, and you say "well, others do it, so why don't you, and the owner didn't say it's ok to steal his bike, then who cares", we just have to allow people to steal bikes?

That's not how the world works...

[meager fractal]

I believe he's saying "hey, my neighbour got his bike stolen. too bad. but I bought a lock for mine and will shoot anyone trying to grab it"

it's a selfish, non-community-oriented stance but it is not (let's hope it is not) "hah, you can go steal my neighbour's bike if you will"

[inland sphinx]

If I see someone stealing my neighbors bike, I would stop them.
But you are correct, its not anyones duty to care for other peoples stuff. But if you don't, everyone will hate you (except the bike thief). and never trust you with their stuff again. If thats the life you want to live then thats okey. But that's not our life.

[heavy gate]

That's a slippery slope argument, there's a difference in caring and "helping" a smaller studio defend their recent IP vs a 50 year old IP from a multi billion dollar corporation that practically wrote IP laws themselves.

And no that's not endorsing IP violations, that's me stating that the current IP laws, for example the copyright length of death of author+70 years didn't appear out of thin air but was the result negotiations that one can disagree with.

[graceful hill]

you can't shoot someone for stealing or attempting to steal a bike.

[graceful hill]

uh, I literally never said anything to the effect of "Others do it, so why not you"

[meager fractal]

You can do a citizen arrest, if that's where you're going

just that "not my IP, not my problem" brings the issue of an insecure environment for creators and it's the wild west all over again
let's try and be careful/caring for this community's creators, this is where we want to go I believe

[graceful hill]

The internet has always been the wild wild west

[austere fog]

@celest sundial the thing is why cant we have a Workshop feature that only allowes the mod to be used on an specific Ip of a server to prevent people from doing it anyways since a liscense isnt gonna stop anyone just changing logos.

I really dont see a point in Developing a big mod that is meant for your Community and then having to rely on licensing to make sure noone just takes it and uses it on his own swerver.

[celest sundial]

Because it's technically not feasible. People will find a way to copy the mod and upload a version no matter what you or BI tries. Watermarks and IP right protection through licenses and swift action from BI is the only real solution. Servers who are repeated offender should get their ips banned and the workshop uploaders accounts should get game bans.

Also it's in the overall community interest if mods are not made just for your server. If you have a cool idea for a mod then try and make it accessible to many other people. If you are a German like me why not allow an English or Spanish or Chinese community to use it too if it does not steal any of my German speaking players for example

[austere fog]

the Thing is though I cant do anything if they dont break the license thus if they use our mod that we upload but have their own server what can we do about that ?

[celest sundial]

If you really only want to make something for your own community you have plenty of ways to discourage people copying your work. But that's a mindset you might want to rethink. It will make you more happy to have more people appreciate your work

[celest sundial]

If they decide to run your mod with your watermarks on their server that does not accept donations then indeed nothing can be done by you easily. But is that really a problem then ?

If you are the mod maker you decide when you update as well. Nobody will use your mod then if they know you can decide to delete or not update it etc

[austere fog]

well the point is if you want to build a community then yeah its a bit of a problem if someone can just take what you made over years and then just take it and run a server to steal people from your own community ... ?

[celest sundial]

If they re-upload without permission and they are bit enough for you to care and see it then it's gone on a day after you filed a takedown and they probably get their servers shut off too. That seems acceptable

[hardy bone]

I love how you talk about stealing people like it's a merchandise.

Also you could upload your mod to a private repository

[celest sundial]

I get that you want to build a community. But I believe and speak from experience that it is very much possible

[austere fog]

that does not work thats the whole point ....

[celest sundial]

We have highly specialised community mods in DayZ and theft without illegal reuploads has yet to happen. And the reuploads are taken down and the repeat offenders banned. It works believe me 😉

And that was all at the mercy of valve and their incompetent handlers of DMCAs. With BI we have people we can complain to much more easily

[dark tulip]

I've made a A3 mod for my community which is useless when used anywhere other than our servers (due to required database connection), and although it's open source, it would still require too much work for others to make it workable.

Of course there are enough things which you can't make "not work" other than not having the mod loaded, but in that case it's the question if it really matters when others use it.

[austere fog]

thats similar to what we have planned but there are also allot of assets that are unique to our community and the point is that these should not be out there for everyone to use like they want to. I dont know why I am not able to just do it how I would like to why does Bi make it so difficult.

[dark tulip]

tbf... the moment you share something with your community there's a chance someone takes it and runs off with it, no matter how hard you make it for them to do so.

Not saying that you shouldn't even try, but the chance that it really stops others from using it is pretty slim if people really want to use it.

[austere fog]

well yeah that is unavoidable but would not make sense to make it even easier for people to do so.

[south remnant]

so you want to blacklist everybody who isnt part of your community from using the content? theres been a lengthy discussion about why this isn't possible on the steam workshop before (see the ban list conversation) but tl;dr boils down to steams rules

[graceful hill]

Yeah, just not feasible, people could bypass it easily

how do you identify "the mod" specifically, and what mechanism do you use to prevent it from being used elsewhere?

[dark tulip]

@austere fog Let's move the license discussion to the correct channel.
This is a follow up from: #enfusion_audio message

Since you are required to state that it's not allowed to use content to be used outside of Arma, you're not complying to the CC-BY "no additional restrictions".

CC-BY:

No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Workshop Terms:

Any Content You upload to ARMA REFORGER Workshop has to be licensed to other Users who download it under one of the following license terms: APL license, APL-SA license, APL-ND license, ADPL-SA license or any other custom license of your choice.
and
The custom license shall explicitly prohibit the use of the Content for any commercial purposes, shall explicitly prohibit any direct or indirect monetization of the Content and shall explicitly prohibit the use of the Content outside Our own products.

[austere fog]

okay then how should one be able to do anything if you cant even use cc Content that is crazy. I do not have multiple thousands of dollars to spend on sound files just to meat the Eula that crazy.

[dark tulip]

1. create it yourself
2. royalty free audio (can be paid or free)
3. ask for permission from creator/owner

[south remnant]

AR EULA proving once more it has been written by chatgpt

[austere fog]

Actually, how does it make sense for me to not be allowed to use CC ridiculous!

[dark tulip]

I'm actually surprised they updated the terms (not EULA, that's something else), and in a good way.
Before you actually gave all rights to BI

[dark tulip]

CC is still a license which prevents abuse and unwanted usage of content (like limiting usage/sharing of the content).

Again, there are alternatives available which are perfectly fine to be used in cases like this (which is not unique to Arma modding).

[meager fractal]

(was not the case, but was what was written iirc)
(still trying to get it a proper wording)

[dark tulip]

I know it wasn't the intended message, but bad wording (or unable to read it properly) makes a huge difference 😉

[meager fractal]

yes, yes and yes
also, yes

[stoic crag]

Had to

[abstract crest]

Got a feeling that BI aren't gonna change their EULAs on User-created Content, looking at the Silica one it's got the same clause: • For the benefit of the entire User community, You give us an irrevocable permission to use, copy, modify and adapt anything You create using Our game and share with other Users of Our game in multiplayer or as an online download (including but not limited to in-game objects or terrain composition). You also agree that We may allow other people to use, copy, modify and adapt Your content under the terms of this license. If You do not want to accept these rules, do not create and share any content using Our game.

That said, as I have pointed out before, pretty sure this is not refering to modding via Tools...

[dark tulip]

Yeah... the (Workshop) Terms and (Reforger) EULA are not in sync at all...

Guess we (as a community) need to annoy the legal team and have this solved... But I guess if even BI employees themselves can't have this changed, not sure what we can do about it...

[south remnant]

simply stick with the games that have correct EULA on UGC rather than subscribe to the ridiculous notion of signing away your rights

its just another reason to not buy AR

[abstract crest]

Would be nice if they just added "These terms do not apply to user-created content made using BI Tools, which are covered under the Tools EULA" ... but worded to be legally correct.

Even then though, they are saying you don't own missions, compositions, etc.

[dark tulip]

I 100% understand (and agree to) the following part:

For the benefit of the entire User community, You give us an irrevocable permission to use, copy, modify and adapt anything You create using Our game and share with other Users of Our game in multiplayer or as an online download (including but not limited to in-game objects or terrain composition).
Because BI needs to have the rights to display your content on the Workshop and I (personally) don't mind if they end up using my mod to improve their game (within limitations though).

I do not agree with:

You also agree that We may allow other people to use, copy, modify and adapt Your content under the terms of this license.
Because this means it simply becomes a "it's allowed, so I just take everything and make it my own". Even when it states "we may allow", it's still not fool-proof.

Instead it should state that mod licenses may apply, and those are leading in what is allowed or not.

[south remnant]

this level of ambiguity is enough of a red flag to just... not bother

[abstract crest]

Completely agree, especially with the removal of server-side mods. Personally back when I started running ARMA 3 servers I kept getting reports of people just taking my mission file from the client cache and bringing up servers that were named pretty close to the name of my server. I'd look at their mission files and they'd changed pretty much nothing and there was little I could do. So I moved what functionality I could to server-side mods and no more copying. That's not possible in Enfusion at this point, if ever...

[dark tulip]

if you don't like it, please don't talk about it... your trolling is getting pretty annoying...

[south remnant]

so you should only be discussing something if you like it..?

what

[inland sphinx]

I don't see trolling. I fully agree with what he says (besides the not buying AR, buy it, but don't publish mods)
It's like back in the days where modders were afraid from steam workshop. Just this time it's not something shady potentially bad, it's VERY clearly bad

[dark tulip]

The only comments I see from you are "BI is bad", "Arma is bad", "don't play this game", etc...
Instead try to give actual feedback and take part in a discussion

[south remnant]

yes, my feedback to a game with bad EULA around UGC is to not even buy it let alone create content for it 🤷

[graceful hill]

I find these terms to be interesting.

1. They don't say that your custom license has to irrevocably do those things.

Looks like I am free to make a custom license that explicitly prohibits the use of the content for any commercial purposes, and explicitely prohibit the direct or indirect monetization, and explicitly prohibit the use of the content outside arma. And this license meets their description.

I am also free to add a clause in my custom license allowing me to terminate the license at any time, with or without notice. Because it's a custom license and they don't say that these things have to be irrevocable, just that the license has to prohibit it while it's in effect.

Licenses can be revoked or be conditional per the terms of the given license after all. And a custom license is custom.

"any other custom license of your choice" is pretty broad.

can't really argue with that.

I'll write my version of this license now.

The cssoftware revokable gaming-use license (CRGUL) Allows users and bohemia interactive to make available, distribute, publish, display or otherwise disseminate the digital content that this license is applied to, for the duration of the license's lifetime.

While the license is in effect, you may not
1) use the content for any commercial or monetized use
2) Use the content outside a bohemia interactive or Arma product

License Lifetime and Duration:
The license may be revoked at any time, with or without notice, by cssoftware

Like any other compliant license, this grants a license meeting their written specification for license requirements under "any other custom license of your choosing" and the specific license requirements of monetized use, and use outside of arma products.

Like any other license, this license's validity and lifetime is defined by the contents of the license. And the contents of this custom license specify that I can revoke it at any time with or without notice. And then the license has "concluded" and is no longer valid.

Just like if you sold someone a 2 year license to use a collection of your music comercially. That license is only valid for those 2 years per it's terms. After that it's null and void.

Or you could specify a fixed lifetime of the license, after which it becomes null and void automatically

You would think they would require that you grant an irrevocable license. But they apparently don't.

However I applaud them for giving content creators as much control as "Any other custom license of your choosing" which greatly respects your rights to control your own intellectual property.

It also doesn't say it has to remain licensed to players and bohemia forever.

""Any Content You upload to ARMA REFORGER Workshop has to be licensed to other Users who download it under one of the following license terms: APL license, APL-SA license, APL-ND license, ADPL-SA license or any other custom license of your choice.""

Yep check, my content is licensed to users and bohemia under the CRGUL license. which is "any other custom license of your choosing"

[graceful hill]

I would definitely use such a revokable custom license if I ever uploaded anything, that way if I wanted to take it down at some point, I could do so and retain full exclusive rights

as it should be.

[meager fractal]

I would appreciate this channel not turning into an intellectual property fanfic forum.

[graceful hill]

Just discussing ways in which to have control over your IP

[wild copper]

If a mod initially uses a license that allows reuploads, but then changes to one that doesn't, do I have to take down my reupload?

[pliant valve]

Yes, unless the initial license explicitly says it's irrevocable/permanent. If it doesn't have an irrevocable clause thingymajig, then you'd be best off asking them, could be maybe they don't care about reuploads of the old code base but don't want anything new re-uploaded etc.

I released my mod for a different game that I no longer work on such that anyone can use it indefinitely, and if I do remove the license, anyone that downloaded and edited it before my removal of said license are still covered by it, in case I want to pick development of it back up.

[wild copper]

Tough situation. We didn't keep a copy of the old license but are we expected to check for license change on a regular basis or something?

[pliant valve]

Use way back machine to grab it

[wild copper]

We dl'd it from the WS so I don't think there's a way to get it

[pliant valve]

And no clue about checking on licenses tbh

Workshop should have version downloading abilities, but if you got it through the download then why don't you have the license anymore?

[wild copper]

Coz we only needed a p3d, not the whole mod

[pliant valve]

Uh my dude, when you use someone else's work that's licensed, you must include that license in your mod in the appropriate spot

That's like, license 101

[wild copper]

Yeah that makes sense in retrospect lol

Anyway we've stopped using the asset, I'm just unsure on who's responsible for keeping up with license changes

[pliant valve]

No clue, my guess is whomever is using the license is

[inland sphinx]

Depends on what you upload.

If you reuploaded the version that had the old license, it can stay (unless license specifically states that future license changes apply to old stuff or are revocable or bla bla)
But if you update your reupload to a new version of said mod that was published under the new license, you can't

[small obsidian]

Here's some dude selling mods:
https://realfx7.myshopify.com/products/arma-4-graphics-mod-early-access

[hollow harness]

arma 4 🤨

[dark tulip]

So basically he created a mod preset and sells that for $5... wow...

[frozen jackal]

if I am not mistaken this is the same dude that was spamming his _ZONA videos all over r/arma and Arma facebook group

there's even more on his tiktok.

[meager fractal]

it's most likely just a SweetFX thing. the "50 mods" part should be checked, yes

on another note, what do you think of an FAQ on IP rights?

[flint geyser]

Doesn’t even look that good, with that glow on everything

[pliant oracle]

this should be pinned

[meager fractal]

oh noes
appearance can be changed ofc
what about the content?

[flint geyser]

No idea, I just looked at the pics on the store page

[meager fractal]

oh, I thought you meant the FAQ, not the "arma 4 graphics mod" - mb

[flint geyser]

FAQ is a great idea

[fiery egret]

appearance can be changed ofc
b-but I wanted that FAQ with that glow on everything 😔

[meager fractal]

furiously coding bloom effects in CSS

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Intellectual_Property#Frequently_Asked_Questions posted 😉

[small obsidian]

I was told by a user that the pack contains free mods from the workshop including gameplay mods like Exocet Inspect Weapon and Helmet Mounted Camera mod. And that the immersion mods were from collections on the workshop, too.

This same person said the pack used to be priced at $1 and wondered when it switched to $5

[fiery egret]

Are you all sure about that $5 price tag? It shows the equivalent of $10 in my currency 🤨

[frozen jackal]

it was for 5 bucks on June 12th

[fiery egret]

They certainly value their work, innit?

[meager fractal]

if you happen to know a person that could provide the files, that would be nice (I won't personally spend 5$ for curiousity, and talking with BI budget is most likely not going to happen :p)

[wispy iron]

A FAQ would be useful as to answer many of the common questions displayed by members of this community within the rules of IP, although I barely contribute I enjoy watching the discussions and learning about it and the intricacy of such areas.

[meager fractal]

it exists 😎 #other_ip_topics message

it will be revised in case I wrote some unexpected bullsh— inaccuracies (hence the disclaimer), but the general idea is here

[wispy iron]

Ah my apologies didn’t see that

[meager fractal]

nay no problem, it is all fresh! if you have any Q&A suggestions, they are welcome

[wispy iron]

Thank you would you mind if I dm you?

[meager fractal]

I would absolutely mind but I would reply nonetheless 😉

(…it was a joke, just in case 🙂)

[wispy iron]

Thank you

[fiery egret]

I can confirm he's joking: he never replies 😩
||(…it was a joke, just in case 🙂)||

[weak basalt]

hello, i'd like to know if retexturing altis buildings for a arma 3 mod is allowed or if its a breach on BI IP

[vast stump]

retexturing them how?

[weak basalt]

changing the colors of the wall to another color

and that's IF there's any kind of template or if the textures are acessible legally

[abstract crest]

Can't do that without an unbinarized model for houses

[weak basalt]

roger that, thanks for clarifying

[pliant valve]

You can always email BI and ask for permission to do that

[abstract crest]

Unbinarize ARMA 3 models... I can easily guess the answer to that request...

[pliant valve]

Iirc they've given permission in the past

[vast stump]

Negative

[inland sphinx]

Nope they wouldn't.
But they might give you a unbinarized version of the model

or you just wait for the A3 data pack which should come soon™️

[lavish basalt]

I wanna know how soon it is 👀

[zealous ore]

reforger's roadmap soon :))

[lavish basalt]

Uh, huh?

Can't tell if you're joking or I miss something

[celest sundial]

AR soon = with luck 2025, which is also my personal project definition of soon 🙂

[lavish basalt]

Mmmmmm

I just wish Data Pack will arrive anytime soon

[wild crystal]

Taking forever just like the roadmap

[north spindle]

https://twitter.com/icebreakr/status/1671284113842511873 any chance anyone can respond to him? I tried to get him on discord, or is @ocean ibex here?

IceBreakr (@icebreakr)

Hey @bohemiainteract please consider giving us a license to use two tenement buildings from #Dayz in our beloved #Arma3 ? https://t.co/Hbqfe2L4SZ

We would make them new / from scratch, but it would probably take me and couple of guys additional weeks, maybe even a month+.…

Twitter · Jun 20, 2023, 10:29 PM

[vast stump]

such things are rarely handled in public. IceBreaker is here though as you can see 😛

[north spindle]

Yeh, I suggested that to him because of another question he had. But I just realized it was another person and not him

[ocean ibex]

Here

Been afk

[north spindle]

Yeh. I think you will get a much quicker response to the tweet in here 🙂

I told another guy to check out discord for the upcoming improvements and thought it was you

Also please release your new map

[zealous ore]

don't...

[spiral bay]

My friends mod got dmca'ed with 2 of the pbo's in question being currectly accused.

But 3 others in question he got full permission from the authers to use. Or they where open sourse.

Is my friend able to reupload the currectly licensed mods/open souce mods without having to worry?

Thanks

[meager fractal]

he can reupload something that is correct, nothing wrong with that

[meager fractal]

note that "open source" does not mean "do whatever you want with it"
when I say "something that is correct", it's "something he has permission to (re)upload" as per Steam & IP rights criteria ofc

[spiral bay]

Of course

I just wanted confirmation uploading after the dmca would be okay. If we have the correct permissions involved 🙂

[tired ermine]

Quick question. I'm fairly sure this is fine, but just want to make sure.
For making a weapon mod, are CGTrader blender models with a Royalty-Free License okay to use?
As far as I can tell, the following section of the Royalty-Free License seems to suggest that this is fine:

21.3. If you use any Product in software products (such as video games, simulations, or VR-worlds) you must take all commercially reasonable measures to prevent the end user from gaining access to the Product. Methods of safeguarding the Product include but are not limited to:
-using a proprietary disc format such as Xbox 360, Playstation 3, etc.;
-using a proprietary Product format;
-using a proprietary and/or password protected database or resource file that stores the Product data;

I think that making a gun mod involves precisely making it into a proprietary product format, no? the p3d format? Or is it rather that the blender model is "binarized" and processed by Arma tools when making the asset mod, and THAT is the proprietary format?
I see other people here posting about buying CGTrader blender models under the Royalty-Free License. It would be my first time, so I just thought I'd double-check and see if that is generally frowned upon, or if acceptable.

[tired ermine]

(I understand that if I distribute the bought models to others, etc, that would immediately be a problem, but just using the blender models myself to make the mod seems fine, no?)

[stone bridge]

you must take all commercially reasonable measures to prevent the end user from gaining access to the Product imo binarization covers this

as you need some ripping tools that are not commonly distributed with the a3 tools or mikero tools

so to answer your question yes, you can use cgtrader royalty free models in an arma mod

and even a commercial product, as that's what royalty free is about (you dont have to pay royalties/a percentage to the artist/website for any copy of the software you sell)

[shell scaffold]

Is there any methods that Bohemia / steam can use to make servers / community's remove certain parts of code that they are using against ip laws?

[vast stump]

If you are the owner you can dmca steam workshop entry, server provider/host etc

[south remnant]

BI are not involved in takedowns of your content, DMCAs are handled through steam who are little more than a forwarding service for it

[shell scaffold]

Can you elaborate on this? How would one do this and does it require consultation from a legal expert? I'm just someone who codes and had a server steal my code against a license

[south remnant]

easiest method:

doesn't "require" consultation from a legal expert; though it's a legal process that you are starting. counter dmca can be issued, however filing a false dmca is a felony in the US -- so it is a felony to falsely counter and can be taken further in court

[shell scaffold]

Problem is it isn't a workshop item it's a mission file so I'm just asking if there are any ways to deal with that and how hard it is to proceed with them

[vast stump]

then you can dmca their server host

as long as they use it, you can shut that down

server hosts/ ISPs dont really want any of that

[south remnant]

plenty of dmca templates online too if you so desire; hosting services would rather just boot the one customer rather than get involved in legal challenges 90% of the time

[vast stump]

yep

and they might keep any money paid too

[shell scaffold]

Thanks for the help got pretty annoyed when I got screwed over in a group because of drama this seems like the smartest way to get my code out of their hands

[dark tulip]

I suggest to first talk with them, ask to not use your mission/code, and tell them that if they ignore your request you can (and will) DMCA their server.
Which will usually result in the server being taken down for at least a couple of days, or in a worst case losing the account.

Most of the time they will listen, since it may cost them quite some money if they lose the server completely.

[shell scaffold]

yeah i tried that they just replied with a f*** you to me so this is the path im looking at

[shell scaffold]

If a A3 modder is paid by commission to write, debug test and organize scripts for a client is this a violation of ip

[dark tulip]

no, that has nothing to do with IP (= Intellectual Property).

It is however against the EULA, ToS, etc. and therefor a breach of contract. Which means you can loose access to the service (in this case the game) or get sued for it.

[shell scaffold]

Weird, ok

[meager fractal]

writing & selling code is ok, the testing part is the conflicting point

(afaik)

[dark tulip]

Which currently is a bit of an issue with Enfusion... of course you can still use an external tool to write code (or almost anything), but is near impossible to do without the Workbench.

Not saying that I want all coders to get paid for their work (and people abusing it), but perhaps something for BI to look into.
With 3d models and textures it's simple, you require external tools to make stuff, and it's easy to separate them. But code, which is getting even more important, it becomes impossible.

[celest sundial]

Exactly, in theory if I test my script that replaces "Arma" with "ArmA" everywhere inside AR and then sell it I would have involved BI tools in my commercial operation - in practice it nearly impossible to proof that I used the game to actually test it. With technology like chat gtp it could have been generated and never been run and I just sell it regardless 🙂

[meager fractal]

the question was about A3, it is indeed different for Reforger yes.

[inland sphinx]

Arma 3 scripting is often fine if done entirely out of game and without using A3 tools.
Which is definitely possible, can even be tested with things like SQF-VM.

"debug test" though cannot be done in-game then. Which depending on the script is easy or impossible.

[graceful hill]

it just depends on what the client is having you do specifically during the "writing, debugging, testing and organizing" of scripts. If they set you to work reverse engineering and extending someone else's mod, then this is obviously an IP violation. If you are producing original content for them, then you are just a developer who has been hired to do some work

[graceful hill]

What is the "conflict" with testing code as a hired developer?

[meager fractal]

testing implies using Arma

(unless using a VM)

[graceful hill]

Doesn't all of this use arma? Aren't we talking about someone being hired to develop arma mods?

I don't see an issue anywhere

[meager fractal]

modelling doesn't use Arma
config writing doesn't use Arma
writing script itself doesn't use Arma

testing all this does

[graceful hill]

But what is the issue?

every time you fire up arma you could said to be "testing" peoples code

And if you are a developer, you will of course need to test

[meager fractal]

*ding ding ding* hence using Arma for monetary purpose, testing your creation fits the needs

[graceful hill]

lol

Are you against selling or buying used physical games because that violates the terms that say the license to play the game on the disk is non transferable?

thats how silly this is

[meager fractal]

ok

[graceful hill]

It's true that you hiring a developer is not violating any IP lol.

[meager fractal]

it's true that the physical game license applies to the disc owner lol.
it's true that pushing people to go near the line will get you out of here lol.

[graceful hill]

And then it's up to them as a developer to ensure that they don't do anything illegal during the course of their development.

so we will just leave it there 😉

[meager fractal]

thank you.

[graceful hill]

Yeah, this server is just so cucked sometimes lol

I get the feeling many of you guys would be morally opposed to the sale of used physical games because it's a clear violation of the license

[meager fractal]

you obviously don't read my answers and only speak your bs now

[graceful hill]

I am genuinely curious though. You have to draw the line somewhere and say "no this is bullshit, I reject it" selling a physical game is a clear violation of it's license. Are you ok with doing that

[meager fractal]

read what I posted above

it's true that the physical game license applies to the disc owner lol.

it is legal in most if not all places to re-sell physical games
see first-sale doctrine. legal is legal is legal, period, there's no debate on that.

[graceful hill]

I know, I love situations where existing laws and caselaw nullify things like EULAs, licenses, etc. I've posted about those types of situations before and was met with huge resistance lol.

[meager fractal]

ok lol.
and that's not the topic lol.

[graceful hill]

long live consumer protections lol

It's good to know that this server recognizes that legal precedent is a thing

And can act to nullify these types of overreaches from companies

[meager fractal]

the one and only point BI wants to defend IP rights is to protect its community and its creators
so yes, defending rights involves the law in the calculations - glad you notice.

it's not random people saying random things just to get things moving in these two IP channels 🙄

[hardy bone]

So if you pay someone to do everything but the testing, and test it yourself it's ok with the EULA?
I don't understand how that would work?

[graceful hill]

why is my thing removed, it's true and does not violate anything

[meager fractal]

because you're pushing and trying the line, won't let that happen

[meager fractal]

technically, yes
the idea, the spirit behind the EULA is that you cannot use Arma's software license to make money - selling it as a military training tool, using its engine to do things you sell, etc.
so in theory, selling code is right on the fence; on the good side it's edited through an external editor (e.g VSCode, Notepad++ etc), and the service itself is code-writing - on the bad side, you have to test your code at one point and using Arma as a validation tool is using it for money, on paper - even though nothing comes out of Arma itself but "hey it works"
in practice, there may be tolerance from BI due to that, but that's not up to me so… don't take my word from it

[hollow harness]

legal lou

[hardy bone]

So the person would sell the code without being certain that it works...... sounds squetchy but ok

[meager fractal]

yep
again, one can ask BI to have express permission, as for almost if not all things
as it stands now, one can 100% sell his advising on SQF, just not sure about selling code itself from a legal pov

[south remnant]

couldnt you just get a client to test it for you

...if you found a patient enough person

[hardy bone]

Yeah, you could write the whole test procedure in a "For dummies" way and give it to your client, but it sounds counter intuitive since you won't be certain as to how the test will be run

[fiery egret]

Any programmer out there will tell you that it is outright impossible to write any code at all without testing it.
The moment you write 30 lines of code, run that code and it just works as expected you start to wonder: "Wait, something is not right! I must have written buggy code with a bug that doesn't show up!" (and I'm not joking)

[south remnant]

i would rather do it for free than have someone with likely little modding experience try test my code

[hardy bone]

Now I understand why my QA professors were so adamant about documentation for a project given to a client....

[south remnant]

i wrote an entire arma mod on the toilet

[meager fractal]

and that still would be counting on someone else to test, or to justify selling
like modelling and importing a model - things have to be kept separated

anyway, if we could talk about real and non-hypothetic cases (unless issues at hand) here, that would be nice

[meager fractal]

(I'd still use a computer)

[south remnant]

then uploaded it without testing

[fiery egret]

"Someone hire that man!" ☝️ 😄

[south remnant]

it only didnt work because setobjectscale on units in dedi mp is different to local host

[south remnant]

7/10 dad joke

[inland sphinx]

You're only a good SQF scripter if you can execute the scripts in your head

[dark tulip]

I can execute SQF just fine in my head, it just always returns errors

[meager fractal]

I run code in his head and can confirm

[lament prism]

I can run any sqf command in my head so long as it's sleep

[shell scaffold]

you can also change the post process settings of your eyes just gotta take certain mushrooms

[full bluff]

last post got timed out but ill post again without links if that was the issue.

Was not sure where to post about this but there is currently an account on tik tok that is getting alot of traction that is selling A3 reshades. They are also selling reshades for Dayz. Essentially scamming people for publicly available reshades and the graphics settings.

arma4graphicsmod - tik tok account

Hopefully this violates some kind of TOS because the account keeps growing and more people are getting scammed.

[meager fractal]

hi, this has been internally transferred and is in process
thank you for the report

[full bluff]

I can send more information if needed

[languid aurora]

Not sure if this is the right thread to ask, but I cannot find any information on Arma3 PC (internet) cafe licencing ... if an admin could PM that would be great (have tried contacting BI, Steam and googled for some time with no answer) cheers.

[vast stump]

have you tried contacting BI legal department?

they handle that sort of things

[languid aurora]

have emailed their commercial team, and hold a Steam Site licence but nothing coming up on the commerical end of that either

[vast stump]

Id perhaps try the legal department or straight support email/contact form through their website in case the email never got through

[languid aurora]

Will do cheers

[vast stump]

If I understand the licensing you cant use Arma for commercial purposes by default which a internet cafe would be

so youd need to obtain a permission

[languid aurora]

Yeah, thats what I understand just cannot find any info on the process outside of "email us" which i did but nothing has come back in over a week. Working on timelines so a tad frustrating.

[vast stump]

week might not be long time especially since it might be vacation season

such question would need to reach correct person

of course an email note on someones absence would be nice

anyway, try the other contact points too, maybe those might work

[languid aurora]

@vast stump thanks for your help

[inland sphinx]

Afaik Arma 3 EULA specifically forbids

You are entitled to use the Program for your own use, but you are not entitled to
Exploit the Program or any of its parts for any commercial purpose including, but not limited to, use at a cybercafe, computer gaming centre, computer aided training center or any other location-based site where multiple users may access the Program.
You can also try contacting LeClair (see green userlist on the side)

[analog sphinx]

its really case use, unless you expect the client to understand what and how of a system, you wont be giving documentation for, lets say, eating a pie.

[south remnant]

what was the conclusion of ban lists again? so long as they're not running malicious code? can't find the conversation

[fiery egret]

The conversation: #ip_rights_violations message
I don't remember the outcome, so can't help you with that, though

[south remnant]

ah thanks

[dark tulip]

convo picked up again at #ip_rights_violations message

And although there are no written "rules" about it, it's not something you should do (as in; break game when running mod).
Limiting (all) features of a mod based on name/SteamID/server IP/etc. is still a gray area, but more accepted in general.

[jaunty pumice]

My question from the discussion on the RHS EULA in #production_releases:
While I don't use RHS, I am curious - are depictions of the Ukraine military allowed outside of the context of the invasion (i.e. Soldiers with the UA flag, MM14, and AKs)? Not allowing this would sound unreasonable to me because of the RHS published mod RHSAFRF which depicts the Russian military outisde the context of the invasion.

[meager fractal]

Cc @grizzled venture ↑ & @zealous ore ofc

[grizzled venture]

This was kind of the point I was getting at. Seems like it can only benefit Russia and the pro-Russian viewpoint to limit conversation and content featuring the ongoing war.

[dark tulip]

Just because a mod (or even Arma as a game) contains factions which depict real countries, doesn't mean it should be (an)used in a political way.

RHS is doing that by not allowing any form of political signals on/by/with their mods.

[lament prism]

The has come up before, I remember the answer being depicting Ukraine is fine but directly associating it with the war is not

Some examples being:
Z markings on vehicles
Coloured armbands

[zealous ore]

First of, all retextures are tolerated, not allowed (see license).

Secondly, we have never stopped anyone to make their own content, be it russian army, or ukrainian or whatever else they might prefer.

But we have the last saying in what we choose or not to tolerate in relation to our own content. We do not need to explain ourselves or have a debate over it.

[zealous ore]

We do not limit anything, and arma shouldn’t be a tool for political discourse anyways.

We not condone the invasion or any other war out there. We do not take sides as a group, one or another, we will publicly remain politically agnostic.

[grizzled venture]

Good stuff 👍

[full bluff]

Any update on this issue?

[meager fractal]

nope

[glacial kindle]

What’s the difference between selling models and selling script?

[meager fractal]

you get models with the former, script with the latter

but you may have a more specific question in that

[glacial kindle]

Yeah so basically I’ve been told I cannot pay someone to write scripts for me to build a server; but I noticed I can pay someone for a model they have created

I’m curious as to I guess A. If that’s true and B. If it is, why?

[south remnant]

cannot pay for anything produced with BI tools

so addon builder, object builder etc

[vast stump]

code to build a server would realistically have to be tested within the game

so it does go through it and becomes non commercial

[heavy gate]

Wouldn't that make stuff like TCAdmin impossible?

[cursive sedge]

"build a server" as in sqf scripting, not admin panel 🙂

[south remnant]

this is not the place for reports, and from what i can tell it is already in the system

[shadow jackal]

Sorry for placing it here

[vast stump]

It's OK to ask. I'll remove it to not give the guy any more visibility though.

[lavish basalt]

We prepared this and #ip_rights_violations to discuss/ask how it is a violation or not and/or are aware. Reporting should be done not in Discord but their dedicated e-mail, so they can take care of it professionally.

[granite crest]

hey guys

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2931304484

https://www.patreon.com/sterben_top

://

[abstract crest]

The position of the lead dev is

And many are offering to help make non-monetized uniforms for the mod

[wraith sleet]

This mod doesn't include Sterben's files currently.

The mod authors were informed that Sterben selling rips is not cool and they are rethinking including his work.

[pliant oracle]

ripping??? in this economy?

[vast stump]

Please make a report on the infringement email on the topic or #ip_rights_violations selling mod work is against the eula of the tools and this may lead to further consequences.

There is a difference between getting donations (nothing specific gained from it)
And selling such specific service to make a living.

Also content must not be paywalled

[coarse wadi]

Don't worry, I'm not porting Skyrim, I was just asked to help. 👌

[coarse wadi]

this option was proposed by the voting method, of course this method will not be used. (most were against it)

[dark tulip]

So I can access all your mods (as promoted on your Patreon) without donating?
Because I can't find them 😅

[coarse wadi]

Yes, the mod is in the steam workshop, you can always download it

[dark tulip]

Not to mention a shitload of other IP's which are "ported" (aka ripped) into Arma...

[frozen jackal]

your Patreon says otherwise.

not to mention that you already paywall other content that you illegally ported: Witcher, Killzone, Fallout, everything distributed on 3rd party websites. Always happy to report these to the actual owners 🙂

[coarse wadi]

Yes that's right. donation is a donation. you are not required to do so.

[frozen jackal]

I meant that you wrote "I'm not porting Skyrim" and this statement is false, because your Patreon says you indeed are porting these assets.

[inland sphinx]

Your Patreon says

All content will be publicly available for free at release, and all source files will be open for download.

But on your Patreon I see
Killzone
The Witcher
Atomic Heart car
Aliens Colonial Marines
Wolfenstein
Splinter Cell
Metro Mod

Where are these available then?

[pseudo oasis]

he may not have "released" them yet, if somethings in Early Access, is it released?

[inland sphinx]

Early access would be paywalled mods which isn't allowed

[pseudo oasis]

Just thinking what kind of logic they would use

[south remnant]

none

a donation is not a donation if there is an exchange

[pseudo oasis]

So you've just suggested that Dayz was released when it came into Early Access 😛

There's multiple problems here anyway, the guys ripped assets from other games

I was commenting on the mental gymnastics they were trying to use to get around it

[meager fractal]

https://tenor.com/view/علبلتنخه-gif-19293292

[dark tulip]

A mod is different from a(n official) game...

Mods are not allowed to behind any form of paywall, since it's against the EULA of the tools... No matter if you call it donations or not.

The ripped part is something else, and probably the reason why non of the mods are public (and thus paywalled).

[meager fractal]

aaand he left all Bohemia servers (-: the man is honest, promise!

[pseudo oasis]

Not like he's blitzed his links or posts.. can still report him to patreon

[wispy iron]

Either that or find the most feral video game legal team he’s taken stuff from and throw them at him

[analog sphinx]

didnt even had to fire the railguns, nice!

[vast stump]

Unfortunately lot of talent gets wasted in this kind of stuff.

[edgy seal]

So did the arma devs go and delete the fan skyrim mod? Calling it "incompatible"?

Despite it violates nothing

[meager fractal]

I do not know, but most likely involved in ripping and mod paying
maybe the user hid it himself

[edgy seal]

Fml

There goes a good chance to make a GATE op

Wish people would think before doing things

[frozen jackal]

if it didn't violate anything it wouldn't have been removed, simple as

[edgy seal]

Meh coward talk find a middle ground. The dev stated that stuff to avoid problems

Its not direct profit n you can easily attempt to mitigate while keeping base mod

[frozen jackal]

again, there wouldn't have been problems if it didn't violate anything.

[frozen jackal]

dude what are you talking about?

[edgy seal]

The only reason it was removed as far as i saw,a misinterpreted money thing

Which is dumb

Ask the dev himself

[frozen jackal]

I would ask but he left in fear of being banned for violating rules

so I don't care, I've seen enough on his discord and Patreon page.

[edgy seal]

Riiightio

[pliant oracle]

ripping is not allowed

[edgy seal]

Hopefully mod comes back on the shop though its a terrible thing to lose a good mod just cuse uniform method was deemed bad

[frozen jackal]

"uniform method"?

[pliant oracle]

ripped assets

[edgy seal]

As far as i know map n such are original

Uniforms might be ripped

Idrk

But the uniforms and something to do with money are the main contention as far as i read

But anyways i digress,im sure mod will come back devs know not having it on shop is gonnabe pain,just hope itll be within the rules and no profit via money happens

[meager fractal]

as far as I know, you don't know why it got removed, right?
so don't be a keyboard warrior here, keep your "coward talk" to yourself, and assess information when obtained and don't assume anything - all this without promoting ripping, of course
thank you and have a nice day

[abstract crest]

I would just note to correct what some have said, the mod was not removed by BI, it was marked Incompatible. The mod's devs removed the mod or made it private...

[patent oriole]

It wasn't, an ace compat mod that was made by a friend was wrongfully "marked incompatible" by BI yesterday

Marked "incompatable" when all it did was have lines of code

I told him to come in here to find out info, so whenever he gets a response from steam he will probably post info here

[edgy seal]

I dont promote ripping

[inland sphinx]

As far as I know, Skyrim mod content is mostly ripped from.. Skyrim.
And it was made by the same team that already made mods with ripped stuff from Fallout games, which as far as I can see is also not on workshop anymore

And btw also had the uniform ripping/selling guy from above involved in it.

If you steal content, you have to expect to be gone-ed

[south remnant]

Has anyone got experience contacting the BBC for licensing? I cannot find an email for the life of me -- interested in enquiring about dr who

[south remnant]

Found it after half an hour of searching, jesus christ

[hardy bone]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/enquiryform/#/Can't find what you're looking for?

then "ask for permission to use BBC content"
might be usefull for someone else

[south remnant]

Yeah, that was it

[hardy bone]

didn't take that long to find it, but boy is that website shitty to find what you want

[south remnant]

you must be much better at navigating this stuff than me then

[hardy bone]

I used to work for local government research center, and their website used to be much worse than that. Some parts you had to know that a few words were text links to access, others had button just in plain back ground, and others you had to navigate page by changing the page number in the adress field (because making two buttons for that was apparently too hard)

[wispy iron]

Doctor who is unlikely for you to get a license for it’s possible however if the bbc are unresponsive I’d direct my attention to the dedicated email [e-mail] and state what assets you wish to use as older items of doctor who mythos can be owned by original creator and licensed to the bbc by said creator.

I’d also consider contacting the doctor who fan forums and finding contact through doctor who specific channels as it’s been easier in the past to contact the department to get responses (sorry doctor who nerd and one of my volunteer projects was a doctor who experience when I was in college)

I’ll see if I can dredge up the email we used

[south remnant]

that'd be really helpful, thank you 🙂

[wispy iron]

Would you like assistance in finding out who owns the rights to the assets your interested in as I can’t access that email on my phone and I won’t be home for a few hours

Well about 7

[south remnant]

tbh i literally just want to check about tardis licensing as mod ive been working on is capable of having shit fly as well as bigger on the inside interiors

think itd be neat to just include a tardis with it as the base

[wispy iron]

Yeah TARDIS you can’t use as a word

[south remnant]

fine with that, though concept of bigger on the inside police box is probably too specific too

[wispy iron]

I know that one for a fact as they’ve taken others on over it

[wispy iron]

Now here’s the interesting bit you’d be incorrect on this assumption

[south remnant]

oh?

[wispy iron]

As it’s not a original concept having something with more space inside than outside to doctor who

As long as you can do as a parody a company used to make a timey wimey box closet will try and find photos that was based on the tardis but because it doesn’t claim to be it’s just a similar

[south remnant]

so a bigger on the inside flying portapotty would be fine?

[wispy iron]

Indeed

As it’s not a Time Machine also

Or called a TARDIS

[south remnant]

yeah time travel is out of the scope of my arma scripting abilities sadly

[wispy iron]

Joy of it being parody capable as other shows have done similar ideas

Hell you could use a modern phone box and cal it x as long as it’s not TARDIs and you should be fine

[south remnant]

base game has a portapotty i can scale up slightly, will probably just go with that lol

[wispy iron]

Great glass elevator for example would be a problem if it was considered as it’s bigger on the inside and flies

For a cheap performance friendly way of doing a interior I experimented with a method using teleporters and compositions

[south remnant]

yeah ive got it all mostly working ready save for some mp bugs

bugs that arent fixable by me 🙃

anyway, thanks:)

[fierce mango]

Is Arma 2 ALDP model cannibalization allowed for the creation of Arma 3 mods?

For example, let's say that I want a wheel from an A2 model that's on the data packs which I will use for a model that I'm making for an Arma 3 mod.

[vast stump]

that would be allowed yes. though texture count wise it may cause either need for lot of extra textures to be loaded or you need to combine texture parts together to make better use of them

[fierce mango]

I see.

[abstract crest]

Would be funnier to use the Enoch outhouse

[south remnant]

easy enough to change with one line of config in my mod, just need damn mp direction interpolation 🙃

[pliant valve]

You should make it a portapotty and call it the TURDIS

[wispy iron]

Turds Und Relative Depository Ins Space

there we go it fits

[pliant oracle]

oh yeah change it from Phone booth to Portable toilet

[spiral bay]

Hey peeps just wanted to know if this is official enough or if not any tips. Thx

Date: 28th of July
Signed: Jup Wellz```

[inland sphinx]

yup

The one I got was even less professional.
Just a steam message, just took a screenshot of it and done

[meager fractal]

eventually add the year

[wraith nebula]

@shell scaffold your message got blocked by the discord protection, but the link you shared is already known and reported to BI 😉

[shell scaffold]

ah good just checking

[south remnant]

is it possible to have my projects change which license is applicable after 6 months or something? have got some health concerns currently and dont want all my work (given ive spent months and months on some of it) to end up in some grey area if anything bad does end up happening lmao

[celest sundial]

You can always change your license. Any release going forward after the license change will follow it. Any release optained before it will follow the old license. License changes often make no sense. Choose the right one for your project from the beginning. I recommend you stick to the ones BI provided built in during publishing. But feel free to ask about any custom licenses

[south remnant]

I mean without having to provide any input myself in case of being unable to do so; I want to have APL-ND on my projects for the first 6 months after they release then change to APL-SA after that 6 months

[celest sundial]

You can do that. Going from restrictive to open is always good. The other way around and you ask for the internet to try and cancel you.

[south remnant]

Yeah, am I able to do that without having to have any input in case I am unable to provide any input? i.e After 30.12.23 (DD/MM/YY) this project uses the APL-SA license in the description be sufficient?

[vast stump]

I suppose you can add clause that in case of your( untimely) demise this license turns to aplsa?

[south remnant]

not like i'll be around to dmca the content i just dont want it to end up going into the arma black hole of no license listed no author contact no usage

[vast stump]

For sure yeah I get your sentiment and it's nice that you consider it despite the grave circumstances. Want g to leave a legacy is understandable.

But if you add a date that can't be revoked later if you end up feeling you want to.

But if that's ok no problem

[south remnant]

I intend on open sourcing it at some point regardless, though may be worth having after 6 months of no updates to the mod files or something?

Most of the reason behind keeping it APL-ND is so that all updates end up going to the same place and such regardless

[abstract crest]

Just because you are not around, whether through health or just leaving the ARMA community does not change your license. I really hope everything will be okay mate, but if something does happen we'll have your back

[south remnant]

In the case about humvees (AMG vs Activision), it was mostly based on the first amendment (that realistic depictions of military equipment are allowed in games) -- so would European countries not have this same backing? 🤔

[old jay]

A key item to point out is that the First Amendment is unique to the US.

[spiral bay]

Tho steam rulling is based around the US (tho i do think you may be right)

[willow crane]

While the First Amendment has no bearing in the UK or EU the ruling can be used as precedent. And given the caveats in Copyright treaties if AMG tried to sue a UK or EU game developer for the same issue it would more than likely fail due to the precedent and the law of the host country.

But re-Steam in particular: any interaction you have with them is controlled by the Laws defined by the State of Washington, USA.

[south remnant]

Thanks 🙂

[willow crane]

Not a problem.

[chrome hearth]

#creators_recruiting message

[thorn wasp]

It does seem a shame that we cannot pay for a mod makers time and work.

I’d imagine the workshop could have some even better mods and assets if a person or community was able to pay for them to be made.

Like Polpox - great mods! If I could chip in and show my appreciation, I likely would…
But we cannot!

[lavish basalt]

You can

[chrome hearth]

@zealous ore Yes I agreed to non-commercial use of BI tools. But Blender isn't a BI tool. Therefore could I could infact make models for money and then import said asset for free because they are 2 separate transactions. One occurs for money and the other doesn't.

[thorn wasp]

But not for a project I ask you to do/commission you to do

[lavish basalt]

The EULA only forbids to “paywall” or “return” for a money, “just grab my money and I want nothing” is okay

Like, if you want, you can visit my Ko-fi

[chrome hearth]

There isn't anything in the Eula or tos that says I can't make models for money then import for free .

[lavish basalt]

But I will do nothing to appreciate you, only with words

[lavish basalt]

Correct

[thorn wasp]

Example:
“Polpox, make me a ladder tweak but for 4x speed! And I’ll chuck a fiver your way” - bad
“Polpox, make a ladder tweak for 4x speed. And I absolutely won’t chuck any money your way wink wink” - acceptable?

[thorn wasp]

Could you not then use non-BI tools completely?
Let’s say you managed to avoid every bi tool, could this then be bypassed? Just a random thought

[chrome hearth]

@lavish basalt PuFu seems to think otherwise and tells people that the person that they pay to make models can't import said model. Which is complete bull because that isn't in the Eula or tos. And if BI feels that way then they should update their tos.

I personally don't care what people do. But, moderators shouldn't be spreading false information about what is legal and what isn't.

[lavish basalt]

I would say I'll try to avoid to answer at this point, I definitely not a professional about legality and such to tell you absolutely correct answer

[lavish basalt]

You can pay for a non-Arma ready model. You cannot pay for implement. What's unclear?

[lavish basalt]

It is impossible after all. Making PBO or something requires BI-made tool whatsoever to make it work in Arma

[chrome hearth]

@lavish basalt being paid to make a model doesn't mean I can't import it for free.

[zealous ore]

If person A pays you for making a model (bespoke / commission based) for a mod, and you provide the model and also import it, from a legal POV the two are connected, thus providing paid services for modding

[chrome hearth]

No

2 separate transactions

One for money and one for free

[zealous ore]

my dude, mind your words, also feel free to check that out with a lawyer just like i did

[lavish basalt]

Me and PuFu neither, actually

...Are you?

[chrome hearth]

Doing something for free is doing something for free.

[zealous ore]

if it is non co-dependent, sure

[lavish basalt]

Just in case is that what Bohemian lawyers told you?

[chrome hearth]

I'd like to see where in the tos it says that I can't make a model for money then import it for free.

Link please

[zealous ore]

no, it is my own business lawyer that told me that

[lavish basalt]

Oh okay

[chrome hearth]

In what country?

[zealous ore]

if cannot grasp the difference between a software TOS and commercial laws, it’s on you

[chrome hearth]

I don't make any money modding.

[zealous ore]

neither do i.

[chrome hearth]

I'd just like to know where the tos states that "if you make money from creating assets, then you're restricted from importing said asset"

[zealous ore]

for the nth time, TOS covers just the tools. You won’t find it in the TOS that you will need to declare your income, that you will need to have a contract or at least an invoice for the services provided etc etc

there has been countless people who have tried this technique to get paid for modding. I will do the model for money and get the injection part in for you for free. If you do that you cannot legally differentiate one service from another

also, considering you are simply trying to argue, feel free to get in contact with BI legal department about it and/or your own lawyer about it

[chrome hearth]

You can, at least in the US

I'm not trying to argue.

[zealous ore]

i’ve noticed you are trying to argue, yes

[chrome hearth]

I've just seen you quote that numerous times and have never seen it written anywhere in any legal binding contract between BI and the end user.

[zealous ore]

again, feel free to contact bi legal department about it.

[chrome hearth]

In the United States, doing something for money and then doing something for free is completely legal.

I'm just confused as to how one limits the other, especially since there is no mention of it in any agreement between BI and the end user.

[zealous ore]

so is in europe. if the free part is the incentive (necessity) for the paid one, the two are considered a single service. And if that service is a paid one, then it breaks bi’s non-commercial clause

[chrome hearth]

It's not like that in the US though. Here the free portion is free, regardless.

That's literally how corporations are getting by with selling CBD and giving away THC for free.

[zealous ore]

for the 3rd time, feel free to contact bi legal, considering european /czech laws is the one valid when it comes to their contractual clauses

[zealous ore]

yeah that is something that would be 100% illegal in EU

[thorn wasp]

Are there not free third party tools??

I swear there was

[lavish basalt]

It still relies on BI Tools

[chrome hearth]

Yes as creating software to create PBOs requires reverse engineering of BI tools.

[lavish basalt]

And reverse engineering is already a forbidden, so, you know what I mean

[chrome hearth]

Yet mikeros tools exist, and he charges a subscription fee

[thorn wasp]

[zealous ore]

last i checked mikero has been vetted by bi legal department

[chrome hearth]

Oh didn't know that.

[chrome hearth]

This makes the commission/importing make sense then. The confusion lies in country differences.

[zealous ore]

hence why i keep saying one should speak with a lawyer about it / bi legal department (i have done it several times). Also, when it comes to legal things, Prague is where things would be sorted out (so eu/cz laws applies)

[zealous ore]

you can. It is called a donation and that is 100% allowed. What isn’t is getting something in return for that donation because that turns into a sale

[hot iris]

Dawg, if there was a way PuFu and RHS could turn a profit I guarantee he would know it by now.

[zealous ore]

modding is not about money for most of us old farts. Turning a modding project to profit has never been an aim.
If ever, CDLC and/or what Project Reality did is a better alternative anyways for anyone interested into turning modding into a business (also getting hired into the industry)

[hot iris]

“They don’t make em like they used to anymore”

As much as I love Arma coming to console, I truly fear what path the game and community will go down as they “OG’s” start retiring on us.

Like after Arma 4 in 15’ish years, there won’t be a PuFu to strike my enemy’s off topic conversations into the either anymore. 🫤
(O/T ik)

[coarse shell]

I feel that is wrong, As I and many of the " OG's " who have been around for a long time,

People Like Beton, Petr, Branizk and such. Don't plan on disappearing for awhile. We all try to do our best to either fix the mistakes of the past or improve the current conditions of the future.

Me, I am trying to make sure the WWII Community remains that. I try and do this through reforger.

Petr Remains vigilant in his veiw, He wants well made assets and well made models.

Beton, Though hes been quiet, Hes still around, and he even hopes after me and the team finish porting his arma 2 era assets, that he will be able to try and port some of his older maps!

[hot iris]

🥲

[zealous ore]

There will always be people who leave modding behind (for various reasons, including rl commitments) but there will always be new blood jumping in. in 15years most people including myself will be in mid 50s.

[stone bridge]

i think arma in general has a more mature audience, even most of the new community members seem to adhere to the rules

[wispy iron]

So don’t know if this is the right channel to ask in but got asked if I’d be willing to share models I’m implementing into arma 3.

Their intention is to implement them into reforger I was thinking the best way to do this would be written agreement that says you cannot profit off x y and z and must maintain credits in mod description as I’d like to be credited and don’t want my assets commercialised.

Now the models are based on modern guns but adapted and adjusted to a sci fi aesthetic would I be within my rights as the creator of said model and concept to do this type of licensing or would it be not possible due to being inspired by modern weapons specially the g36c as a example ?

[warm magnet]

you're welcome to set whatever rights for use of your assets you wish. Whether it's based on a G36 or not isn't really much of a wrinkle - the closest issue I could think of is if you called it a H&K G36 there may be trademark issues, but that's as likely as any mod being taken down for using the colt or H&K or glock logo.

Having been on both sides of this situation, I'd suggest only sharing with people you genuinely trust and just treating the models as 'gone' as far as your input is concerned beyond your initial agreement. Anything more than that will just lead to headaches.

The difficulty is not in how you want to set the rules, more how far you want to go with enforcing it. If you wanted the user to take them down and they didn't, what would you do next? Would you want to report it to BI? What if they start selling the models? Would you take legal action? On the flip side, is it fair if this team spend ages working on this project and you decide you want to pull out and wreck their work?

[wispy iron]

Yeah that’s the headache I’ve kinda got at moment with it all

[analog sphinx]

At some point in the past wasn't this encouraged? I remember vividly seeing answers to recruitment where mods told the person that commisioning the asset is ok as long as you pay for the asset and not the implementations as all AiO package 😮

[south remnant]

doesnt mean it was correct

[zealous ore]

no idea…unlikely to be encouraged per se.
Commissioning anything that doesn’t touch the tools is fine, but it quickly turned into modding for money kind of deal (with the inclusion of xbox into the mix where the commission also included encoding/ injection as a requirement but that was treated as free). The above legal explanation stands true no matter.

[inland sphinx]

As long as it is "I'll only pay you if you also do the importing" it isn't "importing is free".

"Model paid, importing free" would work, if you would also pay for the model if they don't do the importing. Which I'm very very very sure most people wouldn't, because for most people its the importing that they want.

[analog sphinx]

Pretty much what I meant with mods answering something similar in the past. Wonder how it actually works in practice legally and how you actually prove that the import is not being paid for

[zealous ore]

as i have explained above, my own lawyer, when asked about it, said that breaking the 2 services is legally impossible (according to eu laws) if done by the same person, because one could argue that the payment part is conditioned by the free service (the free part being unpaid for only due to the TOS non commercial clause) and/or both are being paid as part of a service deal.

[trim peak]

It would basically turn into a he said/she said situation. Just best to stay clear of it.

[willow crane]

Pufu is right. Even in the US you would have a hard time separating the Paid & Free. You would have to get two separate people to do it (One to make it the other to port it) for it to be "legal".

Someone used the "CBD/THC" thing as an example. But legally its a very very different thing as the two actions are substantially the same transaction as Pufu's lawyer confirmed.

[old jay]

... more like next year for me 😉

[zealous ore]

you are an even older fart then :))) ❣️

[wispy iron]

neat

[willow crane]

I'm horribly close to that already. I'm 51 in 3 weeks and I'm still here making mods. I may need psychiatric help.

[vast stump]

So you can make more mods? Will the psychiatrist also make mods? Extra hands can often help.

[willow crane]

Well i could do with a scripter for my birthday.

I think the Pshrink will likely have more common sense. Or more of a life outside than me 😛

[abstract crest]

57 and still modding and making servers...

[trim peak]

I just turned 30 last month. After reading these comments I guess I will not complain anymore 🤣

[fiery egret]

Yes. Your back pain is relatively fine, now! ||It'll feel worse in a few years! 🙃 ||

[south remnant]

i still wont mount a p drive even by the time im 70

[lavish basalt]

Hey, hey, please don't derail and don't let us sad after the freaking time we've wasted

[shell scaffold]

im 16 and already regret making a p drive

[pliant valve]

Stop, that kinda negativity is not allowed, I'm not ready for chronic back pain

[south remnant]

i already have chronic knee and back pain and im not even 20 yet

[wispy iron]

Yay sore people club

Ever expanding

[hot iris]

No, he’ll just import the mods for free!

[hot iris]

What we need is someone who can be a lighthouse for importing mods for the community

People pay for others to make the mod, then all the mods are trafficked to someone who imports it.

New crime created “mod trafficking”

[willow crane]

We are just talking about the way the law works. Not suggesting work arounds.

[zealous ore]

nope

[hot iris]

Ik I’m sorry, just having a bit of a laugh.

In all seriousness could this then qualify as “legal” or would that lighthouse just become a accessory to the crime?

[willow crane]

If the intention is to work around the law then yeah it would be illegal.

[hot iris]

Thank you for your time😭💀

[fiery egret]

Is this a mental shortcut that you've taken to explain this or can the intention actually impact the legality of something? (in this very case)
Isn't it either legal or not legal regardless of whether it's a loophole or not? (or otherwise it wouldn't be called a "loophole")

[willow crane]

No intentional shortcut, Just not in a place i can easily sit and write an essay on "intent to subvert" legal clauses. I'm currently sat on a Tractor in the middle of a field waiting for a mechanic to turn up. Signal strength is crap and i don't have my reading glasses with me.

[cursive sedge]

should've played FArma 2 instead!

[willow crane]

Just helping a friend out. Moving some stuff around. Back to making mods tomorrow.

[eternal spire]

What should I do if someone sends me Star Wars helmet models for texturing then he says if I don't delete them he will take legal action against me? (TO be clear i do not have any such files)

[stone bridge]

did you sign an NDA or a contract or anything?

[eternal spire]

no

Didnt sign anything

[stone bridge]

then i guess you can send him a laughing emoji and tell him to stop bothering you

does he even know who you are?

like name/surname/address

[eternal spire]

Nah

[stone bridge]

then what is he going to do, tell his lawyer to sue this WetBandit guy on discord?

over a star wars helmet model

that he probably didnt make anyway

[eternal spire]

hahaha, cheers I tell him to swivel

[hazy terrace]

I don't suppose there are any, perhaps practicing/past practice, English IP lawyers lurking around these parts?

[zealous ore]

unlikely, why?

[hazy terrace]

I'm just writing my Masters paper on AI and the CDPA, would have been nice to have someone to discuss/nerd out a little with 👍

[abstract crest]

So, bringing up that stupid DayZ EULA again (that is in Reforger too)... Seems to lead to things like this, where someone, for the second time uploads a Taviana rip to the DZSA workshop and actually has the lack of self-awareness to include this notice: Any false and/or fradudulent DMCA claims will be legally countered exposing for further prosecution. According to ToS these files are the property of Bohemia Interactive only. 🤣 https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2986858653

[inland sphinx]

Okey these are the property of BI only
So.. Why is he uploading someone elses property?

[fiery egret]

Because... stop asking so many questions. It's legal, okay?!?

[abstract crest]

I realised that. He didn't even understand that if that statement was true then he was ripping BI's Taviana map that is under the APL license 🤣

[abstract crest]

From Enfusion Modders discord...

[abstract crest]

🤦

[vast stump]

nice guy

[wispy iron]

indeed

[abstract crest]

So the guy above got the Taviana rip removed from the workshop this morning 🙂 Then he uploaded it (with the same Bisigns he used in the original) to another Steam workshop account 😡 Sounds sort of like ban evasion? Reported to Martin anyway, but hopefully both uploaders will face more serious consequences now?

[celest sundial]

People who are dead set on uploading to the workshop will burn one account after another. Wasting the game key each time, as BI is rarely able to keep up with them instantly reuploading.

[abstract crest]

Nuke each workshop

[vast stump]

VAC bans! get your VAC bans! One Dick move each! Get your VAC bans!

🔔

[hollow harness]

hey free money

[abstract crest]

Recommend infiSTAR, their global ARMA 3 ban list saves a lot of headache...

Unfortunately, apparently most of those on the list shouldn't be because their sister, brother, uncle or friend played on their computer and they had no idea they were cheating 🤣

[pliant valve]

Funnily enough I burned my old arma 2 key when I got global BE banned for "cheating" on my own server, for doing literally the exact thing in Arma 2 that Zeus does in Arma 3 now. I was ahead of my time.

[zealous ore]

#reforger_workbench message

@stuck panther - you aren’t paying for any sort of ice-scream, any sort of flavor. You might desire to receive icescream but instead you might end up with applepie.

By supporting us, you will give us the opportunity to continue to deliver great content at even higher quality than before.```
emphasis on `reference materials ` & `software licenses `

[late heart]

Is there a rule against using reaction emojis? Like tf is this

[meager fractal]

Wheaton's Law usually, "flaming" in our rules otherwise - be constructive in a discussion, otherwise don't participate

[late heart]

So you can’t even add an emoji to a conversation if it’s not considered “constructive”?

[meager fractal]

was that the case 🙃

[late heart]

I mean sure, I wasn’t constructive with my conversation but that’s not what the warning was for. It’s for a emoji

[meager fractal]

clown emoji reaction here #reforger_workbench message
such constructive, much wow.

basically, quit flaming when things don't go your way (and when apparently many people are wrong at the same time)
I do believe you can trust PuFu on the EULA aspect, he has most likely filed more DMCAs than you have created mods

[late heart]

Didn’t say it was constructive, I asked “So you can’t even add an emoji to a conversation if it’s not considered “constructive”?”

[meager fractal]

I don't care about "what ifs" really, we deal with what is at hand. Again, it all boils down to Wheaton's Law.

[late heart]

@hasty plume

[zealous ore]

#discord_server as well

[zealous ore]

nobody made 1127 mods 🙃

[south remnant]

something something imitation is the best form of flattery

[pliant oracle]

sometimes imitation can beat the real one

[zealous ore]

imitation is fine. ripping isn’t

[pliant oracle]

yeah look at that modular carrier with sidearm holster on chest mod, that's a good imitation almost looks like the vanilla one, but not a rip.

[chrome fox]

@zealous ore regarding the discussion from yesterday in #reforger_workbench . Just to recap it once more in a simple way: Is someone allowed to let people pay for the creation of models outside of BI Tools and then when coincidentially the model finds its way into the mod of the said modder it would be totally fine? I cant quite believe that to be honest 😄

And to which mail do I write such questions to get a statement from BI´s legal department. Is it the infringements one or the normal support one?

[zealous ore]

nope. You cannot have the same person do both.

you can commission someone to make you a bespoke model, just like you can purchase said model.

The person making the model cannot do the injection/ encoding because then one would not be able to separate paid work from free work

[chrome fox]

And what if a whole team is working on a mod? Is the team seen as one individual in this case or can i say Member A creates the model and Member B imports it?

[zealous ore]

the discussion from yesterday was in regards to donations versus commissions, the bloke simply does not understand that donations are not transactions

if you wanna contact bi legal, the email is legal at bohemia dot net irc

[zealous ore]

that goes into a gray area i’m afraid. It depends on how the contract is done, and why someone not part of the contract would work for free

Short version - payment for modding is simply not allowed.

[chrome fox]

Well thank you anyways 😄 I´ll try to get in touch with the legal department and talk with them through it

[chrome fox]

I get that. Thats why i was wondering

[zealous ore]

my answers were in regards to commissioning assets (which doesn’t involve the use of bi tools), not modding in general or in particular for reforger

[celest sundial]

It is worth pointing out that with the streamlined import process in Arma Reforger for industry standard file formats, for example models - you can of course pay somebody to do work inside blender and paint/texture it in substance painter etc, and maybe even do animations in blender too. The import of properly setup source models created without BI tools is often as simple as just dragging and dropping it into the workbench now so you do not need to get into hot waters over who is maybe paid to do the "import" process or setup configs etc. That is a relict of Arma 3/RV/P3D days. I personally am straight up too bad to create any models, I have and always will pay some talented artists to make the model I want and I just do the last bit of getting it into my mod and rename some things if needed.

I do think we should work towards a legal framework for commission work so people can be paid to do the full mod creation - with the condition that the result is available to everyone for free afterwards. If my community wants some certain feature to be created, and we collect money too pay somebody to create it we have what we wanted and if anybody else wants to use this cool new thing too they just us the mod for their server. One off, individual commissions cause no harm imo. We only need to set some basic rules to avoid any repeated selling of the same content as some kind of "product" or pay-walling of a mod with artificial limitations unless you pay to use it etc.

[zealous ore]

sure. You can have everything prepped for direct reforger import (model, textures, weights, bones, collisions etc). Same goes for sounds, animations etc.
You cannot do the encoding (prefabs etc) and the scripting etc - everything that has to do with the workbench (in case of reforger)

[zealous ore]

unfortunately that would open a can of worms, just like server monetization did. As noticed with obfuscation (so one mission is exclusive to a server / ripped content as mod trying to be hidden from public eyes). Such framework is really hard to enforce

[celest sundial]

People already do and always will pay people for commission work for their servers, it is just a matter of if we want to put some regulations and nudge it towards something more desirable for the overall community or if we want to keep shoving those people into a dark corner where they usually get ripped off by moon prices e.g. "pay 250€ for my helicopter mod" and people who are doing it well for fair hour rates risk being banned.

[pliant oracle]

is 3D modeling profitable these days?

[south remnant]

yes

[celest sundial]

This can was opened when arma 2 dayz mod got popular. People have been paying ever since. There are few people who have skills, there are many people who look for people with those skills, running the server already costs money so server owners have some to spare for content. So they will waive around some cash for anybody willing to spend their time with them instead of other "competing" servers.

[zealous ore]

i’m aware, and bi dropped the ball with dayz. it is a cesspool these days. The can is not even officially open, if bi wanted to, they could shut most down

[celest sundial]

I am not saying its easy to enforce this or come up with a plan that does not back fire, I just mean anything is better than the current situation. We can close our eyes and pretend that nobody should be paying for commission work and all modding should be done for free, but the games are way too popular.
Our end goal should be mods are free, nobody should be paying to use an already created mod, that is just a giga fucked concept. But if those mods are created by people in their free time or by people who earn some coffee and pizza money with it should be none of our concern. We have seen the cancers that develop if there is 0 regulation, I doubt we can make it worse. We will see 🙂

[heavy gate]

The wording here https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses about APL-ND is a bit odd/could be improved.
The header states

With this licence you are free to adapt (i.e. modify, rework or update) and share (i.e. copy, distribute or transmit) the material under the following conditions:
and then later in the list;
No Derivatives - If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

Maybe change the header to
"With this licence you are free to adapt (i.e. modify, rework or update) the material under the following conditions: "

[dark tulip]

It's more a language barrier and misunderstanding of legal wording than unclarity.

And since I'm neither a native English speaker nor a lawyer, it's also unclear to me 😅

Although the way that I read (and use) it;

• it is allowed to create a faction mod using the units, gear and assets from the original mod
• however it's not allowed to create reskins for the original mod

Only real issue I have is with the "you may not distribute the modified material", which basically means that you're still allowed to do everything (as long as no ones knows about it)

[abstract crest]

That's pretty much what the Creative Commons ND license says though too...

reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part, for NonCommercial purposes only; and
produce and reproduce, but not Share, Adapted Material for NonCommercial purposes only.```

[heavy gate]

It's more that the headers are the same for all licences, no matter if they do allow that or not. Of course the actual bullet points are what matter but maybe removing the "....share" would be nice.

[heavy gate]

Well you're always free (EULA permitting) to do whatever you like with your private copy of some software so that entry is more about the fact that you can't share that result imho.

[dark tulip]

So basically I need to add a custom EULA to my mods, otherwise people can still ignore the licenses?

Open Source (without license) is read-only, not copy and modify (even when not distributed).

[hardy bone]

Depending on the country you're in, you're allowed to modify a program or part of it for it to work as you want as long as:
1 - You paid a license if it's a payed service
2 - Keep the modification of said program strictly to yourself (you're allowed to share how to, but not the result, like firearm fabrication)
3 - The modification should not impede on others if your program as interaction with other

And that's wether the EULA/License allow it or not

[meager creek]

hello if i open a funds pool for people to fund a server with mods on it ($$ -> Server host) Is this considered monetization? I have a server but don't want to pay the full fee and players have offered to donate to the server rental. Does not offer percs and does not change gameplay. Any info is appreciated thanks.

[south remnant]

if they get nothing in exchange then that is a donation

[meager creek]

Okay thanks, I was hesitant and just wanted to confirm with respect to all the mod creators and their licenses as well as BI. 👍

[shell scaffold]

question if one makes scripts for a server under an agreement does that person still have "ownership" of those scripts if they send it to another person to test it?

also if you make a script by yourself that you test on bi's software and then give it to someone under an agreement and they dont follow the agreement are you still the "owner"

[celest sundial]

Ownership can never be transferred. You can only allow other people to use the content too or give them an exclusive license so you can not share your work with somebody else afterwards. It depends on your scenario if e.g. you were commissioned to make such scripts and the agreement between you and them. But in a situation where I make some script, upload it here on discord to tell people "hey if you have time, check my new script that kills you every time you fire a weapon" they have no rights to e.g. repackage that into their own mod, in its original form or even if edited.

Only once you have given the usage rights to somebody they can do what the terms allow them e.g. repackage into their mod with or without credits. Sub licensing has to be explicitly included in your original agreement. Even if I give you rights to repackage my script, you have no rights to allow others to do the same for example.

I hope this is what you wanted to know, if not please give me some more details on your situation.

[shell scaffold]

thank you that clarifies things to the extent i needed it to

and is there any way to view mission files from servers you are banned from if those servers are commiting ip theft?

other than contacting the server provider ( sent them an email already explaining the situation to them stealing my code)

[zealous ore]

Ownership can be transfered but not by simply sending a script over

[zealous ore]

not to my knowledge

[celest sundial]

What I meant is authorship and the rights associated by it, e.g. being listed as the original creator. I am not sure what the appropriate legal term in English is but in Germany its "Urheberpersönlichkeitsrechte". Those can never be transferred. This is mostly irrelevant to this situation, just a little side info I could not resist mentioning. This becomes interesting when the copyright is due to expire due to time after death of the original author. But yes otherwise I guess ownership in this sense might be better interpreted as "hold of the copyright at a given time"

[celest sundial]

Ask somebody else who is not banned to download is is afaik your only way

[shell scaffold]

k

thank you

[zealous ore]

ahh you are rights you cannot sell it but you can assign rights up to 99 years afaik

[shell scaffold]

ip rights really is something that makes me want to quit arma dev work

[celest sundial]

It saddens me to hear that. it really should not. The community authors should be able to focus their time on creating nice and fun things for themselves and others and not deal with theft etc. I hope future platform policy and tool update can take away some of the burden so you can focus on what you should.

[dark tulip]

As long as scripts/code/etc is open source (since you can "unpack" mods), it will be a problem because people think they can do whatever with it.

[hardy bone]

When I hear people talking about "open source" the definition that comes to mind is the one from the open source initiative:
https://opensource.org/osd/

not just unobfuscated code

[dark tulip]

Just because the source is visible, doesn't mean it's open source 😉
And copyright still applies, with or with an attached license.

[hardy bone]

I know that the source being available doesn't mean it's open source (as in free for modification/use); but some people use "open source" for that definition, instead of the one I linked previously, and get surprised when others use/modify their creations.

My opinion is that people that don't want their creation to be used/modified, should either clearly specify it (before it's even accessible in any form) or compile/binarise/whatever process make it "unreadable" without using tools other than a note pad or the original creation tool (for 3D models for example).
Though it doesn't remove the worry a creator can have about his creation being stolen/copied by others

[south remnant]

My opinion is that people that don't want their creation to be used/modified, should either clearly specify it (before it's even accessible in any form)
not specifying it is that.

[abstract crest]

Yeah, if no license is specified then the most restrictive is assumed iirc

[celest sundial]

No license means you can't do anything with it at all. All rights are with the creator only. Not even non commercial use with credits would be allowed

[ocean ibex]

I didn't 😄

Same as I didn't update Lingor after I got accused of stealing BI content, but I just used Mikero's tools that are linked in the official tools 🙂

[wraith nebula]

Was more for the guy pushing for you to release 😉 Like the forum rules ....... they also count here 😉

[ocean ibex]

hehe I know

[flat sentinel]

apologies if this has been asked before, what is the stance in regards to deRtm (one of mikero's tools, part of the premium license)?
is it treated just like looking at a config to learn what a certain author did?
can you freely dertm animations from any mod as part of the usual workshop license or even from the game pbos? I'm trying to educate myself here, since debinarization is regarded as ilegal while deRtm seems to be used by some?

[zealous ore]

:))

[vast stump]

Generally BI seems to have allowed use of dertm for their A3 files for Arma mod purposes though technically they could remove anything made with that if they wanted.

Taking someone else's rtm from mod is not covered by that though I believe. In such cases permission from mod author would have to be obtained.

[inland sphinx]

We don't care if you look at things on your own in private (When you show it to people, or tell them about it, its no longer in private).
If you use it to create and share stolen content, then it becomes a problem.

[flat sentinel]

alright, thank you

[flat sentinel]

thanks as well for the explanation, makes sense

[south remnant]

Is deleting main menu elements so the game cannot be easily used if an incompatible mod is loaded considered a violation of steam subscriber agreement? From my POV the mods are so incompatible the gameplay experience is already negatively impacted so this just ensures that users do not load both

more precisely, if incompatible mod x loaded, delete all main menu elements and replace with text saying the incompatible mod loaded

mods are so incompatible it would break key elements of the gameplay experience

[inland sphinx]

Why not just throw a huge annoying message in the players face, without deleting the main menu?

[north orchid]

I can remember Dedmen was very angry when he saw a mod deleting main menu items 😅

[analog sphinx]

while obstructing the game use is not strictly forbidden, its really frowned upon. There is a convo around here of a mod that was making the game itself crash, iirc that is actually un-allowed.

[south remnant]

about 3 people would read that and they'd have the common sense to realise running both the mods causes a conflict anyway

rather than dealing with people go hurr durr medical broken ur mod broken

[inland sphinx]

Breaking the main menu / intentionally bricking the game when your mod is loaded, puts you at risk for your mod being marked incompatible with the game. Which is basically taken down from workshop.

If your mod won't work, pop a message box and disable your scripts

You can also use the new CfgPatches thing to just make your mod not load if dependency is missing

[south remnant]

there is no dependency that will be missing if the other mod is loaded

i cant disable my scripts because its function overwrites that cause the incompatibility

...which i cannot resolve because theres no way to skipwhenhasdependency or something

[heavy gate]

you could replace the main three boxes with your big red text but keep the rest?

[south remnant]

Still has The Popup Issue -- people who don't want the popup to appear generally will not read it and still complain that it's not working properly

Aside from a few exceptions and those people are not daft enough to run two major medical mods at the same time

[cursive sedge]

remember to blame the other mod in your error message to minimize people posting on your workshop item 🥷

[south remnant]

them going and harassing the other mod is the entire point of having an error to begin with

whilst im sure the free advertising would be brilliant i am not particularly interested

[mossy yarrow]

There is pbo manager and its not from A3 tools

[mossy yarrow]

What that is illegal ? Since when .

[rigid oracle]

Forever.

[mossy yarrow]

Interesting

[south remnant]

paying for anything produced with bi tools is not allowed

[mossy yarrow]

Paying for a 3d Model and import it is illegal ?

Import it by myself for free

[south remnant]

read what pufu has said in here before

[rigid oracle]

That's not what you said just a few posts up. You asked since when has it been "illegal" to pay for a mod makers time and work. That is not paying for a 3d model then importing it yourself. Two completely different scenarios. Also.
There is pbo manager and its not from A3 tools
PBO manager uses BI tools to complete it's tasks. Mikero just added extra checks and his own UI.

[mossy yarrow]

No i didnt said since when its illegal to pay for a mod makers time and work.

My post was about that one post of Will who said "its a shame we cant pay for a model makers time and have it imported for Arma.

[rigid oracle]

You just added two extra letters in there that change everything.

mod != model

[mossy yarrow]

I just want to know is it illegal to pay a 3d Modeler for the model and have me importing it ?

[rigid oracle]

No. You can pay a 3d artist to make a model They just cant touch Workbench or Reforger Blender tools in it's creation.
edit: Originally said Yes, but meant No.

[mossy yarrow]

Alright i missunderstood what Will said

[mossy yarrow]

You just said its illegal to pay a 3d modeler for their model and having me for importing that said Model for free

[rigid oracle]

Can you link where I said that?

[mossy yarrow]

Here

[fiery egret]

He meant to say "No. You can pay a 3d artist (...)"

[mossy yarrow]

I asked if its illegal and you said yes.

I see

[rigid oracle]

Ahh, correct. That should be a No.

[mossy yarrow]

Alright nearly got a heart attack, thanks for clarification

[south remnant]

no, you cannot import for free after making a model

like i said, read what pufu has said in here

[mossy yarrow]

But i mean if i dont make the model i just import it after i comissioned one

[rapid mauve]

Simple

As long the model is done without the usage of official BI tools and doesnt need any BI tools you can pay for it. (So you get it as example as .FBX, .obj or .3ds) you are allowed to pay for that work.

Texture work same, you can pay for .tga, .png, .jpg etc

Doing it in any kind of OFP/Arma/Reforger compatible needs BI tools, means you are not allowed to pay for that procedure and also not for that kind of filetype cause it needs BI tools, needs to be done for free.

Example convert .png / .tga into .paa

Example convert .FBX into .p3d

Example config work to implent into OFP/Arma/Reforger to make it gameready

As long the workflow doesnt need BI tools you can pay for

As long BI tools are in use, you are not allowed to pay for.

[mossy yarrow]

Yeah thats what i thought

[rapid mauve]

You can say that for everything. This runs to nothing at all. Then whoever claims something has to be able to prove it

how should that work to not allow people to do payments if models are done in other 3d model programs which dont involve BI tools

wont work, the time procedure to make the model gets paid, the time procedure to make it ingame doesnt get paid.

these are 2 different tasks and also with different tools

easiest way

stop import export function and all have to work with ObjectBuilder, so no Blender Tools for Arma anymore

so noone will be able to import FBX, obj or 3ds and also no export function for blender to make p3d

like ive said, if someone claims about anything he has to prove that. there are 2 different tasks.

you pay for a visual mesh, with unwrap and textures, its only a visual mesh, so no arma geometries, or memory points, animations or whatever, its just a visual mesh. done in a no BI tool. task 1

you got to make it game ready for arma means you have to do the procedures it needs and this needs a lot of time, depends what it is but to make it correctly working how it has to be it needs a lot of time at least and also BI tools are needed. doesnt get paid cause it would violate BI's terms. task 2

when nothing gets violated is also nothing to prove
if someone tells me im violating anything, he has to prove me what im violating or i can tell to anyone that anyone is violating anything

thats a other thing with battleye

here is the problem that 2 things got mixed up
so the one is a tool is in use where you can get paid for

and the second one is there are tools in use you are not allowed to get paid for

but both steps are seperated, 2 different tasks

like ive said, to stop such with models getting paid, the import export functions need to be disabled, so models can only be done in a official BI tool

but this would make no sense and would destroy the modding community aswell

#creators_recruiting message

im just keeping it there where it has to be, as long no BI tools are in use you can pay that work

as long BI tools are in use you are not allowed to pay

[abstract crest]

The problem is that BI basically ignores it in the DayZ space... in effect allowing it. The same way that they do not clamp down on people who spout the nonsense about how the DayZ (and Reforger) EULA suggest that anything produced for those games are not owned by the creators... Dropping the ball on this for other games causes a ripple effect, and the DayZ modding space is toxic and full of IP theft

Paid mods are an integral part of that game's environment...

And BI don't give a shit about it. Thankfully not the case for ARMA 3

Only reason ARMA is different is because of the "Life Crisis" I think, where they almost lost the modding community... In their other games no one is threatening to quit because of it so they don't care as long as they sell copies of the game...

We got a message about IP theft in our anniversary SITREP... I'd be impressed if they ever mentioned that in a DayZ update. They will not ofc... A lot of the big DayZ servers use paid mods and they do not take non-BI tools modified files, they buy the full mods, ready to use and everyone knows it...

[rapid mauve]

i dont know anything about the DayZ modding community, mods or whats going on there cause i dont have DayZ and i dont have any informations about DayZ / even never read any infos about

but thats a other case

[abstract crest]

It is another case, but the wild west there suggests a future that we might not like... As I say, without the Life crap we may have been living that too. And remember, the DayZ modders are well into Enfusion modding, sure that they are looking for more financial opportunities

The fact that it is tolerated there means that BI honestly does not really care

[rapid mauve]

thats a completly different thing. im not saying that its ok to sell mods or something like that.

im saying there is no violation against BI terms when a model gets paid wich is not done with BI tools

and there is no violation against BI terms when such model gets into arma 3 without payments

[abstract crest]

The only reason that the rules are enforced in ARMA 3 is because the community makes BI enforce them

[rapid mauve]

thats ok and also good, i support that, thats not what im talking about

[abstract crest]

And yeah, sorry, while I replied to your comment, I was not implying you were saying otherwise

Was just saying that the rules are only rules when we make BI enforce them... otherwise they don't care and giving the prime example of what happens when we don't

[abstract crest]

Someone elsewhere brought up writing scripts or other stuff via ChatGPT. Got me thinking; if ChatGPT wrote them, or you generated AI art or in the future models, can you claim IP rights...

[limber oak]

Iirc there was a recent case in the US where a judge ruled no

Lemme see if I can find it

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/09/02/artificial-intelligence-lawsuit-decision-us-copyright-law

It looks like it's more nuanced than just "no" here, since the judge ruled it was unable to be protected because it lacked human work

That said

I wouldn't want to be credited for anything gpt spits out lmao

Especially since it's murky with how it just yanked wholesale from github and I can't track down the license of what it used for generation

[dark tulip]

The big question is: who is the copyright owner since (usually) copyrighted content is used to generate the "new" content.

That said, none of the AI tools that I've seen are capable of generating content on their own and always require human input (and tweaking in output). And yes, there are tools that can "think" on their own, which is probably what the court ruling is about and not the stuff we currently do at home.

[mossy yarrow]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2507498170

This Mod still have CoD Rips and its not taken down yet

[serene stirrup]

Was it reported to [e-mail]?

[mossy yarrow]

yes 4 times

apparently its not just CoD Mw2019 Rips but its SMA, Dega Vehicles, D3s Vehicles, apalon vehicle and other pbos

[south remnant]

report to the proper authors

infringements team take forever to do anything

[plain sedge]

What if the mod author is AWOL?

[south remnant]

then they cant take it down

[plain sedge]

Lucky for some people then, hey sturmfall?

[old jay]

It will be taken down.

[mossy yarrow]

yes ?

[mossy yarrow]

finally thank you

[south remnant]

nobody around to take it down, only stuff that is ripped gets pulled from the workshop
#ip_rights_violations message
hence why non-ripped SW mods still exist on the workshop

[mossy yarrow]

the funny thing is my original shadow company mod was taken down like 3 days of existence, thats why i dont want the reupload of it to exist

[old jay]

Unfortunately, it's a manual process. Someone may see it a day after it was uploaded or 3 months after. Additionally, this doesn't mean that it will be struck down immediately either.

I don't consider this to be the "ultimate" document regarding IP, but its a good very start https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Intellectual_Property

[plain sedge]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2506628808

This is not my Mod i just upload it on the steam workshop for easier accessibility!

[plain sedge]

"got permission" deletes it anyway

[zealous ore]

#reforger_discussion message
@jolly trellis - there is a difference between copyright laws (across the world, or at least the US and EU variants - these are pretty similar) and fair use. People who haven't considered talking to a lawyer always go fair use because it isn't commercial, which is 100% false. The few exceptions covered by Fair Use do NOT cover any sort of modding work where there is any sort of distribution.

If you want to make your own Mikey Mouse in whatever game for your own enjoinment, then that is indeed fair use. The very moment you share that mouse with anyone else it stops being covered by fair use

[jolly trellis]

Which is a fair point.

But I'm a lawyer, and I'm telling you that things like fan fiction, because of their non commercial and transformative nature (something that has to be determined on a case by case basis) can be categorised as fair use as well.

The law on the topic is, as expected of the US, fairly messy and often deliberately so.

There hasn't been, to my knowledge, a specific case relating to mods; but they should be covered by the same law as fan fiction works.

I could ask someone who does deal specifically with US IP law if you're certain about it.

But that may take some time

[zealous ore]

My own business deals with IP rights due to my field of work, and i license it to my clients contractually, my own lawyer has clarified a lot of my modding questions based on the European Laws, and before that one of the lawyers that has worked before for Google Ireland (a old friend of mine).

Feel free to check that on the US side of things, but Fair Use doesn't apply for things that are shared between a maker an audience.

There is also a matter of trade dress, patents and likeliness to the original works

[jolly trellis]

I'll ask my guy.

Might take a while, but I'll get back to you with what he tells me.

One other thing to bear in mind though that lawyers (as a matter of principle) will err on the side of caution, so they'll try to avoid areas that are contentious (such as fan works) even though there's no definitive ruling against the principle/stance.

[zealous ore]

Just note that there is a difference between fields of work. Disney doesn't make real life products (they license it to several companies - toys and alike), they create IPs (and one of the reason they bought Lucas).

The moment you compete with them in the same segment market they can say they are loosing money because of said alternative (mods for game A or B). It is not the same thing with say Glock, they won't loose money if game A or B will portray their handguns in a videogame, quite the contrary.
And i mentioned Glock here because they are one of the most drastic ones in regards to their licensing deals, and yet they are open to allowing their stuff to be use (including branding) with modded content.

[pliant valve]

That's entirely false, modding doesn't make something fair use or not, what you do with the mod is what makes it fair use or not, if you make an Africa centered mod focused on criticizing Shell for their atrocities, then using their logos and name are fair game.

[zealous ore]

yes, but making a mod using shell logos without having a critique/ journalistic approach is fine as long as you do not redistribute it further, which is the point i was trying to make in the context of the previous discussion

[pliant valve]

You can redistribute it just fine if the other factors are in your favor, just like you can draw a mickey mouse poster with critiques written on it, and hand it out at a protest against wage theft, no problem. It's an affirmative defense against copyright claims, meaning you have to prove it's fair use in court if the copyright holder after having done a reasonable assessment of fair use (I think it's reasonable that's the standard) decides to not accept your counter claim, and you do that by satisfying the 4 factors of the fair use test.

[heavy gate]

https://arma3projectlife.com/pages/custom-work

How is that allowed under Arma 3 tools TOS?

[south remnant]

its not

[lavish basalt]

Technically a SQF script is not a part of Arma Tools. But others are so yes it's illegal

[south remnant]

has to be tested

well

should be tested

[lavish basalt]

Well technically

[south remnant]

but if youre like me and never test your code then sure

[lavish basalt]

It is as impossible as having another universe

[heavy gate]

Yeah I'm more talking about the importing assets into Arma 😄

[frozen jackal]

this has been up like for years now, I wonder why it just managed to go under the radar for so long.

also why is it always French lifer people doing weird stuff with assets that don't belong to them?

[heavy gate]

Well you can also purchase/rent their mod for your server for the cheap price of $90/month

[south remnant]

vengeance

[cursive sedge]

you could test your code with sqf vm which runs completely outside of the game

[abstract crest]

I love how their mod requires TFAR... Dedmen must be so proud 🤣

[mossy yarrow]

Illegal if paid, Legal if not obviously

[inland sphinx]

Monetized servers get special permission/exception

Mh.. They were approved, they are not on the approved list anymore

[upbeat gazelle]

What is the problem with this?

[lavish basalt]

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/End_User_License_Agreement_for_BI's_Tools
In short one cannot be paid to provide Arma ready content

[upbeat gazelle]

So i Cant pay someone to Do scripting or create a Server for me

?

[lavish basalt]

scripting
SQF is just a text so probably not, but don't quote me because I'm not a lawyer or employee
a Server
Not even a scope of that EULA

[south remnant]

if it requires arma or arma tools you cannot pay for it

so you can only pay for untested scripts

[shell scaffold]

makes me curious as to the remote debugger with vs code but im pretty sure it uses arma in the background right?

[south remnant]

tool made using arma so would expect it cant be used for monetised purposes but im not too sure on that one

[inland sphinx]

My SQF Debugger just connects to Arma. The code is running inside Arma and being tested there

Also my Debugger is CUP-L

Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Licensor grants You a non-exclusive, worldwide license to:
    Use the Licensed Material, as whole or in parts, for ArmaOnly, NonCommercial and NonMonetized purpose only.

so no-no commercial use unless you ask for a specific exemption

[late isle]

Yo, I found this site selling mods for ArmA3 and I wanted to know if it is allowed or not.
https://www.the-programmer.com/arma-3/

[lavish basalt]

Paid Arma ready asset is illegal

[late isle]

So do I contact authorities or the admins do it?

I also know a server that uses those assets

[south remnant]

email in channel topic of #ip_rights_violations

[analog sphinx]

its your average altis-life mod store, not that it makes it any better.

[potent moat]

Could I make a AR mod with a custom license and make some files have one license and other files another license? e.g the code is APL-ND but some models are APL-SA...

[zealous ore]

in theory yes, in practice it depends on how you deliver the files/ structure

[potent moat]

What exactly do you mean with deliver files?

[zealous ore]

in A3 you could have different license for different pbos. In reforger you would ideally have 2 mods one dependent on another

[potent moat]

I wanted one mod with different licenses for Reforger

Either "All files in this folder are APL-ND" or in the main custom license file "fileA : APL-ND, fileB : APL ..."

[celest sundial]

You are free to license individual files as you please. All within the same mod. You can put e.g. multiple licenses in the license file and prefix them with "The following applies to all files under prefabs/".

Most projects just use one license to fit it all. But having to split mods by license is a urban myth. Licenses have no technical requirements. You could define a license for every other byte in a program if you fancy so. It's just decreasing the chance that people follow it correctly.

[crimson garden]

Not very familiar with licenses, but I'm essentially trying to find a license that's roughly: "You may use asset(s) with explicit permission from the author(s), and must be credited in some sort of public display"
Mostly just to give people the ability to ask "Hey can I use/modify X script/texture/whatever?"

[rotund mason]

creative commons licences like CC BY-SA or CC-BY-NC

https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/
though I have no idea if these would apply to mods, someone from bohemia would have to confirm that

[dark tulip]

You can put any license to your own creations, or use multiple licenses for different parts.
And as long as you don't use anything from Arma itself (which already have a license attached), you can take anything that suits your needs.

[crimson garden]

Thanks! 👍

[zealous ore]

while that is 100% true, unlike PBOs, for reforger everything is distributed under (a single?) .pak file(s). It isn't just about prefabs, but also for all other file types. It is possible to make a list of delivered files and assign individual license to each ones (or based on prefix to cut it shorter). It just means that it would be 100% impossible to have a license prohibiting derivative content (for instance CC BY NC ND) together with (APL-SA) considering dependency mods don't care about individual files but rather published mod in its entirety

[celest sundial]

Please do not use creative commons for code: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software
For what you asked the best license is one you can choose from the publisher window: e.g. APL. This chart explains you how to arrive at the correct license: https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/

[celest sundial]

Listing a mod as dependency does not reuplaod the original mod as part of yours. You just publish an additional mod with patches on top. As part of those you can change or entirely replace individual files.

So there are two very different usecases:

1. A mod that is published under e.g. APL-ND can still of course be used as a dependency. I can override scripts from it or do what ever as long as all the patches I create on top (if there are any) are entirely my own creation. I can not e.g. take the mod model, modify it slightly and reupload it as part my my patch-mod. That would be against the license. But that is a rather nieche usecase. The majority will either replace entire files or merge changes with their own original IP. For these cases the originally license code/model is not re-distributed and there is no violation of the ND clause.
2. Mods that are published under APL with or without SA can have individual pieces of it extracted and republished given they follow the license restictions such as attribution etc. Usuall it makes no sense to create straight up copies of content as then you need to maintain it yourself and you just bulk up your mod install with larger file sizes, but from the licensing standpoint alone that is very much possible. Since @potent moat asked about difference licenses on particular files in his one mod this is the scenario that applies to him. He could for example want to a) make all the scripts APL-SA but b) make the models+prefabs folder contents APL-ND. And that is as I said possible. The users of his mod will never have a problem if they jsut use it as dependency and those who want to extract remix and reupload parts of his mod can only do so with the scripts in this case 🙂

The concept of PBO, PAK or ZIP or what ever archive is used has no implications on this matter what so ever. The legal framework for ip rights does not know the concept of files, archives or computers for that sake. If you have a piece of intellectual property, be it physical or digital that can be identified as such by a rasonably educated user, and the license was given insdie the file, alongside with it or the user was forced to accept it to optain the file this is all fine - at least in the EU. Not sure if the US has different rules but those do not apply here.

[abstract crest]

Though you then have to take into account the terms of the Steam Workshop when republishing, whether there is an APL license or not...

[celest sundial]

For the steam workshop certainly, they have their own clauses that must be followed on top of the EU and the BI EULA define. The mod in question is about Reforger though and our own workshop 🙂

[abstract crest]

Oh right... 😅

[zealous ore]

The Non Derrivative clause from the CC-NC-ND link - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ states clearly that
ND - If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. It is irrelevant if you publish it separately - good example here are re-textures

I agree that from a license (law) perspective the way the files are distributed has no implication. From a way of accessing there files with the other that has been provided with these files, it does.

[celest sundial]

You can re-texture by applying your own texture you made. You can of course not just edit the existing texture and put a little text on it or something.
Textures are not baked anymore in Reforger. You can apply your own materials without the need to reupload other peoples or the game contents 🙂

[zealous ore]

For the second time - non-derivative, in terms of licensing, mean: no remix, transformation or material built upon the original material. You can texture if you want for your own sake, you cannot distribute these further
here is the legal code - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.en
For the avoidance of doubt, You do not have permission under this Public License to Share Adapted Material.
the very definition of derivative is one thing based on another thing (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/derivative)

[south remnant]

how do you intend on making your own texture without using the original as a reference anyway?

[celest sundial]

It is actually a good question if your own original compatible texture counts as derivative or not. Built onpon is certainly met if it still contains part of the original work, but if its an independent creation that is just comapible it might be a different story. But I have not yet dealt with such case yes, so I will read up some more and see if I can find any calrifications or rulings on that situation.

[south remnant]

You'd have to spend a lot of time randomly hacking away at the texture to get the mapping proper etc

[celest sundial]

You are very much able to draw over an original texture if all you are concerned about is the UV mapping. I would argue that: As long as there is nothing on the texture from the original source they are not connected in any way legally. Just having the same layout to be UV compatible is not something you can protect under IP rights because its a technical necessity. I do not find any obvious examples that are game development specific, so take it with a grain of salt. The closest comparsion that comes to my mind is: That you are also allowed to create third party accessories that are compatible with e.g. a devices shape (like phone cases) or a cover that fits a car perfectly. You do not need permission do even any commercial operation. You just can not use any protected trademarks in advertising for them.

[south remnant]

So it's... built on the original material..?

[celest sundial]

No, building upon something in the legal world has a specific meaning, it is not the same as if you tried to interpret it with plain english - as its sadly often the case. Just because you used something as inspiration or schema along the way does not mean you violate those ip rights. Only if your end product contains any of the other persons expression of work it does.
If you have a fancy idea how to e.g. layout an advertisement banner and I take yours, change all the text, color, fonts in many cases that is entirely legal. You could only defend against something like that if your particular arrangement was so creative that it itself has become more than just the sum of all pieces and is thus protected. But these are super rare and always go to court. There are not clear set lines for "this is theft ... this is an independent creation"

You usually know if you create something original or if you just did some minor changes to a texture or model or script or what ever. The one thing you need to keep in mind for these things is that ip rights apply to only individual expressions of work. Morally you should always seek permission to e.g. re-texture somebody's model. They spent time on it and your texture would just be a boring 2D graphic if it wasn't for their model info to display it in the game. So I advise to always respect that. From a strict legal point however these two are entirely unconnected. If you had a court case about "theft" of the texture you would be putting the two texture files side by side. The context of them existing in a game and what not is entirely irrelevant at that point. Assuming none of the pixels are identical of the two textures to compare and an independent observer is clearly able to distinguish them (e.g. its not just all pixel values changed by a single digit rgb value) the only question that remains is if the particular arrangement of shapes, their position, sizes, contrast etc were copied. At least of general position and size this might be the case - since it should be UV compatible. But then the question is if that was actually protected. Here again - I am not certain - but from my experience in patent disputes the argument of a technical necessity to layout these things as is rather than creative expression is likely to be followed. The decision here is if the degree of transformation is significant enough, apart from the pretty much identical layouting, to consider it your creation.

[abstract crest]

Surely if a texture for a model has to have a certain layout in order to fit the specific model then it has to be derivative, because the texture layout is unique to that model?

[vast stump]

another completely different model could have same layout technically

it just just part of the model itself, not a separate entity

texture drawn to fit it from scratch is its own work but texture drawn over existing texture is derivative

but using that new texture on the model via hiddenselections is still derivative since it uses the existing model

[celest sundial]

On what legal basis exactly? Or is this just your personal interpretation of what you consider to be a derivative?

[vast stump]

well I suppose its my interpretation.

it it requries the other mod to work it is derived from it

[celest sundial]

The legal terminology is often distinct from the common understanding. I was very careful to disclaim that I do not have a paragraph or ruling backed explanation yet and thus my above statements try to approximate this from other things that I know for a fact. I am trying to get a reliable answer and will share it here, because this "re-texture" situation has man facets to it that can not be boiled down to a simple "you use their mod in some way, thus its a derivative". Please don't put any absolute statements here like that as others will 📸 it and claim it as proof for their opinion without any context.
I am not aware of any cases against people who have been doing this in any game or other 3d-applications - so I am optimistic of this not being a problem - and as such the people who are already doing this for years do not need to get scared when lurking on this channel. But a definite answer will be the only thing to settle this, no personal opinions. If you or somebody else has relevant primary sources on this topic feel free to share them in aid of clearing it up. I have reached out to a few ip rights lawyer friends with this particular situation and hope to hear back from them within a few days.

[zealous ore]

a model contains UVs in order to be able to texture it. But just like 2 individual models of the same things are different in terms of typology, number of verts etc, so are the UVs. No 2 artist doing the same weaponbox will have the exact same 2 UV layouts and set. Having the UV is the technical requirement, the layout/setup of the UV isn’t. Considering 3d models are considered art form - unlike say a cover for an existing phone, i’d say things cannot really be compared.

[zealous ore]

Sure, you own the rights over the textures you have produced (if it is original enough, not if it is a color conversion btw - not to say that the texture in real time 3d engines are basically more than albedo/diffuse - and the overall aspect of said mode is driven by a set of minimum 4 - albedo / roughness / metalness / normals) even if you have not created it by remixing the orginal one, using it over the original work in ways that it does transform the original work (which is the pupose of a re-texture) is derrivative work

To give you an example - if i write a book (create the characters, the story etc etc) and you come and create the continuation (using the same setup, characters - which you further develop, add, maybe change) that is derivative work from any legal perspective you want

A phone case does exist without a phone, It’s a product. It might have little purpose without the phone, but it is not a necessity for the phone to exist in order for the case to work / exists (i still have about 6 in a box for my current iphone and older ones) It is not the same with a texture - sure the texture does exists without the model but serves no purpose. Also slapping a case on a phone does NOT change the phone base colors, functions, internal components etc - which is precisely what most re-textures / code changes etc (not all but most dependency mods) do

I’m glad you asked some IP lawyers, i have had a back and forth with my own years ago when i had things that needed to cleared up

Which also relevant to note here that, despite your role as a BI developer, the comments in this channel are your own, and do not have anything to do with BI stance / BI legal department view on the matter

in case CC-NC-ND is not clear - this has a clear overview > https://whc.unesco.org/en/licenses/10/

[crimson garden]

I meant to ask, but why should creative commons not be used for code?