other_ip_topics

[barren tartan]

My 5 cents. AFAIK IP rights do not answer the particulars about "control over the mod", and most distribution channels only require that you have the right to upload stuff to be distributed - not that you necessarily the original creator. During creation they might have sent files to each other but that does not imply the right to "redistribute". Since they've split and neither party has granted the other formal rights (license), they cannot use each others contributions. The simple solution is: they stop using each others content since they lack permission (license) - this will likely require the current mod to be taken down until the textures without license can be replaced.

[coral juniper]

Its easy. You were never really given license to use or distribute the assets or work. So you are in breach here.

It has nothing to do with who uploads it to the workshop first. Nor our EULA. Its a basic ownership and licensing thing.

@barren tartan is correct so no need to explain it again.

[willow crane]

Just to add some information for people that do not want to be in this position...

You need to get a "deed of rights" from all your contributors. Its basically a contract that specifies that the contributor gives up his rights for this specific usage in your mod. (It does not affect their moral rights to be acknowledged as the author/creator).

The idea is to be open and transparent about what can and cannot be done. How disputes are handled and any other terms you want to add. You can specify conditions of use etc. Creating an agreement between your mod and all contributors to ensure they get credit. But once released to the "mod", The mod then has rights to use the content for the specific purposes outlined in the "deed of rights."

This avoids all the nastiness of this kind of thing. Everyone knows where they stand on day 1 and nobody falls out.

I'm not sure if there are any templates out there for our specific use case. But I am sure there will be something for project contributions that could be adapted.

[coral juniper]

Thry dont have to give out their rights. I find that predatory even.

They only have to license their stuff to you.

[willow crane]

OK bad wording on my part.

Still the "contracted work" model applies. You dont have to give up all your rights just the right to how its used in the mod.

[coral juniper]

They dont have to give out any right

They only have to give a license

Give out right implies the modder loses the right

Giving a license allowing the modder to use the content works just fine.

Its not a complex thing

There just has to be an agreement of use of the content across the parties.

Its the same deal as mod licenses

[willow crane]

I think we are having a bit of a lost in translation issue. Its 0300 for me and im a few pain killers in. So give me a bit of slack please 😉

I should have been clearer, definitely. But any contract would "give the right to do X with the content." I'm not suggesting giving everything away. Its just phraseology.

[coral juniper]

Its 4 am here

Its not that i am trying to fight with you. Its that it is implying that and it will give people some misunderstanding on how to go about it

[willow crane]

Yeah and I've been awake for 36 hours. Most of which has been screaming in pain.

[willow crane]

No i get it. I'm just trying to point people done a possible path to a solution.

[coral juniper]

There is two ways. For the modder to license the content or give out rights

Two different things.

[willow crane]

I'd argue It depends on the terms of the contract/deed but I'm not going to argue with you at silly o'clock in the morning.

[coral juniper]

They are not the same

Keep it separate or else you will make people lose their rights of ownership

They can still own the assets, and some group be licensed to use something irrevocably and permanently

Depends on the license

[willow crane]

Pedantically, you are right. But both give the right to control or deed rights to a 2nd or 3rd party.

[coral juniper]

But no rights need to be transfered/given out

[coral juniper]

Yes but in agreements this matters

Hence why i am being hard about it

I get countless DM all the time about modders losing their rights due to this aa well

[willow crane]

Yes it does. But as I said right at the start,

The idea is to be open and transparent about what can and cannot be done. How disputes are handled and any other terms you want to add. You can specify conditions of use etc. Creating an agreement between your mod and all contributors to ensure they get credit. But once released to the "mod", The mod then has rights to use the content for the specific purposes outlined in the "deed of rights."

[coral juniper]

No, that was after the giving rights out.

Anyway this is not productive. The correction is there. Lets not clutter this.

[willow crane]

And I said I should have worded it better

[coral juniper]

Otherwise people will miss the message 😅

[willow crane]

And this is the way I've done things for our mods for 20 years in multiple games.

[coral juniper]

I enforce the things so i am telling you that wording like this is important.

[willow crane]

Hey, you do you. I wasn't trying to get into a legal debate. Just point people in the direction of a possible solution.

If you want to write out an outline for people to use I'm sure people here will be grateful.

[coral juniper]

Yeah but by the wording you pointed to the one that often causes the issues.

That is it. Your message is useful dont worry about it

[willow crane]

Again, experiences differ. But yes I should have been clearer.

[indigo socket]

this guys tryna sell me a workbench project he thinks its aloud, i thinks hes scamming

[lavish basalt]

This is a regular scammer, pinned in #creators_recruiting

User banned

[polar veldt]

@coral juniper Mario can you check dm I have important question in there

[proven pike]

Hi, I was hoping you could clarify something - can content from the DAYZ_MOD_PBOs_ADPL-SA.zip licensed data package be used in Reforger projects? To be clear, it wouldn't use DayZ's branding in any way.

[tepid lion]

I would assume not after recent events

[plain sedge]

The datapacks should be fine #ip_rights_violations message

The issue was with people taking files from DayZ release

[proven pike]

Thanks, this is my thoughts too, I just wanted to confirm

[coral juniper]

This is not entirely true

The issue is people also using dayz brand on it.

[abstract crest]

Tbh, you are not gonna get much from the DayZ Mod LDP that is usable in Reforger, unlike ARMA 3. The models are binarized and you cannot debinarize them under the EULA and the code is SQF

Also is a very limited subset of vanilla DayZ mod, a very old one, with none of the DayZ Community assets. Again, useful for ARMA 3 though

[proven pike]

Ah okay, I think I have misunderstood the LDPs. I thought the EULA only applied to the actual game files, not the LDPs, so we could debinarise files from LDPs to use in other Arma and DayZ games (providing they adhere to the license e.g. ADPL-SA they were uploaded under).

@coral juniper is this right - we cannot debinarise LDPs?

Sorry if you are not the right person to ask, I just saw that you replied above

[vast stump]

That is correct. no debinning models. 0 tolerance.

[proven pike]

Sorry to be pedantic but I just want to be crystal clear as you mentioned models. Is it specifically models that are not allowed or all files within the LDP? It's not the models I'm interested in - it's the animations and sounds.

[vast stump]

Those too.

[vast stump]

You can only do what the license allows.

[proven pike]

This is what is confusing me as the license seems to allow it.

From the license text (Section 2(a)(4)):

"The Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or authority to forbid You from making technical modifications necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective Technological Measures."

That seems to explicitly permit debinarisation of LDP assets if it's necessary to adapt or use the content within Arma or DayZ - as long as the use is:

• Non-commercial
• For Arma/DayZ games only
• Shared under the same license

My understanding is that the EULA restricts tampering with actual game data, but Licensed Data Packs like the DayZ Mod one are released separately under their own license such as ADPL-SA, which is more permissive and encourages adaptation.

In short, the license itself appears to allow debinarisation of the LDP, and I haven’t seen anything in the license that overrides that. If Bohemia has made an official statement that contradicts this interpretation, I’d definitely respect that - I just haven’t found one yet.

Would be great to get official clarification from BI if this is still in a grey area.

[celest sundial]

Normally models in LDP should not be binarized at all, that is sort of the point of those models being reuploaded

[proven pike]

Yeah that's what I thought. The reason I’m asking is that the DayZ Mod LDP was released only in binarised .pbo format. So if someone wants to use those assets as intended - non-commercial, within Arma/DayZ, under the ADPL-SA - it seems like debinarisation would be necessary. This also seems to be acknowledged in the license as it explicitly permits technical modifications including those necessary to circumvent effective technological measures.

I guess what I’m really trying to ask is this:
If a mod uses content from this data pack - which, due to its format, requires debinarisation - will it be allowed on the Workshop?

I just want to be sure before I spend more time on the project and upload something that ends up being blocked or removed.

[covert bear]

incorrect, LDP's are just the binarized PBO's but distributed outside of the game license. Only the sample packs contain source data/models.
see https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/licensed-data-packages

[proven pike]

I believe I've found a definitive answer that avoids legal ambiguity - from Bohemia's Licenses FAQ page:

Q: I want to use some data from a PBO which is part of ALDP. Can I do that?
You are free to unpack the PBOs and repack their content (even modified) in your modification's PBO(s). You need to be careful with the license of the original data (e.g. data released under APL-SA which you would modify need to be released under the same licenses).

So, to summarise: debinarising LDP content is explicitly permitted, as long as you follow the license it was released under - in this case, ADPL-SA.

[abstract crest]

Unpacking PBOs is different from debinarizing models and permission is not there to do the latter. BI release two data sets, regular LDPs which contain binarized content and Sample Packs that contain the unbinarized data. Unless there is a Sample Pack (there is not for DayZ Mod) you are out of luck

[vast stump]

There are no legal tools provided by BI to debinarize models.

[proven pike]

My apologies - I think I’ve been using 'debinarising' incorrectly, which is probably where some of the confusion has come from. I had assumed it was synonymous with unpacking .pbos.

To clarify, I’m not trying to use models. I’m specifically interested in sound (.ogg) and animation (.rtm) files, which are immediately accessible upon unpacking and don’t require any debinarisation.

So unless I’ve misunderstood again, I believe these files are still okay to use, provided they come from an LDP and are used in accordance with the associated license.

[vast stump]

rtm are binarized too

Use of vanilla rtms for Arma (3) purposes has been tolerated same as use of vanilla textures as retexture base. but technically that is also forbidden if I understood right.
However the DayZ datapack -> Reforger is new situation so I would at this stage DM MarioE and explain in detail what you are after.

The animations are not really of use anyway directly since character skeletons are different

[proven pike]

Thank you, I will shoot Mario a message to clarify.

[woeful zinc]

rtms are binarised though

in any case, I remember some discussion about it in context of TKOH

since some mods (CUP, RHS) were asking how to proceed with lack of MLODs and right now I see plenty of TKOH in A3

in RHS that specific PBO had to be released in separate license

[wind beacon]

I know this is violating the RHS license it seems, but does Bohemia allow servers depicting Ukraine Russia conflict? https://www.battlemetrics.com/servers/reforger/34420205

[blazing epoch]

Did they make a mod that modifies RHS content to achieve that, or is it just the server name/setting?

[wind beacon]

Unsure, but the server name (and maybe setting) would likely violate the license terms laid out by RHS as a condition of using their modification.

[blazing epoch]

An RHS person would have to weigh in, but iirc the main thing for RHS is they don't want their mod being used as a dependency for a mod that adds stuff. So if you add Azov patches or like Wagner patches or something, that's not allowed, but if you use the content on a server that is based around that in setting/name, idk that it's enforcable. Though again - I am not RHS so take what I say with a grain of salt, one of them will definitely weigh in. Additionally I think BIs rules are similar.

[wind beacon]

Its enforceable I'm sure, since they can completely descide who is allowed to use their modification. A few communities were already banned from using it for having violated the IP (in their decision)

[blazing epoch]

again from what I recall that was because they made derivative mods from the RHS content adding in unit patches that are from the current conflict. Currently there is no way to completely enforce who uses your content and who doesn't.

[rugged prawn]

We ban derivative mods yeah. If they just use our mod to play out these scenarios we can't do much unfortunately. Sometimes we disallow communities because as a whole or their leadership has demonstrated concerted efforts to break game or our EULA consistently (visibly or under tha table) and have general disrespect for other people's work.

[blazing epoch]

Are you guys actually able to ban communities from running the mods? I don't ask because I disavow or something, I'm more so curious about how that works. Or do you just ban the community from making derivative mods?

[rugged prawn]

We can't per se enforce banning servers running our mods, we can only DMCA any workshop items that depend on rhs. We do strongly believe though that BI should allow mods to blacklist servers to respectfully allow modders to decide if some people are not worthy , especially in cases of blatant monetization or theft.

[icy linden]

Would be nice if servers were connected to communities (ie. clans like we used to call them 50 years ago) and then this information was exposed in script so you could simply check if the community is the one you don't like and just turn off the mod

Of course this does not stop communities from copy pasting my code and there's like at least 3 popular servers that have done it

[rugged prawn]

The only real viable manageable way is through workshop IMHO. This should not be a burden on mod scripting capability.

[normal pond]

But anyone can run a server.
Without any form of verification.

The only thing that would be viable is a whitelist, not a blacklist

[rugged prawn]

In my use case blacklist, for other use cases like Life mods that are typically made for one server whitelist is better yeah. In my case I want everyone to enjoy except specific bad actors that I know about

[normal pond]

I know what your use case would be.
That's why I'm saying that a blacklist is undoable with the current system

[smoky oriole]

Anyone can run a server? You can´t even run a git repo without it getting screwed up!

[meager fractal]

huh?

[prisma summit]

Just to play devils advocate for second.

If implemented, how long before a system like this is abused, and mod teams start saying “ok this mod is only allowed on this one server” and it just becomes a big gate keeping exercise killing smaller communities, censoring gameplay and turning off vast quantities of the player base? 🤷‍♂️

Not to say RHS would do this, but it would only be a matter of time before someone did

[barren tartan]

You can already enforce this in the legal sense. Any technical constraint would just be edited out and the unrestricted version will be distributed instead, which puts you back to having to defend yourself legally to take it down.

[wind beacon]

But then a takedown could then happen at least

[near swallow]

So basically the solution to this problem is to get a lawyer (or be lawyer) from my understanding

[normal pond]

he's mad that he passed the 10 gigs you get for LFS on GitLab where we moved after he filled the 2 you get on github
And because he is tech illiterate, I have to fix his issues
But I got no time rn

[barren tartan]

It has always been... Suppose I violate your stuff, you DMCA me, I refute it. Your only option is to take me to court then.

[rugged prawn]

Well I mean should it not be the right of the makers to do this if they wanted to? Honestly I don't see it happening outside of isolated cases, modding is usually not the scene for this sort of thing, but if I choose to limit it, why not? Noone's really entitles to anything

[near swallow]

You seem like a decent guy maybe I won’t sue you

[normal pond]

so I either have to figure out how to delete old LFS files, or go get a 4TB ssd and spin up a local repo so he can finally finish the mtlb, so it can be stolen and I can try in ip channels on topic for once

[wind beacon]

It's honestly people like that I wish got sued more to be fair. I've seen these exact cases in the tech industry with IP.

[lethal grove]

What happens in the case of a non RHS EULA compliant server creating an entity catalogue to add RHS gear to their arsenal? I ask relative to the prior conversation in this channel as i feel there was no consensus #other_ip_topics message

[rugged prawn]

can you clarify "non RHS EULA compliant", i think this can be interpreted in several ways

[lethal grove]

for example, if banned groups/actors created an arsenal mod using RHS as a dependency, implementing RHS gear, how could this be resolved?

[rugged prawn]

we would dmca their arsenal addon

[lethal grove]

would that be possible? i ask because of this convo #other_ip_topics message

i dont mean to seem ill-intentioned, just genuinely curious

[barren tartan]

It is literally him saying technically yes

[rugged prawn]

the statement in EULA regarding banned actors is clear: "Due to repeated infringements of the existing Red Hammer Studios EULA and/or Bohemia's Interactive Terms of Service and/or other reasons, the following groups/persons are STRICTLY PROHIBITED from using RHS mods and creating any derivative content based on RHS: Status Quo or any other past, present, or future RHS mods:"

[icy linden]

As an author you are allowed to exclude a third party from using your content

[rugged prawn]

on this basis we can file a DMCA, of course up to BI to enforce or not we cant control that

[lethal grove]

gotcha, thanks for the insight

[rugged prawn]

but in terms of normal use (non banned groups) derivative can still be pretty open to interpretation

so BI people here say that something that for example just adds your entities to an arsenal or uses your stuff in a scenario is not derivative, which i personally strongly disagree with. To me, addon A used by addon B in any way is automatically derivative

[lethal grove]

that’s where my confusion stemmed from

[rugged prawn]

yeah i figured thats why i mentioned it

but yeah this is more of a philosophical question I suppose

if i take song A and change every note in it except 1 is it still derivative

[barren tartan]

You (RHS) have you own license. But the APL licenses are based on the Creative Common licences and they would not allow such usage to be derivative.

[rugged prawn]

which usage?

[barren tartan]

Just referencing classnames

[rugged prawn]

ours is also based on CC-ND originally

so you are saying that it would not violate the ND?

[barren tartan]

Yes, that is my interpretation. The Creative Common licenses are generally view as "inferior" for code heavy works.

My reading of the Adapted Material definition would imply in my reading that mere use of the name does not quality to make it a derived work because you are not satisfying the second part of this "and" clause:

"Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor. "

Since I am doing no thing to the license material, not even affectings its function indirectly, I don't see how I fall under the Adapted Material definition.

(To be clear I am not actually doing any such thing to any project, or have any (at least current) intention to..)

[rugged prawn]

well, probably the one thing that can be done in both APL-ND and maybe ours is a clear defintion in the license exactly what "derivative" means in the context of Arma modding

and that definition can be anything really

in essence its the licensor that decides ultimately whether they choose to enact the DMCA in their interpritation

[coral juniper]

I think it is important to mention that the workshop and servers are also moderated on behavior. And if we find you are being predatory with the usage of your server or mods. Then we might just ban you if you do not sort it out.

Its not only always only about IP rights and such.

Same as players, you also (modder, server owner) fall into these behavioral rules.

[blazing epoch]

If I were to ban a group from using my mods would that be enforceable if it was found that they were? In the instance that I have a custom EULA specifically stating that like RHS does. I know Soul_Assassin just stated that that's RHS's plan if that happens, but I'm also thinking of what Mario said of "If you are being predatory with the usage of your server" and I'm wondering does BI consider that predatory, or is that more in reference to more "institutional" issues with the server rather than a personal dispute between a modder and server?

All of this being hypothetical right now of course

[coral juniper]

From our side, we are only set to enforce ourselves IP theft and such.

Downstream restrictions are not for us to enforce.

What I meant there was that if we find for example server A constantly causing issues with modders not respecting their licenses, etc. Not wanting to fix issues after being told then we might consider that against the better of the community and perform an action under the behavioral aspect of the game usage.

Same as if it was a player trolling other players, or griefing

same thing in a sense, just in a different scene

[blazing epoch]

I see, so basically this specific example goes a bit outside BI's boundary that you guys have set (which I understand) but if the server were to make a derivative mod when the license forbids that, it would then become an IP issue which you guys could then resolve? Am I correct?

[coral juniper]

Resoulution is not on us. We are not your team.

If you DMCA, it will be processed

But we will not fix the issues with the modder for you

[blazing epoch]

Right that's what I mean, apologies if I'm unclear

[coral juniper]

We might, depending on severity help sometimes. But we are not obligated to.

If anything, our extent in helping in this regard is just making sure the modder knows or is informed of the issue and how to solve it.

I hope it is clear.

[blazing epoch]

I think I understand but I also don't anticipate myself having to expend these options. I appreciate you clarifying though

[tepid lion]

Hey Mario could you check your DMs when you get the chance. Sorry for catching you off hours.

[icy linden]

I imagine since BI is responsible for distributing your content to the third parties you want to exclude, they should help you prevent those third parties from using your content if you request it

[coral juniper]

THink of it like YT, does youtube do that for you?

Also from the ToU. If you read it then you would not have imagined that.

[icy linden]

I don't see the connection

[coral juniper]

Read it with the whole ToU as context

The entire thing is connected, so keep that in mind

You have this as uploader
The custom license shall also not limit the functioning of this ARMA REFORGER Workshop and shall support its purposes.

Then for the purposes of the Workshop. You have this

4. Downloading Content from ARMA REFORGER Workshop

ARMA REFORGER Workshop enables the User to download, use, and (if the license under which the Content was uploaded to this ARMA REFORGER Workshop allows) alter and further develop the Content other Users uploaded to ARMA REFORGER Workshop all in compliance with these Terms of Use and other applicable documents.

You acknowledge that We may in Our sole discretion decide to limit or terminate Your access to ARMA REFORGER Workshop and any Content uploaded on it particularly if You are in breach of these Terms of Use and other applicable documents or if You are operating any Content on monetized servers without necessary license or permission.

If You download any Content from ARMA REFORGER Workshop You accept and agree to be bound by the respective license under which such Content was uploaded to this ARMA REFORGER Workshop.

ARMA REFORGER Workshop enables the User to download, use, and (if the license under which the Content was uploaded to this ARMA REFORGER Workshop allows) alter and further develop the Content other Users uploaded to ARMA REFORGER Workshop all in compliance with these Terms of Use and other applicable documents.

That part is the key one based on the other line

Only part that is allowing you and binding us in terms of your license to limit on other players on our side is this and (if the license under which the Content was uploaded to this ARMA REFORGER Workshop allows) alter and further develop the Content other Users uploaded to ARMA REFORGER Workshop all in compliance with these Terms of Use and other applicable documents.

The other part ARMA REFORGER Workshop enables the User to download, use, which is where that thing you mentioned falls is not on us

[icy linden]

how does the workshop allow a user to alter content?

[coral juniper]

Read the thing...

[icy linden]

I thought I need workbench to alter anything

[coral juniper]

Read the clause title

Read the whole ToU

Where do you download the mod from?

Where does and when does the license applies to you?

When you download it

Where is it distributed?

Workshop

Where did you want to limit the first two usages by us?

Workshop

[dark tulip]

The workshop allows the USER to download, use, modify, etc

Obviously after downloading it from the workshop

[sleek hollow]

@coral juniper Got a question for ya. Its both an IP and Mod Dev question of sorts.

If someone were to commission an item for a mod related to an IP. And then donate said item to a different server/group for its use. Would it be a violation?

Asking for a different guy that isnt in here.

[sleek hollow]

Like someone outside of the actual mod team who then donates it to said mod team

[vast stump]

Most IPs that allow fan made work (like Halo) allow those only as non commercial. Commissioning paid model made from such an IP can already be a violation in itself.

How the maker can use a commissioned model further after being handed over to the customer depends alot on the contract between the maker and customer.

If the model is not made with clear ownership/IP transfer/exclusive rights clause in the contract, the maker may retain right to do whatever they want with it.

Also donating a paid model might be violation of the contract/license between the buyer an maker.

Again depending on what the contract/ licensing says.

Like typically if you buy a model from place like Cgtrader, you buy it for your use, not to be shared around as you like

[sleek hollow]

Gotcha, thanks

[vast stump]

That last bit I edited in is quite important too.

[sleek hollow]

Aye

[icy linden]

@rancid flame Wanted to reply to you here to not clog the showroom channel with more discussion.

The code that was used is not licensed free to copy and distribute, especially not copy and distribute under a different license. It would be unfair to only exercise your IP rights when the usage of your IP is subjectively bad.

You do not automatically gain permission to use someone's intellectual property in your work just because your usage is good (in terms of making a nice thing with it). Since the license the original code is under does not permit you to freely copy and release as your own work, the only way you can do it is with explicit written permission from the author.

[blazing epoch]

What are the rules around depicting a group that has been removed from the list of terrorist organizations by the country that originally designated it and also no longer exists? I know it's always safe to make whatever you have in Arma "generic" and inspired by said group, but I just wanna see if there's any leeway at all if it straight up doesn't exist anymore and no country cares

[barren tartan]

AFAIK, the rules only pertain to mods on the workshop and monetization. So unless you are making a mod you want to put on the workshop, or you server is monetised I don't think there is any enforceable rule. Some mods might have additional clauses in their license - maybe RHS - that prevents certain depictions using their stuff.

[vast stump]

Incorrect. There are rules about that.

[barren tartan]

Which rules are these? Without using the workshop or monetization, pretty sure I only agreed to the Arma 3 EULA https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/arma3-end-user-license , and in some places of the world EULAs don't even have meaning. Anyway in the EULA I can't find such limitation?

[brisk pebble]

horrible can correct me, but there is also https://www.bohemia.net/community/game-content-usage-rules

[barren tartan]

Sure but none of that is relevant.

• First when did I agree to those? Don't recall seing it in 2013.
• The scope of the document is "These rules will help you to receive answers in the event that you’re interested in making and sharing screenshots, videos, gameplay footage and music created using our games." - None of these match here.

[coral juniper]

We have as administrative management rule to not allow those, which you indeed agreed that you allow us to at any point for whatever reason we can take away your use of the bohemia services (Which we use in order to perform this kind of moderation).
We do it based on the community management aspect to avoid any kind of offensive or ties to real life groups / people.

[barren tartan]

Okay, but HorribleGoat suggests that those rules also exist "outside" the workshop and monetization?

[coral juniper]

Administrative rules as I told you

If we see you cause issues for community, we have certain rules to just ban you.

In the end moderation is needed on that aspect too

So don't be trolling, annoying groups, annoying modders, being overly politically incorrect, etc

[barren tartan]

Okay, but that doesn't really tell me whether Your401kPlan is allowed to play with NPCs dubbed "ISIL" on his own clan's (non-monetized) server and whether it being public or passworded matter?

[coral juniper]

It being public or not does not matter

here are the Terms and Conditions that revolves around all our services (That are in the links provided below the EULA in the games, and ToU of workshop) https://accounts.bistudio.com/terms-and-conditions

[barren tartan]

Okay, thank your for your answers.

Though I still have found no way to determine answer to the question just before. Reading between the lines my "guess" is that Bohemia does not permit ISIL under "overly politically incorrect" or similar reasoning?

[coral juniper]

It's political and dividing topic (Which also falls on offensive for some parties). So yes, not allowed.

In the end it causes troubles within the community and external view of the game, so we prefer to not have it.

[barren tartan]

I am not going to push the conversation onwards to absurdity here, but I will just say that people can make anything be "political and diving" and find offense. Some may find ISIL offensive, and some might find the "concluded" war on terror offensive. I'm guessing in practice most will receive a warning before a "Service termination" ?

[coral juniper]

Yeah there is warning unless it is severe

Also offense is calculated based on severity

It's not black and white thing

[meager fractal]

the rule is not "someone found it offensive" 🙂

[coral juniper]

At the end there is a consideration to be made and decided whenever we allow it or not whenever it reaches there

[polar veldt]

@tepid lion

[meager fractal]

@polar veldt

[polar veldt]

@meager fractal

[meager fractal]

@polar veldt
it is considered bad etiquette to single ping; use DMs if needed

[ivory dock]

Which mechanics?

[thick yacht]

disregard

works for me, guess everyone complaining about it on their discord is just dumb dumbs

[ivory dock]

Bruh

[zealous moon]

So uhhhhh... It's been a while now, any chance we could get an update on the release of the LDPs? https://dev.arma3.com/post/sitrep-00241

Especially in the wake of the last revelation that they might not even be usable for anything, with the way the restrictions are imposed

That being, the LDPs would be Binarised, and we're not allowed to Unbinarise them, meaning we can't actually edit the models in them, making them pretty much worthless

Well, there is one use for them, although it really doesn't benefit BI or modders

That being that according to the EULA, you can legally package DLC content released in the LDPs into a free mod that people can use without restrictions

[vast stump]

assuming all the DLC content are released with such licence.

Previously the A2 datapack came with the unbinned samples that were possible to use and edit btw.

Although right now there is no new information available

[zealous moon]

Uhhhhhh

https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/licensed-data-packages

I'm pretty sure the models in the A2 LDPs are binarised

At least they were last I checked

Or at least, isn't this you saying as much? #other_ip_topics message

Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting that

[lavish basalt]

All A2+A2OA+A2DLC models are unbinned in Sample Models, not in LDPs, is that what you mean?

[zealous moon]

So I'm right? The LDPs for Arma 3, assuming they follow the same system, will be binarized, and effectively useless?

[vast stump]

well sure. I dont quite know how to utilize the LDPs.

The samples are listed above them

[zealous moon]

Right, but weren't the samples released after the LDPs?

[vast stump]

Dont remember ❔🧠❔

could be

[inland sphinx]

Probably.
For Arma 1/2 it made sense, because the binarized models could still be loaded in Arma 3. So the LDP's gave you the ability to port content to later games.
For Enfusion engine, maybe not so much.

[zealous moon]

Trying to find info on just when what was released, I came across the Licenses FAQ

So we are allowed to Unbinarize LDPs?

[vast stump]

There are no legit tools to do that

so no

not the p3ds

[zealous moon]

God why is this all so arbirtary

[vast stump]

you can unbin the pbos to see the configs and rvmats etc

same way as you can do to the game pbos

[zealous moon]

So, "Look, but don't touch"?

[vast stump]

Like Dedmen mentioned the A2 A1 data was possible to inject into A3 without touching the models.

just config rework

original file paths and pbo/mod structure

there is no new information what the A3 datapackage will have though

[zealous moon]

Damnit

I know it's not you guy's fault, but jesus it's frustrating to be strung along like this

[vast stump]

🙏

[zealous moon]

Did Yoris ever post a follow-up to this btw? #other_ip_topics message

[coral juniper]

There is no extra public information or changes about this so no need to try to gather it right now

[zealous moon]

That's... literally why I asked

To figure out if I missed it

[old jay]

This is the sort of information that should be published publicly (BIKI perhaps).

[zealous moon]

^

[pliant oracle]

BIKI hmm, another job for Lou i guess

[coral juniper]

Lou is not the technical writer anymore

But there is currently nothing to write about this anyway

[abstract crest]

Thankfully he's still helping out 😉

[tepid lion]

https://tenor.com/view/house-dancing-in-front-of-deaf-patients-room-fight-the-power-house-in-shades-hugh-laurie-house-md-gif-20407298

[coral juniper]

Yeah but he is not writting the new ones, that is on his free time now as community member (he is in another position now)

[abstract crest]

Yeah, and a lot of biki was done by the community. Lots needed from the Reforger community or BI for the Enfusion side of it...

[fiery egret]

Well, he better update his Linkedin profile or...

...or we won't be up to date with whatever he's doing right now. Something all of us will be uncomfortable with!

[near swallow]

Do Mods like Star Wars mods (for example) break the tos of arma 3 too?

I know they violate reforger TOS not sure about the other games

[vast stump]

modding typically relates to the workshop TOS and in reforger you have to have permission for the content/IP you upload

steam workshop TOS has similar entries

[wraith nebula]

Actually see the pinned message 👀 i think that has all the answers 😅

[near swallow]

https://tenor.com/view/reading-sign-cant-stop-me-no-one-can-stop-me-gif-13921932

[meager fractal]

said like that it sounds like I got taken down for displeasing the Mob 😄

[meager fractal]

you can always count on me for legacy support 😉
and mini "on point" articles for disambiguation/specific situation 🙂

[abstract crest]

Very much appreciated Lou. I think ARMA 3 counts as legacy, yes? 🙏

[meager fractal]

I assume so, anyway yes I will be available for it

[abstract crest]

Nice. The ARMA 3 Biki is a shining light that others doing technical documentation for modding their games (or even generic IT companies) should use as an example of the right way of doing things, everyone who has contributed deserves our thanks

[coral juniper]

😂

[frail relic]

I assume this is sarcastic 😅 Unless you honestly think mediawiki is the gold standard... My message was unnecessarily harsh

[barren tartan]

I found it obvious that he was referring to the quantity and quality of information, and not the fact that mediawiki might not the optimal wiki software...

[abstract crest]

Exactly this

[zealous moon]

So Arma III is considered “Legacy” now?

What does that entail?

Is it just a slight drawdown in support?

[wraith nebula]

Arma 3 is not legacy yet, probably after Arma 4 release at some point, but development only consists of fixing bugs that can be fixed and optimisation for the game by a dedicated skeleton crew.

[zealous moon]

Well who do I believe here

[rancid stone]

Who said it was legacy?

[zealous moon]

Lou did

[zealous moon]

.

Or at least, he assumes it is

[wraith nebula]

He also assumes, yet it still has official channels and is not in the End Of Life cycle officialy. So no legacy yet in my eyes.

[zealous moon]

Kinda understandably, given the general lack of attention in favour of Reforger

[wraith nebula]

It still gets optimisation, while Arma legacy titles dont have updates anymore. Like said a very small dedicated team to keep a bit of support for the game.

[zealous moon]

I just wish that included someone being active within the community

[wraith nebula]

Well we got some publicity, but it is also a choice to make at some point after officially announcing a downgrade of support and releasing a new title (reforger) that the latest game gets most attention, Arma 3 is after all over 13 years old(including alpha/beta) so still have a dedicated, even tho skeleton, crew of devs working on it is only amazing, normal companies would stop actively supporting a game after the 5-10 year release date, calling it "end of life" and doing 0 support, besides maybe some networking issues for servers.

[vast stump]

its not really topic of the channel. 😅

#arma3_questions

[abstract crest]

And still as many PC players play ARMA 3 as play Reforger. In fact, at this precise time, there are 2,500 more people playing ARMA 3🤷

But in any case, the ARMA 3 legacy was sort of a joke between Lou and I based on his saying he still dealt with Legacy stuff in biki... 😉

[zealous moon]

Right

[meager fractal]

the game is still alive and well, it is in an "End Of Life" situation but still strongly supported by Dedmen & Killzone Kid (and others)
I heard "legacy" technologically-wise as Grahame stated, more of an inside joke than a statement on the game 😉

[zealous moon]

Riiiiiiiight, gotcha

[harsh goblet]

In regards to music, is Arma 3 music "fair" to be brought to Reforger or due to its live status, not allowed yet? How about DLCs / CDLCs?

[vast stump]

No

For cdlc the dlc makers hold the rights.

[coral juniper]

Even if the game were to be dead, if we never license you to do such porting explicitely then its not allowed.

[harsh goblet]

Shame! Thanks for the clear answer though.

[vast stump]

You can reach out via email to seek permissions to do things. At worst you'll be told no.

[abstract crest]

Music is also one specific area where certain tracks may not be in the Licensed Data Pack due to licensing of the music for the game, not for UGC. In any case, nothing in ARMA 3 can be ported to Reforger unless it has been relicensed in an LDP/Sample pack...

[woven thunder]

Hi, I'm not sure where to ask this, I received the same email as the other day when my mod was unintentionally removed from the workshop, I'm not sure what was happening but is it the same reason ? Someone told me he couldn't download my mod I'm wondering if that's because of this

[vast stump]

it was misclick on processing

nothing to worry about

[woven thunder]

All right thanks

[wicked sequoia]

Something I've been curious for a while now, but what exactly is the policy regarding the backporting of Reforger's Samples to Arma 3?

https://github.com/BohemiaInteractive/Arma-Reforger-Samples/tree/main/SampleMod_NewCharacter/Assets/Characters/Vests/Vest_Sample

For context, the vest model provided in Reforger's Samples repository is exactly the same as Arma 3's NATO Carrier GL Rig/Carrier Special Rig. Which would make it pretty neat to use in a mod given that we still don't have Licenced Data Packs/Samples for Arma 3.
Furthermore, Reforger's Samples are marked as APL and this would be a mod for an Arma game. So...is this an acceptable use-case of Reforger's Samples or is it off-limits?

[normal pond]

Read the license
https://github.com/BohemiaInteractive/Arma-Reforger-Samples/blob/main/LICENSE

[wicked sequoia]

I'm aware of it being APL:

Furthermore, Reforger's Samples are marked as APL and this would be a mod for an Arma game. So...is this an acceptable use-case of Reforger's Samples or is it off-limits?

But does this extend to backporting? This wouldn't be a mod for Reforger, but for Arma 3 instead using Reforger's samples.

[celest sundial]

APL allows porting between all Arma Games (not DayZ or Take On series etc). So yes Reforger APL content can be put into A2/A3. If it makes sense is a different question as most content is incompatible on a file format level

Especially given hopw the example vest you linked already exists in A3? It is the heavy personal armor for bluefor side if my eyes do not deceive me

[wicked sequoia]

That's great to hear. Thanks for clarifying!
And yeah, it's the basis for the NATO Carrier GL Rig/Carrier Special Rig. Only issue is that Arma 3 doesn't have Sample MLODs so we can't edit the p3ds. But it's possible with Reforger's FBXs + blender.

[potent moat]

Random thought I had, what if I make a mod, where you can make your own models ingame (with a bunch of little modular pieces), but the config for that comes from your profiles folder. So the actual model is never uploaded and someone makes a IP protected model 🤔

[celest sundial]

That is what crosses your mind after waking up? Or did you not sleep at all.

[coral juniper]

Legit existential question

[vast stump]

Is it's purpose to circumvent IP rules?

[potent moat]

No, but people could do that. Just wondering who would be held responsible, cause technically you dont share IP content on the workshop

[hardy bone]

If you give away free paint spray can, are you responsible for people tagging with them?
Yes if it was your objective, no if you were genuinely just giving them away

[pliant oracle]

that argument can be made into a bad actor, "here's molotov for free" then people do whatever with it, and damages starts happening everywhere

slippery slope

[hardy bone]

That's why I used paint spray cans, those are in most cases not regulated, while a Molotov is classified as a weapon in multiple countries

[limber oak]

But a bottle of vodka or a jerry can isn't. I mean, it'd be like if Walmart got in trouble because you can buy booze, gas (some of them have gas stations I think?), and cloth napkins there. The thing here isn't a ready made molotov, it's the ingredients to make it with the implied message of "Hey please don't make this but I can't actually stop you so, please?"

[tepid lion]

Bruh

Modding shower thoughts have never been more real.

[vast stump]

We would likely remove your mod if people misused it.

[grim sand]

Under most countries laws, if you are aware that the person was going to commit a crime and you enabled them, then you're going to get dinged.

But yes, providing the implements, and doing your diligence to limit their bad use, is generally all the law can expect.

[calm ridge]

What should I do when I see a mod on the Steam Workshop that reuploads mods that can't be reuploaded and stuff like that, like https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3399147178
I think that guy was the same guy that was talking here: #arma3_questions message

[vast stump]

Messaging @chrome plinth can help. I recall this guy may be serial offender already.

[icy linden]

Out of context it reads like Dwarden may be a serial offender.

[pliant oracle]

yep the same user who stole multiple other mods assets including late JC's mod

[grim sand]

JC - his full name. I can't remember at the moment - he expired? When did that happen?

[pliant oracle]

quite a while back

[grim sand]

Not to get OT but Jcquillin guy?

[hollow goblet]

JC980.

[grim sand]

Rgr. Okay. I thought for a second one of my internet friends died without me knowing. Good enough. Will spare this channel more off topic.

[hollow goblet]

Sorry for the ping, just opped in to follow up on that guy reuploading my content, which is under lisances that prohibitthat due to the models source. By message dwarden do you mean @ him or try DM him?

[vast stump]

you can DM him in these matters

[hollow goblet]

I was pretty ok with him just reuploading stuff like my AK retextures, but seems he has now went on to uploading my otherweapons

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1073042974990155837/1413938992621293712/jca.jpg?ex=68bdc0cd&is=68bc6f4d&hm=7342332128689a3747cc85b388a99c658c7c0c4344c7e697bae24b71d93f6bc9

[vast stump]

DMCA is also an option

[hollow goblet]

Not in thiscase, not giving a religious wack my personal info

[vast stump]

but Dwarden might be able to just throw the guy out due to repeat offences

[hollow goblet]

thanks for the info, ill DM him.

[vast stump]

you can also add that as one of the reasons you hope he can intervene

[hollow goblet]

thanks.

[hollow goblet]

no messages from people who are not friends it seems.

ill send a FR and wait

[chrome plinth]

Vini Vici Placuit

[tepid lion]

Nitimur in vetitum

[inland meadow]

Wait DMCA gives personal info?

I thought it just gave that info to steam 😭

[hollow goblet]

did you notread it?

it says your info would be shared with the other party

[inland meadow]

I must have missed that bit when filling it out 😭

Also does anyone happen to know how long steam takes to look at DMCA requests, I sent one for this mod

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3558304324

Yesterday but I didn't get an email from steam confirming that they got the DMCA.

For context I use to be in this unit, when I left they decided to reupload the mod from their own account without adding any credit, a lot of the stuff in the mod is either my stuff or stuff my friends made which is under GPL2/3 so reuploading is fine as long as credit is given which they haven't.

But I also noticed that they have uploaded multiple other people's mods in the same mod all without credit too.

[minor cove]

Couple of days.

[inland meadow]

Is it normal to not get a confirmation email?

[minor cove]

Didn't get one either some years ago, so i guess yea

[abstract crest]

That's under the permissive APL license, you can redistribute so long as you give attribution/credit to BI. So no need for dependency https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/arma-public-license

[vocal oyster]

Can a mod developer with an APL-SA mod license revoke or limit a specific person from using their files?

I want to jump into modding by making simple changes tuned for the server I’m in, but want to make sure that it won’t just be taken down by the developers of the mod.

[dark tulip]

I would use a custom license, just to be sure. Because the APL-SA says it's not allowed to add additional limitations because it would invalidate the license (and therefor the mod would be without a license, and thus nothing is allowed...)

Nor does Valve care (in case of Arma 3) about their own Workshop rules regarding uploading content without being the owner of the content.
Not sure how BI is handling this in combination with APL-SA, although their blog article basically says the same...

[vocal oyster]

Ok thanks

[inland sphinx]

Relying on "They currently don't care about their own rules" does seem a bit risky doesn't it?
Even with APL-SA the author can easily get steam to take down the upload, even if Valve doesn't care about their own rules, the mod author may care about the "You grant valve the rights to.." parts of uploading the mod

[dark tulip]

Except that Valve did not take down the mod after a counter DMCA (which was invalid), and ignored any communication...

Even from my lawyer...

[vocal oyster]

Does reforger still have that issue?

[vast stump]

what issue?

[vocal oyster]

Where the mod team can go to steam and make them take it down,

Basically I’m asking if the mod team can go back on their APL-SA license and get my (future) mod taken down because they don’t like it, or they don’t like me.

[pliant oracle]

reforger not using steam workshop tho?

[vast stump]

license can be changed

you would technically still be able to use the older version where the license was different

but that requires bit of shenannigans

[vocal oyster]

Ah, that’s kinda weird but I get it

[vast stump]

but also you would not then benefit from any future updates under the new license

[vocal oyster]

Yeah, and because it’s a forever changing mod, my mod would immediately be left behind

Thank you

[vast stump]

that is possible yes

[barren tartan]

To add: that is not particular to APL-SA. Any work you depend on can change their license for a future version. Depending on the dependency, you may want to backup regularly the one with the valid license so you can embed it directly if need comes. Dunno about Reforger, but for Arma 3 it wouldn't really require any shenanigans. Though it is all somewhat stupid since people who use both the original, and the new version of the dependency would now have both taking disk space.

[vast stump]

redistributing the dependency may not be allowed by its license though

[barren tartan]

If it is APL-SA then that is literally allowed. Or do you mean the dependency's dependencies?

[vast stump]

but you said not partcular to apl-sa

which covers all types of licenses

[barren tartan]

True. It was assuming the status prior was using a valid license for derivative works that also allows embedded (which is like 99% of them rounded down).

[prime bough]

I got a question for the lot of you for a scenario I am hearing about.

So, say I bought or otherwise gained an asset to put into an ArmA mod. The license on the asset at the time of obtaining it says I can use it in ArmA.

• Scenario 1, the license changes, and now the original license owner is trying to retroactively enforce it. The original license did not give permission for them to do this and I already used the asset. Do I have to remove the asset? I'm under the impression no.
• Scenario 2, person who gave me the asset ripped the asset from somewhere else and gave it to me under a license that was never valid to begin with. Here, I assume I have to remove the asset. If I paid money for it, I can demand compensation.
• Scenario 3, person makes let's say a car or fighter jet or whatever. They modeled this by hand and sold/gave me the asset under license that I could use it. But Oops, Boeing owns the rights to the airplane, or Toyota owns the right to the car. Now is where I am not so sure. Do I have to remove the asset from my mod or do I just have to not call it a damn Boeing or Toyota?

I do want to know what Bohemia's people think since a very popular mod is being voluntarily taken down but it seems to be a situation of the mod author not knowing their rights after the person selling models may have retroactively changed their license because the website it was being sold on went, "NOOOOO YOU CAN'T CALL IT A TRADEMARKED NAME AND USE IT IN A VIDEO GAME, WE WILL GET SUED" or they just changed it themselves.

Mind you, in game has no trademarked logos. I think they were goobers and used a trademarked name but that is an easy config fix. If nothing else, something to avoid in the future. I just want to know the facts. The mod author is already erring on the side of caution and just removing it but they are nuking over half their mod and in a lot of cases they are nuking stuff that shouldn't even be covered under any trademark bullshit such as antique guns.

Still gathering details.

@me mods if you can confirm how these situations would be handled. 1 and 2 seem correct but 3 is the one I am not sure about.

[prime bough]

Are "editorial" licenses also kosher for ArmA mods? Since it's not commercial use.

[abstract crest]

(1) No, you retain the license you had for the product; (2) Yes, delete it; (3) Yes, delete it

If, reading further, you are talking about a mod that used trademarked assets in it, well, the trademark owner can take it down at any time they want. Sometimes they won't, sometimes they will and it will be taken down.

[prime bough]

The "trademark" in question right now that I know of so far is a Colt M16A1.

I find it hard to believe that all mods featuring an M16A1 have to remove their mods, but I find it plausible if they just can't feature the name "Colt" on it.

The rest is answered by question 1 and whether or not editorial licenses are okay for ArmA.

I am not interested in whether or not the company who owns Colt will bother to come down on the mod author. That almost never happens. I need to know if Bohemia Interactive cares that it might happen however slim the chance is.

We will pretend for the sake of argument that Colt being named is a no no.

[abstract crest]

And Colt do own that trademark. Honestly doubt whether Colt would have come after the mod, so maybe there is some other reason. But M16 is Colt's

Mods that have the Colt logo have been taken down though

[prime bough]

See, that makes sense to me and I can see that happening.

[abstract crest]

Or modders changed it after realizing their model had it

[prime bough]

But like imagine CUP and RHS getting nuked because they have guns or vehicles that are "trademarked" even though no logos are depicted or mentioned.

That would really feel like an overreach and it would suck.

[abstract crest]

The logo is more likely to get Colt's attention. Most big mods do their own instead

[prime bough]

That's what I figured. I just need an ArmA moderator to confirm so I can go ahead and tell the person without a shadow of a doubt, "bro chill out let us go remove all mentions of Colt and you're good, we will do all the texture fixes"

[abstract crest]

And as a last point, BI will enforce their own and everybody's else intellectual property and trademarks. They can't enforce their own if they ignore others...

[prime bough]

They also want to remove guns like the Thompson and BAR and I'm like, bro, those definitely aren't covered by that trademark issue.

Someone is giving them bad info.

Now that all said, it's moot if the assets were originally obtained on an Editorial license.

We have already discovered that some models had a royalty free license on them before so I'm already going to forward that info that those don't need to be removed, but I still want to know for sure because there is a ton of cool stuff that is on an editorial license.

[abstract crest]

Heh, "Tommy gun" is trademarked, as is "BAR", but there are other names that can be used, "Thompson SMG" and "M1918"

Again though, wondering whether Colt actually came after a mod... possible I guess

[prime bough]

I never new Tommy Gun was trademarked! Huh. You sure about BAR?

[prime bough]

I'm just going to check literally everything to be sure.

[tepid lion]

TCA owns it I think

Thompson/Center Arms

“A smith and Wesson company”

It was sold back so idek it’s got a long story

Civ version is Auto Ordnance and the rest is very hard to determine

[prime bough]

Fascinating. Well, good thing I intend to double check every gun in the mod for trademark issues.

[tepid lion]

Honestly the best thing to do is a logo swap even names could “potentially” cause an issue down the road.

You won’t know full legal permissions unless you’ve spoken to them yourself (this takes ages) but is the best route as always.

Some brands like advertisement. Others do not. Some Car companies are 0 tolerance as they don’t want their brand/vehicles being viewed as destroyed or altered.

And if you think something is ever questionable always take the safe route. Do not publish anything unless you are 100% sure it’s ok to do so.

[prime bough]

I intend on changing names too. Just to be sure. If military designated names start getting trademark slapped we have bigger problems for the modding community...

But like I don't need the name Colt on a rifle.

[tepid lion]

That’s why I say “potentially”

Well you can’t say 1911 without colt

It sounds weird

[vast stump]

@prime bough some mod makers have reached out to manufacturers/IP owners and gained permission to use names and such. without such permission you cant use names/logos.
also:

1. If you have proof of the old license then yes you can use it with that.
2. Delete
3. No permission -> remove logos/names or delete

[prime bough]

I once emailed NASA about a dispute and got a reply for something silly in a video game, I absolutely will email major arms manufacturers to ask pretty please. Great to know.

So that confirms what I suspected. Thank you.

So what of editorial licenses? Are those allowed in ArmA? Asking for future reference. We have proof the original license is different but I still want to know for the future.

There are a lot of really good models that are editorial only, which allows me to use in non commercial media. It says nothing specifically for video game mods but also says nothing ruling it out. So far I'm under the impression it's fine unless it conflicts with ArmA EULA somehow.

[vast stump]

editorial license is not suitable for mod/game use

[prime bough]

Good to know!

[calm ridge]

It's against the license if your thing has some part or a modified part of one of the files from the other mod. If your thing has nothing from the other mod but you use its stuff as a dependency then that's fine.

[inland sphinx]

Its Arma though, not ArmA

[abstract crest]

ARMA 🦆

[pliant oracle]

Operation Flash- gets shot by Marek

[dark tulip]

creates "milsim" game called ArmA, because it's not protected by IP
And Dedmen's message will be proof in court 😈

[graceful galleon]

I used to say ArmA for many years untill someone from BI corrected me.. its mostly coz of the letter A on the Game Cover being bigger then the other letters.

[near swallow]

Just to make some of you guys feel old, there’s people that are younger than arma 2 and are old enough to play it

[tepid lion]

Man I haven’t seen the arma 2 cover in years

[stray rover]

And the Armed Assault doesn't help either 😅

[graceful galleon]

And the loading screen

How i miss the Ospreys from a2 hh

They were such a sight back in the day

[abstract crest]

Ofc, it was not called Armed Assault in the US 😉

And ofc, elsewhere it was ARMA: Armed Assault, thus ARMA: ArmA 🤣

[tepid lion]

A, A, A

ArmAA

[lyric light]

So ArmA could also be AA?
Can I come here for my therapy?

[main sage]

#enfusion_scripting message

Change the prefab, sure, but the license doesn’t tell the game what it can and can’t do. This was covered pretty well in the FAQ, but yes we can discuss more there.

@rancid stone

A good example I’ll bring up similar to the FAQ is if you have a mod which makes every vehicle red via material override. Would you violate an extremely restrictive license for your mod interacting with another mod in such a way? No, the game is what is doing it. Dependency =/= derivative. Like how correlation is not inherently causation. Now this is definitely not a blank check and it’s just an interpretation supported by the FAQ.

[rancid stone]

I was thinking if I add an entity label via script, I'm technically changing the prefab which would then be a derivative, no? Even if I'm not specifically overriding the prefab.

[main sage]

So I understand this thought process but their prefab isn’t in your mod. The game does a convincing job of making it seem like this is not the case and you are modifying their files. Let’s say a license could prohibit you from interoperability with other mods. A helicopter mod could modify the helicopter base prefab and be APL ND, then if your mod touches helicopter base to add something to it you would be in violation because you “technically changed” their prefab. See how it this example the game is constantly violating licenses due to the override nature of prefabs. You just simply cannot prohibit another mod from modifying your prefab in runtime, except when such modification is done by reuploading and thus deriving original copyrightable content. The FAQ explains this concept better than me: https://reforger.armaplatform.com/news/workshop-licenses-and-ip-faq

below references scripts primarily but the same idea applies here, from the FAQ

“For the same reasons as above, inheritance may not be considered Adapted Material. Even though the technical means are different, the kind of usage remains the same. Some might expect that because "MyMod" would not compile without the "APL_ND_LicensedMod" present, it builds upon it and thus is a derivative. This thought process is not unreasonable but leaves out the consideration of what "MyMod" is actually doing on a technical level. The same mod would also work if an entirely different, but compatible mod was offering the same methods under the same names. Because this interoperability is possible, and the only common ground is the programming language used (which neither author owns) the connection simply can not be made that "MyMod" must be a derivative of "APL_ND_LicensedMod" and would be forbidden from publishing. “

[high tusk]

So just to make sure I understand this correctly. If someone makes a new mod that depends on another and overrides a prefab value at runtime:

That’s interoperability?

So therefore it does not create a derivative work?

It’s allowed under BI’s own rules , even if the original mod’s author writes “no one can change this” in their Workshop description?

[icy linden]

That FAQ is just opinions not legal advice, if you want legal advice then ask a lawyer

Outside of their rules that they can enforce whenever they want that is

[celest sundial]

Yes, that is exactly what the post explains

[high tusk]

And what are your thoughts on that? Do you agree?

[celest sundial]

I wrote the post. And while it can not replace legal advice to be cited in a court, this is all approved by our legal team. We are of the opinion that in the EU the matter is as described

[rugged mesa]

Just curious,can i import vic models from Reforger to blender to create variants for said vic?
if so how
IE LAV chassis so i can create LAV-AT,LAV-LOG,LAV-C2 or LAV-M

[paper spire]

You cannot

[rugged mesa]

Alr cheers

[calm ridge]

Reforger? Maybe something for #workshop_admin.

[tepid lion]

@wicked agate using real organizations like “ISIS” has been always a huge no no from my understanding and what I’ve seen in the past and could result in the removal of the mod shortly after publishing.

If you change the logo to some knock off faction you’ve made without insisting the isis aspect you should be cool but it cannot be correlated.

I’d stay clear from real life stuff like that.

[wicked agate]

Yep u right, but i have seen modren ukraine an russia mods igess this is more no no at the moment

[wicked agate]

Isis are disappeared many years ago and no one cares about small organization that igess no one in the world knows them yet

[ivory dock]

ISIS is very much still around today.

[rugged prawn]

model was made by the author for RHS but is free to distribute it further

make sure that you attribute the model correctly to the author in the description with a link to this page

[dry cargo]

Good morning to you all,

I would ask you about a specific IP topic here.
I have read Arma Reforger & Arma Reforger Tool EULA, the workshop terms of use and some talks over here, but I still not totally sure. I didn't read the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, because of his age.

• How would be considered a music mod published on the workshop, if these musics are Creative Commons claimed, AND IA generated ?

• Do we know BI's official state about this specific point ?

I would like to add a Music Mod for players, and I am particularly concerned about using CC music, or PD musics (and not being banned, for sure).

Thank you 👋

[pliant oracle]

last i heard about AI generated stuff is currently under review, so no answer can be given at the moment

unless @vast stump has finished reviewing about the issue.

[vast stump]

There is no current ruling about AI generated things but just like any other data you as the uploader are responsible for it.

If the AI is found to use source data it/its creators have no rights to we may need to take action

This is a topic I do want to clarify in the future.

[dry cargo]

Does that only mean changing Workshop rules and removing related mods, or also applying penalty to modders involved ?

Music IP are pretty clear to me, but IA IP are a complete foggy mess

[vast stump]

Generally speaking this kind of thing would likely be first approached by asking author to remove the material if they are reachable.

Repeat offences typically are treated more severely.

But also if we have no means to reach the author, banning a mod gets the message through.

[dry cargo]

I understand the need of banning a mod if needed. It is fair. I think modders have to be aware of IP

[dry cargo]

I would ask you one more thing. Would you advise me to wait this clarification before working on a particular music mod ?

[vast stump]

It may take a while so I cant really say go either way.
Personally I am not super fan of "generative AI" and its probable even art I've posted online in my past have been scrubbed and taken without my consent and used for AI data.

You could explore asking local bands/musicians if they have anything they would like to give you to use in this manner.

[dry cargo]

From working with musician, making a good radio mod in a specific style will be really struggling, but surely better with real groups and lyrics

But you're right, generated stuff ask many more questions

[vast stump]

yeh probably cant really be very picky if you seek out music for free.

[dry cargo]

I tooks me many hours to find few great ones.

[dry cargo]

Thank you for taking time.👍 I appreciate

[brisk hawk]

Hey, is anyone able to confirm or deny if making an override of a mod purely for reconfiguration of existing components/settings, and not claiming any ownership, and only uploading on reforger workbench is ok with APL-ND? I'm sick of offering fixes to mod creators, only to get into a massive debate, or be threatened

A link to the official license documentation would be appreciated, or someone weighing in would be great; it's just very frustrating having to worry about editing a simple UI description because someone is too lazy to set it up

Particularly to what constitutes a 'redistribution' may be handy

To me it seems ok when its purely for the sake of reconfiguration, and 90% of mod authors don't see it as an issue, but some seemingly do. I'm not attempting to make a variant, or a repack etc, just to literally edit the prefab via an override to fix a bug or two, just don't wanna get in any trouble

I'm gonna go read through the license in detail once more

but I couldn't find the exact specification of 'redistribution'

[vast stump]

every possible case of what can and cant be done wont be listed in there.

but if someone feels that strongly about you doing something to their work, why not just not do it?

[brisk hawk]

Because it makes the content borderline unusable otherwise, and when the underlying content is otherwise perfect, it's a silly impasse; I'll end up putting the fixes through the suggested, official channels

But I just wanted to know generally if I need to be affeared when making these kind of configuration changes

In that case, if I dare to set the config of a server admin tool, I'm going to be lined up and shot?

There needs to be a set line where I know it's ok

And to me, an override for the sake of configuration, and pre-existing component edits is not a deriviation

No Derivatives - If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

to me, a reconfiguration of existing components does not breach this | remix - no additional content is being spliced with it | transform - no warp, or edits to the existing content outside of value reconfiguration are being made | build - no additional functionality, or components are being added outside of those already in the prefab/entity

but there is no specification of these terms in the license summary

[barren tartan]

• Well the license is clear in regards to derivatives. The question is, whether you even need to "use the rights" granted by the license to release such reconfiguration.
• Besides having no such horse in such a race, I am pretty confident in where I would stand legally. The more pertinent question IMO - as you also posed - is whether you will be "shot" by Bohemia or not.

[brisk hawk]

I feel confident I'm not in breach also, but I just wanna make sure haha, glad ya get what I mean, it's quite a grey area

[old jay]

Look at it through the lens of "No Derivatives". If it can be considered a "Derivative" then the answer is no.

See Arkensor's posts regarding IP rights. Green folk are BI employees and can give you a more solid answer.

[main sage]

People don't own component names, they don't own the file formats used, or the programming language, they own the original expression of work, and assuming you are overwriting a prefab, you may not be derriving anything as the game combines/stacks them, you are not including their content, you are telling the game "replace or add this property to this file GUID". For complex config files, is not as cut and dry. In the same way that a modder will fight for their rights to their content, other modders must fight for the right to create mods that interoperate.

In the same token of "if a modder does not want their file to operate with other mods, why try to make your mod interoperable", I ask "why publish a mod in a sandbox game if you do not want it to be used with other mods?"

[dark tulip]

The reason why ND exists is so that your code/content can't be abused for things you don't want it to be used for.

Eg. You wrote code for a drone to operate autonomous, but want to prevent others to make an adaptation to it to be used as a suicide drone.

[icy linden]

Mods interop out of the box through overrides of vanilla content, so at best it's case specific

[rugged prawn]

The answer to your last question is "because I am able to and I am allowed to". You have no "right to make things interoperable" if you are not the author of the original IP and if you have not been explicitly granted that right.

[trim peak]

Not sure what this means for mods but I know multiple studios are being sued and they are even going after people with the pattern on their portfolio pieces. I do not even sell on ArtStation. Just a heads up the Multicam pattern in general is no longer allowed.

[pliant oracle]

yeah real Crye's Multicam is copyrighted, the A3 ones is not real multicam from crye btw

i think?

[trim peak]

I know it’s copyrighted but it’s just images. Not making any profits from them. Strictly portfolio pictures but now I’m wondering how this is going to affect mods. There are so many crye pattern pieces out there in A3 and Reforger.

[abstract crest]

Ofc, US and UK uniforms are not Multicam® irl (though the UK's RM pattern is)

[trim peak]

Wonder if they are going to contact BI and tell them that all things using multicam in their game(modding scene) has to be removed lol

[barren tartan]

Not BI's job except reforger workshop maybe.

[vast stump]

it is a possiblitiy

anyone uploading into workshop (steam or enfusion) must make sure they have the rights to use the data they upload

[trim peak]

Workshop is Bis job to maintain. If such a request is given they would have to inform people and such people would have to remove and if not BI would remove the entire mod. Thats how I think it would work.

[barren tartan]

Yes if there are specific requests to specific mods. Don't believe they have to manually review every contribution that exist to check for a multicam texture, and verify it indeed is.

[vast stump]

We can however request multicam removal if it becomes an issue. As in make a rule out of it

gameplay wont be any different if the camo pattern is not 1:1 real multicam

[abstract crest]

And as I noted, US and British Army camos are not Multicam® (US is Scorpion v2 cause the DoD didn't want to pay, and the UK one is basically Multicam colours in a DPM pattern). So would have to be determined whether something is Multicam® or just based on it, but reimagined. The use of the name "Multicam" however would leave a modder in jeopary though

[trim peak]

Not sure why you are brining up Army and British camos. The difference is quite noticeable. Multicam has the vertical patterns.

[abstract crest]

Because often when these types of issues come up here they are applied far too widely and generalised into "MCam bad" in subsequent discussions 🙂

[dark tulip]

Because most people don't know/see/care about the differences
https://www.cortman.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/multi-turrain-patterns-cortman-textiles.jpg.webp

[inland sphinx]

Sir please don't post copyrighted material /s

[dark tulip]

The above image is Fair Use as it's being used for educational purposes

[tepid lion]

@trim peak this is very weird considering I’ve actually never seen a company go as far as this to even block out a camouflage.

It could be an internal thing within their company where they’ve chosen to take protective measures after an incident occurred kinda why it seems sudden but this is very out of the blue.

[abstract crest]

We actually don't even know exactly what was taken down nor the full details of why. At least not from the screenshot that was directed at one user on Artstation tbh...

[trim peak]

It was just 3 of my portfolio pieces that had the Multicam texture on it. The actual Multicam logo or brand name is not on any of my piece of clothing or marked inside of the camo pattern at all. It is literally just the camo texture and 3 of my pieces got DMCA’d but one piece which uses the same texture did not. So it’s kinda weird tbh.

It’s not a scam by any means. I logged into ArtStation and in fact 3 of my items were hidden from public view.

[abstract crest]

Oh, did not mean to imply a scam or anything!

Thanks for providing the wider context

[warm magnet]

mad

Is there any open source version of a similar pattern?

[vast stump]

one can always paint one

[warm magnet]

Will grab my watercolours

[willow crane]

https://arma3practicalipguide.blogspot.com/2021/08/crye-camo-pattern-vs-mtp-vs-1001-clones.html

[willow crane]

Did you confirm the DMCA actually came from Crye?

I had someone try DMCA'ing some of my own artwork Claiming to be Crye and others just to get the content taken down and "f" with me.

When I pushed back they were unable to reply from a legitimate Crye email only a gmail account. All my content was restored immediately.

And as long as you dont actually call it "Crye" or "multicam" or use any of their Trademarks, branding or imply a connection with them you can pretty much do what you like to create your own artistic representation.

[mossy yarrow]

Thats why you name it MC or Mcam

[near pike]

I am curious on how Crye would respond if you used Multi-Cam which is the name of the camouflage worn by the USCM in Aliens from 1986 which very much pre-dates what Crye created

[pliant oracle]

is it the name or the pattern that is copyrighted

[willow crane]

If they now own the Trademark on that name or the registered IP/pattern for it they could choose to send you a Cease and Desist letter or just go for the throat and sue.

But in my single experience (was relating to a licenced use of a Crye product for a customer of mine) of dealing with Crye Precision's legal team I could not tell you how they would actually react. But I can confirm whatever they chose to do it would be ironclad and very hard to ignore.

[near pike]

Companies sell reproductions of the pattern and use the name and they don't get cease and desist letters

I don't know who owns the IP of the Alien franchise

[willow crane]

As for pre-dating multicam - its irrelevant if they now hold the IP, trademarks and copyright. All of which can be sold and transferred.

[near pike]

Multi-Cam in Aliens is just a tan version of ERDL

[willow crane]

Yeah that was the basis of the Multicam vs Duro Textiles suit https://soldiersystems.net/2016/04/26/court-dismisses-crye-precisions-suit-against-duro-textiles/.

Judge ruled that if the pattern, colours and texture do not match 100% then its not an infringement on their IP.

US Dod has similar issues https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-cant-escape-camouflage-controversy/

Regardless the best way to NOT GET SUED is not to use Trademarks, Brand names of take someone else's materials as your base to make you mods/models.

[vast stump]

We also prefer that appoach. Make Armaverse equivalents. Not real but realistic.

https://external-preview.redd.it/JPuwXerRzi429hUFcj584aYRuEYqmLHxS0JnzMOAIOE.jpg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=559655d2cd946a00c44637e94d2784c55f568f92

the name wont affect its hiding properties.

[tepid lion]

Dr pipper

[rancid stone]

I prefer pristine spite 😎

[tepid lion]

Fronta looking real good right now

[near swallow]

Damn I spilt my spilt on the dashboard of my landrover

-# can this day get any worse

[smoky oriole]

your HandOver you mean?

[near swallow]

Nah I meant landrover

[smoky oriole]

r/woosh

Afaik it was called Hand Over in Arma 2

If I remember correctly the text on the steering wheel

[near swallow]

Well I’m not old enough to remember arma 2 lol

And I was (trying to) reference the landrover in the British forces mod (reforger)

[warm magnet]

Ours is the rusty rover 😂

[near swallow]

Don’t spill spilt it may make ur rover rusty 😂

[willow crane]

I have "Hand Over Offender" on my models. Among some others fun ones.

[abstract crest]

Yeah, Hand-Over logo was on the grill and the vehicle was the Offender

[icy linden]

arma 3 sprite can had asbestos in it

[charred radish]

@vast stump, sorry for the ping but did arma authorize this content of server ? We also report the server (4UNITY) for neonazsm and racsm, antisemt*sm with proofs.

[vast stump]

no

[charred radish]

Where I can report that ?

[vast stump]

[e-mail]

However what happens on community servers may be out of our jurisdiction

but write the details in the email

[charred radish]

I have a 14pages evidences document about 4UNITY, we are 4 people trying to stop them... One of us is gonna go to the police station this week

[charred radish]

Thx

[hardy bone]

Don't know what they do, all I see is it's a french server so if you don't have solid proof of Nazism, racism or antisemitism you won't get the results you want and even might get a counter claim for diffamation

Make sure your case is strong

[vast stump]

its not really IP issue though

[ivory dock]

Not much the local PD is gonna do about a video game server.

[rugged prawn]

probably the best bet would be the ISP hosting the server

they would typically chooNDAse not to be associated with neonazi stuff (probably part of their terms of service even)

[charred radish]

We live in France it's not that easy to reject a client...

@vast stump How do this man can post this (Is searching mods for ~~hamas ~~camo)

[hardy bone]

that's not unauthorized in France as long as you don't recruit for said group, even though it might appear immoral for you

hence my previous messages

If you want to stay on topic for IP, you could argue that they use the game to depict real terrorist organisations and the current Ukraine war, which if I remember right is a no go

you might even what to look if they use RHS since that mod doesn't allow such thing to and is usually used by bigger groups

if you want to go to the police like you originally stated I can only advise you to go through a lawyer at least for counselling

[vast stump]

where did he post it?

you can make a #discord_tickets about it

[vast stump]

does not matter what is unauthorized in France

we have our own rules here

[fiery egret]

There is no such user on this Discord so it's probably a message on their own Discord

[abstract crest]

I don't like Communists (honestly, I really don't). Can I get all USSR camo and equipment banned please? 😛

[vast stump]

no

[abstract crest]

Boo!!! 😉

[ivory dock]

You should keep in mind that creators are from all over the world.
You can't ask the French Government to ban a mod on the Arma Workshop, you would need to contact BI and let them determine if the mod goes against their TOS/EULA or not.

Besides that, sometimes you'll see things you dont like on the internet, fortunately/unfortunately in many cases, there is nothing you can do.
"I dont like this" isn't enough justification for penalties.

So far, you've done your due diligence and reported a mod that is possibly not allowed, and that's all you can do while BI makes their determination.

[hardy bone]

It matters if they still want to go to the police, for this discord though what would matter is at least the second part

depict real terrorist organisation and current Ukraine war

Using what is not allowed in each jurisdiction is probably more efficient to take down a group or mod.

Also since they are in France against a french group it would be better for them to go to a lawyer since they wanted to take it further with the law.

Just trying to protect a fellow citizen from making a mistake that can tarnish their future

[hardy bone]

Also for the part of taking it to the police, depending on how the offending group defend themselves and how Artek and his group press the charges, Artek and his group could lend up to 1 year jail time and 45 000€

Hence why I'm giving the advices/informations I gave earlier

[mossy yarrow]

There is someone who 3d printed the MX Rifle Series for Airsoft purpose and selling them, is this even allowed ? I dont think its the 3D Models of the Game tho.

[vast stump]

probably depends what the model is based on and if he uses Arma as marketing reference

[lavish basalt]

Don't forget CMMG

[abstract crest]

They posted about it on reddit arma about 17 hours ago. They mention arma (obviously lol), say inspired by but ate selling the printer files

[mossy yarrow]

Its basically CMMG and BI IP no ?

[abstract crest]

Yeah

But interested in whether any issues, after all, all airsoft weapons are replicas of someone's IP whether it's BI or someone like HK

So wondering whether companies like Tokyo Marui have to or do get licenses from manufacturers

[old jay]

Report it to the IP holder and be done with it. If they think its important enough, they will take action.

[abstract crest]

BI are the IP holder 😉

[old jay]

Ah, I thought CCMG was, my bad.

[mossy yarrow]

Nah BI requested CMMG to design the MX afaik

[calm ridge]

There's more to it than BI owning the thing AFAIK (but I'm not sure what).

[abstract crest]

I'm honestly just interested in the general principles on this one...

[mossy yarrow]

Me too, i want to know if it is illegal to sell the blueprint since its an Arma 3 Original IP

[old jay]

The simplest answer would be "Do you you on the IP rights", if the answer is no, then thers youre answer.

... Selling such blueprints would be considered a commercial exploitation of someone else's IP and could violate copyright law, trademark protection, and may even touch upon patent infringement if the design is covered ...

[abstract crest]

True, but isn't it more like the discussions of HK and their attempted enforcements of trade dress restrictions and rights based around them than the standard modding discussions here.

[coral juniper]

It is illegal as per in EULA and other service agreements to comercialize on our IPs and game contents.

please report to [e-mail]

[abstract crest]

Done

[mossy yarrow]

Thank you for your service

[lilac olive]

Where is the appropriate channel to ask about insignia?

[lavish basalt]

Of what?

[lavish basalt]

And what's the issue?

[lilac olive]

I just know there are some that are banned that is all.

wondering if this or what the policy introducing it into the game is like

[vast stump]

What insignia is it?

and safe bet is, if you are concerned, dont do it

and make something fictional instead

[lilac olive]

I did a image search it is is just the ukraine national guard. but i gather with the current conflict its a no go?

[vast stump]

I would assume it would be used for that purpose

so better to not do it

[old jay]

The image shows the emblem of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

[lilac olive]

just to put it out there it wasnt haha, but its all good. thank you, already in the process of changing

[lilac olive]

I am not from Ukraine so unaware

[polar veldt]

I believe any symbols that are associated with ongoing conflicts is a no go

[near pike]

That isn't an excuse, you should still learn about stuff in other countries

[calm ridge]

It is; there are many more countries that anybody would reasonably know emblems and stuff for.

[lilac olive]

Yeah, I still don't care. The question I asked was answered before I proceeded with anything.

[main sage]

Can’t use the image of the armed forces of Ukraine, but can use a U.S. flag or Army star? Ongoing conflict isn’t the issue it’s controversial topics. Think it’s fine to put country flags in the game if armed forces are too controversial.

[calm ridge]

Where are mods where Patreon supporters get new/preview versions first fall on the scale of payed mods?

[vast stump]

Usually in the forbidden zone I recall

[calm ridge]

So what about JSRS 2025? It has a Patreon supporters and legacy members get a link to the experimental version.

[vast stump]

If theres no permission for it from BI then paywalling mod access is forbidden

[abstract crest]

JSRS allows you to be a beta tester for the mod (only early access to the beta versions) from the patreon description which is somewhat different from getting "new/preview versions first. Whether that makes a difference I have no idea, especially since the beta or rc versions are then released on the SW before the full releases

[rugged prawn]

Call it forever beta for infinite profit

It's obviously a means of hidden commercialization

[abstract crest]

Yeah

[wind beacon]

Getting to be a beta tester really sounds worse than just getting preview access.

[abstract crest]

Yep (lol)

[calm ridge]

Well, sort of what I'm wondering is at what point it counts as paywalling access.
Eventually everyone gets access, but at each point in time, there is a separate workshop mod that only people who pay get the link to.

[rugged prawn]

at every point it counts as paywalling

[coral juniper]

Do you need to pay/donate something to get indirectly or directly any kind of access (To a server or mod)?.
Then it's paywalling a server/mod

[inland sphinx]

https://www.patreon.com/posts/jsrs-soundmod-120081124
"For those looking to support the project's development or gain exclusive access to early development builds, consider becoming a Recruit Supporter or a Operator Supporter on Patreon!"

Only if you pay money, can you download "exclusive early development builds" that people who don't pay cannot get.
That does sound like a paywall.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/jsrs-2025-new-142760168
Special features only available (for download) to paying supporters. Does certainly sound like a paywall.

There have been a handful of cases of stuff like this in the past.

[high tusk]

In my opinion, there should be a way for modders to be compensated for their hard work. Many players play Arma primarily because of mods. No modders means no mods, which would inevitably lead to a decline in the player base. I understand that most people do it out of passion, but still, there should be some form of compensation. To be clear, I’m not suggesting paywalling mods, but there should be another way to reward their effort.

[near swallow]

I believe there’s a monetisation thing communities can apply for

I’m not sure if it can be extended to modders but they usually are the reason for the communities

[high tusk]

Yeah, I think that’s mostly limited to server monetization for server owners. While maintaining a server is definitely hard work, it doesn’t compare, in my opinion, to the effort modders put into creating quality mods. Not to mention the amount of study, knowledge, and skill required to mod effectively. Meanwhile, server owners largely build their communities using other people’s mods. Honestly, that doesn’t seem very fair.

[near swallow]

I think a similar system for modders would be fair

However that could cause issues such as people doing it purely for money

[high tusk]

I don’t see the issue. If you put in the effort to do something that’s genuinely difficult and get compensated for it, that creates motivation to keep doing high-quality work.

If direct monetization between modders and the community isn’t allowed, then perhaps a system similar to YouTube could work? something like $5 for every 1,000 workshop downloads or something along those lines. It would serve as a fair measure of a mod’s popularity and usefulness within the community. Of course, in that case, the funding would have to come from Bohemia Interactive’s own budget hehe

[rugged prawn]

the bigger issue would be a flood of stolen content being flipped for a quick buck which BI would have to moderate and also legislate any litigation more stringently. It has very big legal implications and probably the primary reason it has not been allowed

[brittle ibex]

This isn't a big issue, it's not really an issue at all.. Other games have similar mod marketplaces, which are moderated by respected members of the respective modding community. Even Arma 3 has such (public) marketplaces...

[rancid stone]

Thats why permission from mod authors is required before being approved. Dont want them making money off your mod, then simply dont approve their monetization request. There are also donations, if you make good mods, people will donate. Also get the word out to the community, that donations are the only way we can get any sort of compensation for our time spent.

[high tusk]

Aren't donations forbidden too? as far as I know any form of monetization is a no no from BI. please correct me if I am wrong.

[rancid stone]

Donations are fine, its when people twist the meaning of donation. You cant give them something as a result of donating because that becomes a purchase or monetization, its no longer a donation. You can never donate for something, only to support whatever the modder or server owner is doing on their own. If they make requests for certain things I always message them to make it clear that they dont get to make demands, and if they dont understand I refund it right away.

[rugged prawn]

well its either moderated very well using paid moderators working around the clock or they are not moderated at all and its a free for all. People selling RHS models in ROBLOX, GTA, Fallout all the time

[rugged prawn]

there is no paid marketplace for paid mods for Arma 3 I dont know what you mean

[brittle ibex]

Volume of submissions is for sure a feasibility factor, but I think its unlikely Arma would see quite the same as Roblox, GTA or Fallout. To me, a 'mod marketplace' sets a pretty high bar where mods would of needed 50-100 hours+ development time, to be even considered of being worthy - so it wouldn't have anything near the throughput of something like the workshop.

This all being said, I don't think there is any appetite among the experienced Arma modders for such a marketplace (who would be the ideal moderators) - which is absolutely fair enough.

Looking at another similar-sized game (playercounts), gmod, the 'trusted mod marketplace' will only get up-to a handful submissions a week. A reduced marketplace commission is(/was) offered to moderators.

I'd absolutely agree its the wild west out there for some games. However (imo) having a dominate 'trusted' platform takes away the desire for the more sketchy organised underground ones.

[brittle ibex]

I assure you there is. The most popular one is moderated by a bohemia staff member (not in their official capacity)

[vast stump]

it is a big issue as well as scamming is even now when the mod making is not allowed to be paid for

[rugged prawn]

where is this magical place?

[vast stump]

even so that wont work with reforger since you need the tools to write and make mods

[rugged prawn]

i think he said its for A3

[vast stump]

all your examples here, Roblox, GTA and Fallout modding are absolutely riddled with theft

so they are not very great examples

(there isnt any great example since other modding communities care/moderate far less)

and we dont want to become that

[rugged prawn]

but I would really like to know where this public marketplace for selling A3 mods ran by a BI employee is

[vast stump]

Arkensors whats it called website was it?

[brittle ibex]

Byetx

[rugged prawn]

googling that gives me nothing

[vast stump]

ByteX

[brittle ibex]

#arma3_config message

[vast stump]

and modders can already be rewarded through donations

but that shifts the problem to the public

as the public do not want to give pure donations

this has been seen with all the popular mods from before

[rugged prawn]

excuse me, this is known??

[vast stump]

as far as I know yes. I have not asked about it internally though.

[near swallow]

I’m assuming donations that aren’t money are allowed? Stuff like models and that kind of thing?

[vast stump]

dontations like money is allowed

transferring bought model is usually not qutie as staright forward

[vast stump]

as when you buy a model, you buy it for yourself. not to be given to someone else

[rugged prawn]

this is not right

[near swallow]

But I’m assuming if you made said model then it would be allowed no?

[vast stump]

sure

that does not really even step into the donation territory

[rugged prawn]

i mean this is...

this is not OK. and if this is run by a BI emp this is even more weird

[brittle ibex]

At least we can both agree the hypocrisy of this site existing is shocking 😅

[near swallow]

It is now

[rugged prawn]

and extremely disappointing

[celest sundial]

What about it?

1. We obtained permission to do this back in 2015 or so with the predecessor Website.
2. Everything sold was created/packed without BI tools
3. Model and textures are linked on product pages to he used by anyone free of charge, they are not part of payments. You pay for scripts and support.

You can probably read back on the 10+ times it was discussed on discord here already if you want to know more.

[calm ridge]

Do people actually buy scripts from there?

[celest sundial]

No, most of what is there was uploaded many times over on GitHub and or released by the people who sold it some years ago for free. The site serves mainly as archive for those who bought something years ago and want to redownload it. And of course to facilitate Mikeros Tools subscriptions

[brittle ibex]

all your examples here, Roblox, GTA and

[wind beacon]

I think this could perhaps be managed through BI granting select modders with established history, similar to granting server monetization. You raise great points on this.

The big difference to my understanding now for BI is the fact you are full on using their tools for just about everything--a bit different from the days of the older Arma games.

[high tusk]

Still, modders work VERY hard to create content for the community. Content which keeps players playing the game. Not only modders do not get compensated for their hard work but they actually have to invest time and money (to buy the game, 3d assets etc) to create content.

Seems fair that they should have some form of compensation tbh. Even if just $1 for every 1000 workshop downloads or something like that. Would be very cool.

[foggy rose]

where does that money come from?

it's a neat idea, but I think you're missing the fact that youtube, which you used as an example, gets revenue from advertisements on those videos. afaik bohemia doesn't make money from workshop downloads.

regardless, there already is compensation - you can always ask for donations (as long as you don't give anything in return ofc).

[rugged prawn]

Selling mods throught utilizing what appears to be just EULA wording loopholes. While the rest of us being hammered in that this is a big no no. Community weaponized to track and report offenders while this is going on. Btw, when you create a mod in the tools with intent to just sell the scripts, you are still technically ethically using the tools in a commercial way. It's like me saying pay me money for this mod, you are actually only paying for the blender model and the packaged mod is for free, therefore it's all fine.

[supple badger]

Do the same thing... And probably nothing will happen to you... 😉 problem solved.

[near swallow]

Just checking that this is good for workshop

[tepid lion]

I’ve messaged Klamacz already just awaiting a response from him.

I wouldn’t do it without 100% validation obviously I think people just overthunk that last part a bit.

[near swallow]

I mean when you post something in #enf_showroom a lot of people assume ur gonna add it to a mod

[vast stump]

in the future it might be better to message first before making public post

[tepid lion]

I just wanted to document a little progress haha, but yeah I see that’s my bad

[tepid lion]

Also yes fair point. However it’s technically a game modification even without making it to the public state of being usable. I have some pretty funny plans for it if he wants to join in on it, I did mention a few neat things.

Also it’s under Prefabs > Props > Civillian > Sign_Klamacz_01 not a target

It’s a cutout like you’d see at a convention.

[near swallow]

‘If not target, why target shaped?’

I think people are gonna assume it’s a target anyway

[tepid lion]

Unless you’re demolition ranch I don’t think you’ll be shooting him, we also love him too much to do that

[near swallow]

Either way someone’s gonna see a cardboard cutout in a shooter and think it’s a target tbh

I get the point but others won’t

[calm ridge]

Make a script that bans people who shoot it.

[tepid lion]

It’s a video game overall you’re not supposed to blow up ambulances but you can doesn’t mean you should

Regardless no ill intent was had while creating this just thought bringing Klamacz in would be a fun little creation.

[tepid lion]

Father Klamacz okay’d the use of him

[vast stump]

next time you feel urge to comment on this channel like that, dont

[analog sphinx]

Is the IP usage listing up to date for A3?

I met some folk that claims were allowed by BI to use assets from a franchise that was previously in black waters (STALKER).
Knowing the history of lifers and RP servers, im almost sure its just a bogus claim but it sure goes around piking interest with these claims.

[calm ridge]

Wouldn't it be up to whatever the asset was from and not BI?

[abstract crest]

Yes. That is the current guidance from GSC. No new mods after Oct 25th, 2024 without their explicit permission and existing ones needed to add some links and text to be allowed

[vast stump]

no such people

just lies

please DM me the details

[analog sphinx]

sure, let me gather the details and I will do so

[inland sphinx]

Maybe they just have old info.
Stalker used to be somewhat "allowed" until GSC changed/clarified their stance.

[icy linden]

They clarified it to not be allowed?

[celest sundial]

Yep, they said they tolerate those who already used it, but they may no add any more useage and any new project may not use their IP without explicit permission.

[analog sphinx]

^^^ yeah, their EULA changed just before the launch of Stalker 2 in order to restrict the use of GSC assets outside Xray base projects or Stalker 2 itself

they did change some other clauses that are kinda predatory/shady but it is what it is for modders/creators of those games

[vast stump]

I don't think even the old eula explicitly allowed it. Most people always referred to the old forum post regarding the allowed use.

[analog sphinx]

I imagine it wouldnt, but its now clearly stated in this new one.

The message from the forum was also from a time in which GSC only existed as a name and not as an actual studio, so I wouldn't really had said it had proper validity anyway 😅 - The approval came from someone who was "part" of GSC without being an active dev, so it was sketchy at best honestly

[vast stump]

yeh

[abstract granite]

https://discord.com/channels/105462288051380224/1442274719196909709

Can I have someone follow up on my model asset in regard to licensing?

I have written perms but if that will not do, I can get whatever is needed from the author

[abstract granite]

@vast stump Could you help me with this?

[vast stump]

I have answered in your thread 👍

[abstract granite]

Sorry I didn’t see, thank you!

[high tusk]

Hello. Just to be clear, is it okay to request / take donations from people? as in set up a payment account and tell people they can donate to support my work, making very clear that donations are not to receive something in exchange but rather just to show support and appreciation?

[calm ridge]

Yes, donations are fine.
However, "donations" can't be a way that people get special access to something or some other false monetization loophole like that.

[high tusk]

thanks

[trim peak]

Also you do not “request” donations. You simple tell people they can donate or not to support you.

[dark radish]

Since mods cannot be monetized directly currently but our own IP can be, would it be considered acceptable to grant in-game cosmetic (non-advantage) rewards of our own IP as a bonus for players supporting a project?

For example I think it would be cool to be able to sell physical merch supporter packs for your project and give players access to a virtual version of their bought merch in-game. So if you buy say a supporter hoodie IRL you also get access to a loadout with a virtual version of that hoodie in-game (that is otherwise identical to standard loadouts other players have access to)

[crimson garden]

No, because you're receiving an in-game reward for "donating".

It's not a donation at that point, it's a transaction

[calm ridge]

If its a server that you receive stuff in, I think it would be fine if the server had permission to monetize.

[vast stump]

Like sticky there says servers can apply to have limited monetization to cover server running costs

its however not really meant for mod development

[dark radish]

It's already a transaction in exchange for physical merch outside BI's ecosystem, I just thought it would be cool if we could give access to a virtual cosmetic equivalent as well

[calm ridge]

If it gives you stuff in-game, it's not out of BI's ecosystem.

[dark radish]

Yeah at that point of giving access to the virtual equivalent it would be entering BI's ecosystem which is why I wanted to check if it would be ok 😄

[crimson garden]

Misread the "supporter pack" part, but the tl:dr is players can't receive anything in-game for money

[dark radish]

Sounds like I probably have no option aside from monetizing as a server.

But I was thinking something like having a REST API that tracks hash of supporter's GUID -> their bought merch, then my mod can ask that API if a joining user is a supporter so supporters would have access to their virtual merch on any server running the mod (if server owner enables it) not just my own

Sounds like that would be out of the question though 🙁

[calm ridge]

That wouldn't be allowed (and not really possible [depending on what you mean]).

[dark radish]

Yeah understandable it isn't allowed, though I don't see why it wouldn't be technically possible if BI does introduce some mod monetization policies that would permit it 😉

[calm ridge]

If you mean that some random server owner would set up the thing, then I don't think that sounds possible, just not allowed (and I doubt anyone would set it up).
If you mean that the mod itself forces you to need to be a supporter, I don't think that's really possible.

[dark radish]

I meant I would have a public REST API for supporter rewards, when someone buys merch from my site they input their BI GUID which is then hashed, their ordered item(s) are saved in a DB record keyed by their GUID hash. My mod would then have a "supporter rewards system" which if enabled on a server makes a request to my API w/ hashed player GUID on join to get their rewards and grant access to those items

I understand this isn't allowed under current rules, guess I'm just hoping that if/when BI does look at making mod monetization policies this kind of use-case gets considered cause it would be really cool 🙂

Would it be acceptable to use a system like this to give rewards as long as no financial transaction is involved such as for joining a Discord server?

e.g. if you join the official discord server for a mod you get access to an in-game mod branded t-shirt

[celest sundial]

This could be used within normal montization bounds as long as it is not pay2win. If you have some special discord member sweater than a player ingame must have the item already, or the item must be available for free infinetly, and then they can perhaps apply this special skin - which itself does not grant any advantage in gameplay - e.g. special camo if no other camos are available.

You can not make people get free item etc in the game because they have some special skin applied.

[dark radish]

Yeah it would just be a uniquely textured reskin of a regular item that is available to all other players w/o paying

[celest sundial]

It is also relevant that the special item does not appear out of thin air for those who get the special skin. They need to obtain the normal skin variant first like any non benfitial person would

[dark radish]

I was originally thinking of making them available via loadouts (in my game mode players get loadout w/ randomized jacket + pants, was going to just override random jacket to supporter one if eligible) but with what you've said in mind it sounds using traders would be a better apprach.

Like if every player initially spawns in the Safe Zone and has the same opportunity to buy clothes from a trader, it would be fine if I make supporter items (with identical price and stats to their non-supporter equivalents) available from this trader to supporters only?
That way both free and supporting players have the exact same opportunity to access the same base item, supporters can just choose to purchase the supporter reskin instead?

[oak hare]

Just when I thought I'd got my head around IP issues, Disney have licensed their characters to OpenAI. One might expect some huge license fee to effectively abandon decades of creative control, but, nope, Disney are paying OpenAI a billion dollars to let ChatGPT/Sora generate Disney characters.
Wonder if Disney would let Arma modders use their characters if they send an email demanding money instead of asking nicely. 🤣

[vast stump]

🤪 thats crazy

[polar veldt]

You can just put in a request for monetization approval

[dark radish]

That process is for monetizing a server, I was asking about monetizing a mod

[polar veldt]

Oh yeah no can’t do dat you can monetize a mod in a server if you own the rights to all content in it or have permission from the creator

[calm ridge]

You can always ask for permission to do whatever.

"You may already have a 'no,' but all you risk is a 'yes'!"

[zealous ore]

you cannot monetize a mod.

[dark radish]

The thing is it's kind of a grey area because I am making a mod and hosting servers running it. I thought it would be cool if supporters could access their rewards on any server running my mod where the admin has opted-in to enable rewards.

So just to be clear, if I apply and am given permission to monetize my servers, I could do more or less what I described in my previous messages here except for allowing other servers to enable the rewards as that would be considered monetizing the mod itself and be prohibited?

It sounds like I would need to write logic to disable supporter rewards entirely when my mod is running on anyone else's servers but mine, is that correct?

[vast stump]

Probably smart to make any server supporter mod completely separate

also make that mod only after you have been approved for monetization

(and read the monetization rules carefully)

[acoustic plover]

What's the rule on bundling parts of Arma 3 Tools with own software?

[meager fractal]

read the tools's EULA?

e.g store.steampowered.com/eula/233800_eula_0

[acoustic plover]

Neato, thanks

[vast stump]

Can you give more specific example?

[acoustic plover]

Certain public software including parts of Arma 3 Tools for, say, unbinarizing missions via CfgConvert

[barren tartan]

3. End User's Obligations:
   [........]
   B. You are entitled to use the Program for your own use, but you are not entitled to:
   (i) [....]
   (ii) Publish and/or distribute the computer Program or any of its parts;
   That is for the Steam delivered version. I am not aware if there are any other distributions with different EULA that permit more.

There are other unbinarizers out there (which clearly lives with BI's permission).

[vast stump]

Afaik.You can't package it into your tool but your tool can use it from where t is installed by the official tools.

[acoustic plover]

Mhm, thanks

[pliant oracle]

If asked someone to make me a mod without pay, is it allowed or frowned upon?

i may asked this in the wrong chat

[vast stump]

Asking is fine. #creators_recruiting can be used for that. Just it may be a big thing to ask.

[steel dune]

Is there a staff member in this discord I can talk to about illicit monetization? I emailed monetization @ bohemia about it already, but no response. The server using my mods and selling items in-game is still operating...
I plan to update my license to prohibit this group from using my work, but this has been an ongoing thing for a while now with them... "Last Light" is the server name on community browser.

[near swallow]

There’s an email in the description that should be the right one

[vast stump]

that email should be the right one to contact. you might not get a personal response though or it may take a moment

[steel dune]

I sent the initial email 9 days ago 😬

[vast stump]

that was when people were still on holiday or just out of it

and there could be ton of emails to go through

if there are mods involved on their server I can take a look at that

[steel dune]

I didn't see anything in their modlist to indicate any kind of illicit derivative works, they are just violating the "no monetization" aspect of the licenses of my mods and their dependencies.

[vast stump]

that kind of game enhancement monetization is not allowed anyway

[vast stump]

can you DM me their server details

[rancid stone]

I dont even see "Last Light" on approved monetized server list, that should be an easy one!

[worn pollen]

Theres an approved monetized server list?

[calm ridge]

It's on https://www.bohemia.net/monetization

[rancid stone]

Yep! More specifically for reforger: https://www.bohemia.net/monetization/approved/armareforger Or at least I was assuming this was for reforger...?

[worn pollen]

I'm suprised i didn't know monetization was allowed

[abstract crest]

Has been since 2015 for ARMA 3, couple of years now for Reforger. Not allowed for other ARMA versions 😭

Purely for cosmetics and reserved slot stuff though

[vast stump]

it is quite limited

[coral juniper]

For server, it is but the approval is subject to the server following the monetization rules of the mods loaded into the server.

And you need to apply and get the permission. Otherwise not allowed.

There will be some changes for modders and monetization but I won't go into detail now. But in a gist, it will allow for some limited monetization without opening it to a modding marketplace which we definitely not want

[fossil rain]

Is this in the near future or simply on the horizon? I have no personal investment in the matter but simply curious.

(I know better than to ask for a specific time period :P)

[lime belfry]

as far it goes , there should not be something that give any advantages nether can they sell something if they dont have the approve of all the modded content they use on the server ( even if you dont use there stuff for selling ) so far i know . as its really limited what is and is not allowed. mainly simple things like skins or a billboard is okey . but anything that gives advantages in game is a no go , and if i read it that way they are trying to sell of better ingame related bases then you normaly can get ?

[vast stump]

yeah that one is pretty simple case as far as I can tell

[steel marten]

reforger has been out like a year and a half lol

[normal pond]

13th may 2022
It's getting close to 4 years my dude, you're just old now and time flies.

[abstract crest]

Yeah and I was talking about Refroger allowing server monetization which was some time after it came out...

[steel marten]

Im 20, and yeah I misread it but that just doesn't sound right dear god, I was just confused why he said "For years" when I thought it's only been a year and a half (which it hasn't apparently)

[coral juniper]

@steel marten May 2022 was Early Access. And actual 1.0 release was Nov 2023

[coral juniper]

AR did not have any sort of monetization at all until middle of last year.

https://reforger.armaplatform.com/news/server-monetization

[abstract crest]

Heh, thought it was longer

[knotty latch]

Hi, I wanted to check whether the Red Cross symbol is allowed to be used in mods that retexture assets. I’ve seen that the Red Cross symbol isn’t allowed for custom mod assets because of trademark and protection rules, but I’m not sure whether that restriction also applies to retextures of existing base‑game assets that already use the symbol.

Specifically, I wanted to ask about three cases:

1. Ambulance retextures: Changing the ambulance’s colour through its material settings, without modifying or replacing the base‑game texture that contains the Red Cross symbol.
2. Retexturing base‑game assets that already include the symbol: For example, retexturing the field hospital sign texture to have the text be in a different language.
3. Preview images: When creating preview images for medics, the preview image setup includes the base‑game medical tent in the background. Would custom preview images using this base‑game setup be acceptable, or would the tent in the background need to be updated to remove the Red Cross?

I’d really appreciate any clarification one of the devs can provide.

[abstract crest]

If the BI model has it and you are not touching it you should be fine, that's between the ICRC and BI... and they're besties 😉 Lots of ARMA 2 ports to ARMA 3 that left the red crosses on the models. When they do new models though I've seen them use the red crystal instead (though even that is protected)

[barren tartan]

Can't tell whether it would be "correct" but I find that an extremely poor license description:

• You put your own license at the bottom
• You mention some "material" by name like "GUI for Device", but that does not make it clear what files it is for.
• Because it is not a single-licensed work your comment later that "Original content created by the authors of this mod is licensed under a custom license available at" leaves up the question "what part of this is the original content" (we might now have, some APL-SA, some "original content", and some leftovers)?

I would consider looking at say how ACE does it, they mention the main license used, and then gives specific examples of differently licensed content conveniently located in a few subfolders.

Not sure how this statement is in anyway, helpful, or necessary "Some of the APL-SA material listed above has been modified by the authors of this mod.". How does it guide me in complying with your license?

[knotty latch]

Thanks for the insight, that helps. Just to make sure I’m understanding correctly, this would suggest that cases 1 and 3 from my question should be fine, right? Hopefully one of the devs will also be able to provide some clarification when they get a chance.

[rancid stone]

Good idea, I would only accept advice from the official devs in this channel.

[coral juniper]

Licenses and permissions we get do not transfer to modders unfortunately.
I would stay away from this one if you want to be safe.

[near swallow]

Anyone I can dm about possible violations here or should I do that via email?

[calm ridge]

You can always to it through email or discuss in #ip_rights_violations if it's not private. The person to DM might vary based on the type of violation.

[near swallow]

Yea only issue with email is last I tried it didn’t go through I don’t think

Apparently there’s an automated response (I think) and I didn’t get it

[calm ridge]

I've never heard of the automated response. I've heard it often takes a while (many days) for them to get around to it.

[vast stump]

what kind of violation?

[near swallow]

It ok if I dm you? It is about reforger

[vast stump]

sure

[near swallow]

Sent

[lime belfry]

little qeustion might have been asked before , but whats the rules around the sample car , BI provided for enfusion , would it be allowed to modify it to use in game in own projects ?. as i got some fun ideas with it but not sure what the rules of use around it are

[calm ridge]

https://reforger.armaplatform.com/workshop/5614E482BF83E310-SampleMod-NewCar

License
Arma Public License (APL)
https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/arma-public-license

[lime belfry]

im talking about the model itself, as how we can get it on the github

not the mod

lets say i wanna change the model a bit . adding a body kit and what not . and then add it into my own project without the mod as a dep

[calm ridge]

Again on Github too:

License
Arma Public License (APL)

[lime belfry]

perfect , then i know what gonna happen with it 😛

[abstract crest]

So I was wondering, given the Reforger/ARMA 4 ban on mods using the red cross/crescent/crystal to identify medical vehicles/personnel/facilities, what symbol is appropriate in a military setting? Geneva Conventions also mandate that they must be marked with something in order to have protected status and my view would be that it would be nice if mods use a consistent one to make sense when using multiple faction mods...

[pliant oracle]

didnt vanilla has medical variant? how's the marking on it?

[abstract crest]

BI use the red cross but they have said it is forbidden on the workshop and their permission to use does not extend to modders

E.g. porting ARMA 2 medical vehicles/tents cannot use the used red cross/crystal in Reforger (and thus ARMA 4). Symbol would have to be removed in a ported mod

[near swallow]

Isn’t it the Red Crescent? Idk maybe there’s a Red crystal but this the first I’m hearing of it

[abstract crest]

No. Red Cross, Crescent and Crystal are all legally protected under the Geneva Conventions

Also note that my question isn't aimed at BI... they already said that it is modder's responsibility. Just interested on whether there is any consensus on a permitted in-game universe symbol?

[minor cove]

From the British Red Cross Twitter
https://x.com/BritishRedCross/status/1504472627582230528

British Red Cross 🧡 (@BritishRedCross)

Only authorised individuals and organisations may use the red cross emblem. These symbols MAY BE USED instead.

X · Mar 17, 2022, 3:00 PM

[abstract crest]

Yeah, more thinking of seeing whether we can get a consistent "military" symbol to use...

Ambulances/medevacs, arm bands, medical tents, etc.

[inland sphinx]

The red Chevron? That Arma 3 uses alot

[abstract crest]

Crystal is just as legally protected as the cross and crescent

[inland sphinx]

Ah the crystal is protected, that's the one I meant

[inland sphinx]

I have seen the bottom left one in red. But I don't know, it's at least not listed on the protected ones, but maybe it's too close to a cross?

[abstract crest]

Sort of also needs to be easily distinguishable between military and civilian. That's why the cross, etc. are protected under the Conventions

At least that is the case since the ICRC started enforcing it anyway

[stiff hazel]

Is this a right place to ask about monetization things?

[meager fractal]

sure

[mellow shard]

what do i do if i lost my work can i still copy it if its apl-nd

[stiff hazel]

I host a server that I plan to apply for monetization approval for. If that is granted, I understand that I may offer monetized features on my server according to the rules.

I am also developing a mod that includes optional systems which can be used for things like cosmetics or other monetization-related features.

My question is about using that same mod elsewhere:

If I make this mod publicly available, and other people choose to use it on their own servers that:

-are not monetized, and

-use third-party mods whose licenses forbid monetized use,

is that acceptable as long as:

-those servers do not enable any paid features, and

-the mod is used there purely in a non-commercial way?

In other words, does it matter where and how the mod is actually used, rather than the fact that the mod itself is technically capable of supporting monetization on my own approved server?

I want to be sure that I am not indirectly violating Bohemia’s monetization policy or the licenses of other mod authors by simply allowing others to use the same mod on non-monetized servers.

[meager fractal]

if it's your work, it remains your work

[meager fractal]

whoah, less empty lines 😁
a mod or some of its content cannot be behind a paywall (but can be monetised if approved by BI and cosmetic only),
so if someone uses said mod on their server and they give away for free the part that is monetised elsewhere, there is nothing to be done yeah
TLDR your "monetisable" mods can be used elsewhere for free no problem

if in doubt, see https://www.bohemia.net/monetization, https://www.bohemia.net/monetization/faq and contact iirc [e-mail] (or use the website form)

[mellow shard]

is ther a way to recover it

[vast stump]

Unfortunately not really. We are not responsible for safekeeping your mod source files.

[dark radish]

Use Git or other version control software to backup your source remotely to avoid losing it in future

[hardy crag]

I have a question about contacting BI with a server monetization question

[vast stump]

[e-mail] or the application form in the monetization web page

[hardy crag]

I would like to host monetized tournament events on a server, which does not fall under allowed commercial use, so I used the contact form to send them a message asking about it. I haven't gotten a response in 2 months. Should I follow up with another message, or keep waiting? How long should I expect it to take?

[hardy crag]

yep, already did that 2 months ago

[vast stump]

you can try another email sure. if you mean past 2 months then 1 of those is vacation month. But waiting time can be long yeah.

[hardy crag]

true

[coral juniper]

Hey, please contact @thick vigil for this specific case instead.

[lime belfry]

thanks for letting me know that it indeed was open to be modified 😛

[calm ridge]

I hope you checked that I was looking in the right place etc., because I didn't make 100% sure myself!

[modest stirrup]

Nice

[split ruin]

What will this mod name be?

Will you allow modders to edit car colour or add armor to it for other servers/scenarios?

Looks sick mate!

[calm ridge]

#arma3_texture message moment

[hardy crag]

Ah

Could be

[coral juniper]

Now I am actually annoyed that I was not actually able to see what the ping was about

[calm ridge]

IIRC, it was that Trioxide didn't get a response from Nillers and was asking whether or not to message again.

[coral juniper]

I got around 600 dms that one ban wave we did on Fallout, Halo and Star Wars mods back then. I would not be surprised if he has even more flow of DMs to go through than me at that time

@hardy crag I will mention it on internal channels. I am also partly involved in these decisions. Please send me on DMs the entire details about the event

I kind of threw nillers under the bus for this case being honest 😅 . Apologies

[hardy crag]

My bad

[hardy crag]

Ok thanks no worries

[leaden spruce]

Will the mod tools tell you when you open them if a banned mod was a dependency?

I opened up the game, it auto removed a banned mod but only gave the guid. So I have no clue if that mod was relevant to my mods or not.

[vast stump]

No dont think so. It may be something that could be considered for the future.

[dreamy haven]

i would like to buy this pack of models just because of the props it has https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/exterior/cityscape/arabian-buildings it has royalty free licence , but i want to be sure if i can use this in reforger and not have any problems because of that

https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/industrial/other/middle-east-buildings-object or this pack , cuz it have stuff i need

[bold junco]

Yes you are good. Unless it turns out they were ripped models from somewhere that person was selling to you.

[dreamy haven]

Well how can i know that

I mean just look at these looks like they are made for some low poly game

[vast stump]

truthfully, you cant know that for absolute sure. Only way to get close would be to look around different games with similar assets if there are any that match. But also you would want to look at the publish date of the model and the game to see if its possible the game is released later than the models and actually had bought licensing to the models

there are no 100% guarantees when you buy assets though.

[pliant oracle]

assuming it's green to go, I would like a taste of it maybe you can set it as building assets only mod for dependency purposes

[inland sphinx]

The models have been up for 5-7 years.
On a reputable site.
The author has a high rating (with many reviews), and has been active for 9 years
If you go through the authors older content, you can see a gradual increase in quality
Looking at other assets by the author, the quality is all very similar. Also most assets have similar themes.

To me this very much looks like the author is making it all themselves.

Only leaves the question if royalty free license is ok. But you can always talk to the author and ask them about the specific usecase you have.

[vast stump]

Royalty free licensing generally is ok. CgTrader has pretty good license explanation page.

[zealous ore]

these meshes are not uved, you would need to do that on your own. for the price provided, whatever

[dreamy haven]

ill make them

so to be clear can i get this and put in the mod?

[bold junco]

Yes you good.

[dreamy haven]

thank you

[small hamlet]

Would add to this - check, double-check, then re-check the license before you hit buy. And that's before you get to the "is this seller trustworthy / reputable" side.

Have had a chuckle seeing people forget to check the license at times, dropping upwards of $100 on an editorial license, then realising they can't use it.

Small error becomes big error, basically.

There are some very reputable sellers spread out across the platform, though - although I'm uncertain if we're allowed to name examples.

[vast stump]

that is probably best left to DMs

[small hamlet]

Entirely fair.

[rich quarry]

How legal is hosting arma tournament with entry fee and all that money being pooled as a prize?

[meager fractal]

not without BI consent, just ask them and thou shalt know 😇

[near swallow]

I’m guessing this isn’t allowed?

[vast stump]

not without explicit permission

if I remember right

[coral juniper]

You need to ask for explicit permission for every instance of an event like this (There is no continuous allowance for doing these things, you need to ask for each and every instance). Plus you also need to have your server enabled for monetization already in order to ask permission to host these as well.

@near swallow @rich quarry

In general, as "seeding of players event" is generally not wanted. As it populates servers unfairly and virtually.

So that option is generally not allowed. Feel free to report his server

[rich quarry]

As it populates servers unfairly and virtually.

Im gonna print that one and hang it on me wall mate

[rich quarry]

Who is get punished and how exactly, in the theoretical event of that occuring?

[coral juniper]

Servers and organizers

[dark radish]

This is specifically in the context of monetization right? Would there be TOS problems with a system that periodically gives seeding players a small "allowance" of an in-game resource not tied to or being monetized?

[coral juniper]

Issue is only when there is real world value being transfered directly or indirectly in some way

[rigid quiver]

Can I ask for clarification and understanding in the use of the rules on bringing public domain into game

Specifically to use for a movie on a tv screen

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steamboat_Willie_(1928)_by_Walt_Disney.webm

[bold junco]

Think you're good on that, but i'm not official person.

[rigid quiver]

I did get clarification public domain is free for use 🙂

[dry cargo]

Good morning 👋

I would like to ask about the safety symbol design IP.

Are the ISO 7010 symbols authorized for texture modding ?
Regardless of the vanilla game, is it free to use for modders or controlled (as the Red Cross) ?

I would say it looks PD, but it is better to ask first before wasting some time.

Do you have some clue please ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_7010

[bold junco]

no red cross. Vanilla has permission to use it but not modders

[dry cargo]

Sure, I am aware of that

[bold junco]

Yeah just realized i mis read it

[dry cargo]

Saying it twice is better anyway 💪

[minor cove]

"Public Domain Status: Most ISO 7010 icons are considered effectively in the public domain or "freely usable" because they are functional safety information."

Should be fine imho

[vast stump]

a design made by someone to fit the ISO standard might still be copyrighted so it would be best to redraw signs yourself.

as in you can make your own sign that fits the standard but maybe not nab somene elses version of it

[dry cargo]

I would like to ask you one more thing :

In terms of IP, we do care about the icon design itself, the copied file, and the way of sharing, right ?

Do I forget something else ? ( except merchandising )

Maybe ISO icons are free to use onboard, but not free to share or sell ( from what I read from their documentation )

And publishing a mod is sharing so

[vast stump]

couple example from the images on the wiki

so whatever source you use, you have to make sure what its licensing is

[barren tartan]

There two slightly related matters here:

1. Whether you can use the signs/icons themselves. A simple search did not reveal they are in public domain, only that Wikimedia thinks so. Regardless I don't think there is any org that will even bother to enforce that for a video game. Maybe in 10 years if we drive cars by VR or something (okay not car signs, but safety signs, same point).

2. Whether the particular depiction you found can be used. Even if the original signs are in public domain does not mean the particular representation (files) you found are.

[vast stump]

there seems to be various different licensing in the wiki images for example

the ISO standards depict what the image should look like

ISO.org also sells the files for their designs

[dry cargo]

How could wikimedia share an icon as PD, if ISO maybe sells rights ?

Do I misunderstand something ?

[vast stump]

people can make mistakes

I would guess asking directly from ISO.org could clarify things

however not all of the signs in the wiki are directly ISO.org material

[barren tartan]

There are also many ISO standards which a free to use, but access to the document is by payment.

[vast stump]

as I said theres multiple sources, some private users