Importing Civ IV Graphics?

[Flak Fox]

Has anyone tried this yet? I'd really like to grab up several unit graphics from IV to use in a mod I'm working on.

One example--I'm working on an explorer unit to replace the scout, who'll be able to be added onto a galleon unit I'm working on for renaissance era exploration. I'm planning on using the musketman, rifleman, and if possible, a dog model to add into the unit to make it look like a group of explorers. I have the XML down pat but I've no idea how I would go about gathering the Civ IV resources to do this or other ideas I have in mind.

Has anyone else tried this yet?

Thanks

 

[GK1823]

Well, I plan on taking the Arcology and putting it in a Mod I plan on doing (as soon as I firgure out how/if I can do that).

I would also like to know wether anyone has attempted this?

 

[CaptainBinky]

As long as you can get the asset into a 3D package capable of exporting to FBX format, you can get it into Civ V.

Or at least you will be able to once the Nexus Art tool has been patched.

See here.

 

[Nunya]

Is that even legal?

 

[SamBC]

Is that even legal?

IANAL, and TINLA, but I can say that legal is often a difficult question for modding.

If you distribute the models, then no, letter of the law it's not legal, I'm pretty sure. If it's actionable is another matter, and if the rightholder(s) would choose to sue, far too complex for any number of knowledgeable amateurs to answer. A proper legal opinion from a lawyer would actually come with a degree of insurance. Partly because of this, it's not likely to ever be forthcoming. Formal permission from the rightsholder(s) is more likely, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[CyberChrist]

Strictly legal or not then I can't honestly see Firaxis/2K objecting to anyone reusing content from Civ4(or from whereever) - if it can increase the general interest/approval for/of Civ5.

Of course, this tolerance probably only goes as far as where fanmade mods redistributed for nonprofit is concerned.

 

[Afforess]

Modding is illegal, at any rate. I believe it would be referred to "Reverse Engineering", which is strictly forbidden in every Eula I have ever seen. Further, Firaxis claims ownership of all derivative material, which means they own any mods produced. You last saw this with BTS, when they sold a product with some of the features being player made mods.

 

[factorial]

Modding is illegal, at any rate. I believe it would be referred to "Reverse Engineering", which is strictly forbidden in every Eula I have ever seen. Further, Firaxis claims ownership of all derivative material, which means they own any mods produced. You last saw this with BTS, when they sold a product with some of the features being player made mods.

This is not true. Using a publicly distributed and documented API is in no way "reverse engineering". Right now, XML, SQL and Lua mods are perfectly legal. Hacking your way into the DLL before it is released might be considered illegal by the DMCA, but generally it only outlaws reverse engineering for the purposes of copyright infringement. Firaxis does have a legal right to claim some ownership of mods, as they are clearly a derivative work and thus copyright does not attach to the creator of the mod, and copyright of the underlying work remains that of the original creator. As for the mods distributed with BTS, I'm 99% certain that Fireaxis contacted all those creators before inclusion, though their legal obligation to do so would be murky. The code behind those mods would definitely be derivative works, but the art assets would be original (assuming they weren't stolen from somewhere else) and copyright would be attached.

edit: to get back to the original question, it would definitely be a copyright violation to redistribute any assets from Civ IV, though it would be up to Fireaxis if they wished to pursue such matters.

 

[SamBC]

Modding is illegal, at any rate. I believe it would be referred to "Reverse Engineering", which is strictly forbidden in every Eula I have ever seen. Further, Firaxis claims ownership of all derivative material, which means they own any mods produced. You last saw this with BTS, when they sold a product with some of the features being player made mods.

This time they gave explicit permission through the agreement in the SDK, I believe. Not that I can remember all the details, just that I didn't object to any...

 

[Afforess]

You're right, they simply own it all. Here's the bit of the EULA that states that:

USER CREATED CONTENT: The Software may allow you to create content, including but not limited to a gameplay map, a scenario, screenshot of a car design or a video of your game play. In exchange for use of the Software, and to the extent that your contributions through use of the Software give rise to any copyright interest, you hereby grant Licensor an exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, fully transferable and sub-licensable worldwide right and license to use your contributions in any way and for any purpose in connection with the Software and related goods and services, including the rights to reproduce, copy, adapt, modify, perform, display, publish, broadcast, transmit, or otherwise communicate to the public by any means whether now known or unknown and distribute your contributions without any further notice or compensation to you of any kind for the whole duration of protection granted to intellectual property rights by applicable laws and international conventions. You hereby waive any moral rights of paternity, publication, reputation, or attribution with respect to Licensor’s and other players’ use and enjoyment of such assets in connection with the Software and related goods and services under applicable law. This license grant to Licensor, and the above waiver of any applicable moral rights, survives any termination of this License.

 

[CyberChrist]

Heh, I seriously doubt that EULA would actually hold in most courts the world over if ever contested. Would be a bit like Adobe trying to claim that they own all graphic material that has ever been modified or created by use of Photoshop etc.

 

[CaptainBinky]

Heh, I seriously doubt that EULA would actually hold in most courts the world over if ever contested. Would be a bit like Adobe trying to claim that they own all graphic material that has ever been modified or created by use of Photoshop etc.

It's not the same as that unless Photoshop has similar things in its EULA. I can't say I've ever read it but I would doubt it very much.

 

[CyberChrist]

My point is that you shouldn't take everything you read as gospel - and what is written in any EULA is certainly no exception to that rule.

It has been a few years since I last saw a EULA that - in it's entirety - would actually stand anything more than a snowballs chance in hell of standing up in court.

 

[CaptainBinky]

Fair enough. Not that I would particularly care if Firaxis wanted to use my mods for all the things the EULA allows them to, mind. In fact, I'd probably love it

 

[SamBC]

Great thing in UK law, as I understand it (IANAL)... if a term in any contract (EULAs are contracts, subject to contract law) is deemed 'unfair' by a court, it is unenforceable. Obviously this is more strict and odd than everyday meanings of 'unfair', but 'we-own-everything' seems likely to be found unfair, thus unenforceable. Similarly, jurisdictional clauses have been found unenforceable before now, where the jurisdiction claimed is unrelated to that in which the contract was carried out. That's why Steam's SSA has loads of clauses specifically related to the EU... they can't just disclaim EU law by claiming some US jurisdiction.

But this is mostly me providing information, rather than expressing an opinion about enforcement. Hang on... screenshot of car design? That was for CivV?

 

[factorial]

You're right, they simply own it all. Here's the bit of the EULA that states that:

So the above posters are somewhat right in that this wouldn't really hold up in court. In terms of mods made with ModBuddy, it's a bit of a stretch but they might be able to claim ownership, again because anything made in ModBuddy is a derivative work of their IP so the creator has extremely limited right to copyright. For art assets it's a bit of a different issue. You don't create art assets in any of Civ Vs modding tools, you create them in a different program and then import them into Civ (or at least you would if the tools worked). On these works, copyright would attach at creation, and the EULAs claim of waiving of all rights to that copyright by importing would almost certainly not stand up in court. That is of course assuming that created the work from scratch. If you export a model, edit it, then import it again, it's a derivative work and you likely have no copyright over it (this gets murkier depending on how much you change it, copyright law isn't really written to handle situations like making a brand new mesh over an existing skeleton).

Distribution also becomes a key point. Uploading anything into the ModBrowser is definitely a game changer. I haven't read through the EULA there (not even sure if there's a separate EULA required to upload, but there should be), but you can definitely waive a lot of rights if you use a 3rd party to distribute your copyrighted works. Basically, you have to grant them distribution rights since they are a distribution service and you're asking them to distribute something for you. The extent of the rights you give up depends entirely on your contract with the distributor, and that distributor has every right to claim that they won't distribute something for you unless you grant them full, perpetual copyright.

 

[Jaythekiller]

Hang on... screenshot of car design? That was for CivV?

Great artists are driving cars in modern era

 

[renegadechicken]

I know very, very little about copyright law, but from past experience, I'd guess that it's illegal to take ANY assets from Civ IV and distribute them in a Civ V mod. I've played the Elder Scroll series games for many years, and that's always been the case (and a bit of an issue for some frustrated modders!). Essentially, you're taking assets that you (presumably) paid for (and for which the game designer/whoever clearly has copyright on) and redistributing them for free. In other words, you're taking stuff they could make money on and giving it away for free. While it can be argued that it makes Civ V "better" and thus more people might possibly buy it, it is still likely illegal.

No idea whether they'd prosecute, but if they didn't, they'd certainly open the door to a lot of that kind of thing happening. To round out, this is all speculation based on another game's/developer's copyright policy, so take it with a grain of salt (whatever that saying means...).

 

[Soduka]

I know very, very little about copyright law, but from past experience, I'd guess that it's illegal to take ANY assets from Civ IV and distribute them in a Civ V mod. I've played the Elder Scroll series games for many years, and that's always been the case (and a bit of an issue for some frustrated modders!). Essentially, you're taking assets that you (presumably) paid for (and for which the game designer/whoever clearly has copyright on) and redistributing them for free. In other words, you're taking stuff they could make money on and giving it away for free. While it can be argued that it makes Civ V "better" and thus more people might possibly buy it, it is still likely illegal.

No idea whether they'd prosecute, but if they didn't, they'd certainly open the door to a lot of that kind of thing happening. To round out, this is all speculation based on another game's/developer's copyright policy, so take it with a grain of salt (whatever that saying means...).

Kael used Civ 4 assets in the very first mod. He wrote and published the practically official modding guide using those assets.

With all that huge news in the modding community, especially considering it took Firaxis' help for the first steps, I am going to go ahead and say it doesn't matter and nobody cares.

I certainly don't.

 

[renegadechicken]

Kael used Civ 4 assets in the very first mod. He wrote and published the practically official modding guide using those assets.

With all that huge news in the modding community, especially considering it took Firaxis' help for the first steps, I am going to go ahead and say it doesn't matter and nobody cares.

I certainly don't.

Wasn't Kael listed as part of the development team, though? I could have sworn he was. In which case, they could have given him license to use their assets. That's why I wasn't surprised when I saw them in the guide.

Again, just speculation. And yeah, who knows whether Firaxis would even care?