Proposed Policy Change - the Modiquette

[Commander Bello]

This is all we are talking about:

Originally Posted by draft
Unless stated otherwise by its author(s), any work that is supplied through links in the forums or Downloads database is free to be re-used for non-commercial purposes within this community, without permission, as long as credit is given and no 3rd party rights are violated (not considering IP holders of the Civilization franchise and users from this forum)

And again, this is exactly what most of us have always been doing.
Nobody here is talking about suddenly abandoning all reason and normal relations between modders.

Exactly that is the point.
I have seen threads here already in which a "modder" requested his work to be uprated. Otherwise he would delete all of it.
In this thread we already have had members who admitted to want to restrict use of their work (note: I am not talking about third parties here).

And I already see this here coming:

Edit: one more reason, why restrictions shall not be allowed:
Mr. A has restricted his mod. Mr. B doesn't care and makes use of it and doesn't give credit. Now I pick Mr. B's work and make a modmod, giving Mr. B credit.
Finally, Mr. A shows up and complains about violation of his rights.
What about my modmod? Do I have to drown it in the sewer?

Honestly, if a socalled "modder" (btw: what does that mean, being a modder ) doesn't want others to use his precious work, than he should abstain from making it public.

 

[kiwitt]

Make restrictions part of the new policy and the modding scene will die due to the bureaucratic hassle which inevitably will follow.

Exactly ... this is why we have a "modiquette".

 

[Padjur]

Honestly, if a socalled "modder" (btw: what does that mean, being a modder ) doesn't want others to use his precious work, than he should abstain from making it public.

They should yes.
But he/she wants to upload it so we can be hugely impressed at how clever they are and be very grateful to be able to play it.
But because they don't want to share it, they want this new rule,
I guess their frightened someone else might get all the Kudos.

 

[Kyriakos]

Trying to reply by changing the issue is a sure sign of not being able to follow the discussion in a fruitful way. If anyone has actually spend time to make something decent (which it seems many here did not, so their point of view is weakened considerably and rendered impotent for this discussion in my view) it is only natural for him to want to cancel the possibility that it is altered in ways which he does not want.
Here we read such gems as "if you have used so and so tutorial or help at some point, then the work is not yours either". While obviously false, it is a bit alarming that they are being voiced. The community has functioned up to now mostly fine, without any dangerous path of making all work "free for all". I hope it continues to be like that.

Also, if you had been a modder, you would have known by now that some people are not even out to produce good work, they just want to ruin what there is by having a grandiose imagination that they are bettering it. To allow them to do as they please with the hard work of another is, to put it softly, wrong.

If i work on a Hagia Sophia model for a day, only to see it altered by someone else in civIV without asking my permission, this will just make me stop uploading models for civIV. If anyone would lose due to that it would surely be the community as a whole. I would just use the models in other gaming communities with more respect for their author, as i already have.

 

[raystuttgart]

Oh boy, this discussion will probably go on forever.

So we have 2 alternatives:

A) Modders must share / allow derivates of their own work or else not publish (here) at all.
B) Modders can decide (and clearly state) under which conditions (of if at all) they want to share / allow derivates of their own work.

At least 2 important points we seem to have agreed to:

1. Credits must be given.
2. 3rd party rights must be respected.

------

We will see what moderators and administrators decide as rule.

 

[Kyriakos]

Oh boy, this discussion will probably go on forever.


[...]

B) Modders can decide (and clearly state) under which conditions (of if at all) they want to share / allow derivates of their own work.



1. Credits must be given.
2. 3rd party rights must be respected.

I have allowed others, on a case by case basis, to modify works by me. For example Supa, Vuldacon and Pounder (all in the CivIII community). At some other case some new modder changed some of my works without asking any permission, and in the end he had to take the work down, which he did in a very finessed fashion of cursing which earned him a ban and was the end of that constructive affair.

While i never support bans for this kind of thing (and the ban was given for language, not the derivative) i agree that if one alerts a mod about the illegal derivative the mod will have to take action.

 

[Commander Bello]

Thanks, Kyriakos, for proving that my concerns have been justified.

If i work on a Hagia Sophia model for a day, only to see it altered by someone else in civIV without asking my permission, this will just make me stop uploading models for civIV. If anyone would lose due to that it would surely be the community as a whole. I would just use the models in other gaming communities with more respect for their author, as i already have.

We have already entered the stage of threatening and blackmailing. "Behave as I want, or else..."

Let me make my point clear.
I completely question that you (or anybody else, this shall not be a personal confrontation; I just take you as an example) have done anything "from scratch". You (and all other do so as well) are making use of free programs. You are making use of tutorials, you are making use of images available to you. You have asked for help, you have learned from others, you have got advice from others.
And the total of all this support, mostly gathered over the course of years, has put you into the position to create your work.

Of course you're putting a lot of personal effort into your work. But who says that the one altering your work doesn't put a lot of effort in his work, too?
And maybe you dislike that his work now will have a central tower on the "Hagia Sophia". So what? It would be his imagination of how the new building shall look - and the consumer, in that case other users are to decide if they like or don't like that imagination and the result.

And what does it mean that you have created a model of the Hagia Sophia? It means that you have taken an architect's imagination. You just did, because you liked his building. Did you ask? No, you did not.
You just liked the Hagia Sophia and you made a model of it.
But others shall not have that same right which you assumed to be automatically granted to you? This seems very strange to me.

And to stay with your example: as you are already "threatening" the community with withdrawing your work, can we expect that in future you will restrict the use of that work?
What would happen to any derivate then? In 2013 permission was granted, and in 2014 you revoke it? What will happen then with all the other people's work being based on what you once did?

In general, introducing restrictions rules will just mean that sharing becomes almost impossible. If I pick the mod of Mr. A, I have to rely on his credit notes. Let's assume, he "forgot" to give credit to Mr. B. And Mr. B gets knowledge about this and now "restricts" using his work.
In fact this will make any derivate of Mr. A's work done by me invalid, too.

And this can happen any time. In fact, it will force us to ask all the people listed in the credit notes, if they agree with "me" using their work, too. And even then I cannot rely on my work being really "authorized" because the credit notes could be incomplete. Although my work was done "bona fide".

You want to be properly praised for your work, and this is understandable from a personal point of view. But for a modding community, based on sharing work and exchanging it, it just means sentence to death.
We are already observing that the very same persons who claim "Oh, I will be gladly sharing my work!!!!!!1111!" are withdrawing their "content".

I am getting a bit suspicious about these people's intentions, as I have to admit.

In future, we will see not only credit notes, but restriction lists. Have fun working through these lists which are only meant to boost the egos.

 

[Commander Bello]

At least 2 important points we seem to have agreed to:

1. Credits must be given.
2. 3rd party rights must be respected.

I think this was never in question (except for the bad wording of the initial proposal).

 

[raystuttgart]

I think this was never in question (except for the bad wording of the initial proposal).

It is still good, that this has been clarified again.
And I would really like to see it as official rule.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think there has to be a balance between having a rule, and having minute examinations of it be part of said rule. The benefit of unwritten laws (as those which up to now were in use here) is that you rely on a logical understanding of that law, since no particular wording of it exists for any minor case.

Let me tell you that under licence laws on the web it does not matter if you have read tutorials (who hasn't?) or if your work is the replica of existant objects (such as the Hagia Sophia). If you made it on your own, it is yours.

I like sharing the work i make here, either for personal use (where obviously i have no control over what happens to it) or public use (ie released in a mod by someone else) where i want some control, namely no commercial gain from my work, and no allowed derivatives unless i have stated otherwise.

I think your worry that everyone will make it impossible for others to change (not to simply use) his work, is not well-founded. For example in the civIII community some people (i am not alone) keep the right to allow no derivatives in all cases, but only on a case by case basis. Others do not care, so they do not state anything like that. I myself said that it is logical to form the rule in a way that makes room for allowing derivatives being the standard, but equally dissallows derivatives when the author of the original work has stated so in his published page of that work.

I am not threatening to leave. But i think as one of the top creators (i mean that in the quantifiable sense; the top-10 list of most populous creations by single authors in the cfc database) i should too have some right to propose what the wording of a rule on derivatives is.

 

[Commander Bello]

I think there has to be a balance between having a rule, and having minute examinations of it be part of said rule. The benefit of unwritten laws (as those which up to now were in use here) is that you rely on a logical understanding of that law, since no particular wording of it exists for any minor case.

Exactly.
I think it was Robert Surcouf earlier in this thread who made this clear: a "modiquette" is a codex of behaviour, a more or less informal collection of ideas how to behave.
People who are constantly or in a rude way violating such a codex will be disdained by the others.

But a rule is a rule is a rule.
It has to be observed - otherwise it wouldn't be a rule.
And this will ultimately lead to the consequences which I have mentioned: endless restriction lists, work becoming "unauthorized" out of a sudden and whatnotever.

Let me tell you that under licence laws on the web it does not matter if you have read tutorials (who hasn't?) or if your work is the replica of existant objects (such as the Hagia Sophia). If you made it on your own, it is yours.

Of course it is your work. Nobody (at least not me) has ever questioned that.
My point was that we are all amateurs. Some of us (for sure not me ) may be that good that we could do our work as a profession - but here we are still amateurs.
All of us have decided not to market our "work" as professionals. This has been our decision, for whatever reason.

I like sharing the work i make here, either for personal use (where obviously i have no control over what happens to it) or public use (ie released in a mod by someone else) where i want some control, namely no commercial gain from my work, and no allowed derivatives unless i have stated otherwise.

Once again, I think that all of us agree that work being published here (or somewhere else) shall not and must not be used commercially.

And I have to admit that I don't know your work. Maybe you're a second Michelangelo? I just don't know.
What I know is that I for my person am not the third Michelangelo.
Now I have to ask you for permission. You are looking at what I have done so far and return to me: "Well, dear CB, your skills are so low that I don't trust in anything good coming out of your efforts. Permission denied."
Thanks a lot. Not only I am still a less than weak artist, but now I am not allowed to base my efforts on something good.

And maybe you (now I am adressing you personally) would be generous enough to allow me to make my attempts with your gorgeous model of the Hagia Sophia.
But with restriction rules in place I promise that not all people here would be equally generous.

The consequence would be that the beginners will have an even harder time when starting their efforts.

I completely understand your intention. But as being a (weak, to be honest) beginner myself, I also see the consequences.
And these consequences cover all areas.

How long would I have to wait until a person responds to my request?
If denied, do I have the right to contact that person again and ask for an explanation?
If still denied, do I have the right to once again contact that person to try to convince him to revise his decision?

And at which point will you lose your "right to restrict use"? As soon as somebody else has just changed one pixel of your models? As soon as he has substantially changed it (always assuming that he did it with your permission)
At which point would I be authorized to pick his work for further changes?

As long as the modiquette is "just" a modiquette, the community can deal with this almost independantly and on a case by case basis.
As soon as the modiquette turns into "CFC's well sophisticated rules of modding [CFC's RoM]" all of us will have to follow a bureaucratic process as described above.

And don't say: "Ah, this will just not happen!" Real life experience tells us that it will happen. Sooner or later somebody will show up and will start "defending" his rights.
And the moderators of this forum will have "fun" with the whole process.

Not a nice imagination for me.

 

[Kyriakos]

I trust that the details of a rule can always be brought up with mods, on specific circumstances. If i grant someone the right to alter my Hagia Sophia, because i knew that he would make something good with it, and something i am not against, i expect other people *in most cases* to ask for permission from me as well as him if they want to alter it once more. But again it depends on how much it was altered. You'll find that in most cases people prefer to make their own model rather than incredibly alter an existent one, since then the work would be a tall order anyway.

I think almost all people here (myself included) are amateurs in graphical creation. This should not mean though that their work is pray to anyone who happens to have a cfc account.

I am not really sure just how common it is, though, that people change and change again a work uploaded here. In the civIII part of the forum it is not. In the CivIV i trust it is more common, but then there is all the more need for proper permission-granting and crediting.

I don't think though that most people are out to change existing work; they either use it for their personal mod, or publish a mod with it unaltered. So the no derivative if specified rule would not hinder much production from being realised in my view.

 

[Flying Pig]

Perhaps we should bear in mind that the people who made the original work for the Civ series do have their creations mercilessly brutalised by anyone with a CFC account, so perhaps it's a little hypocritical to insist that we be protected from that while refusing to allow the same to others?

 

[Kyriakos]

Perhaps we should bear in mind that the people who made the original work for the Civ series do have their creations mercilessly brutalised by anyone with a CFC account, so perhaps it's a little hypocritical to insist that we be protected from that while refusing to allow the same to others?

You seem to have lost some episodes of this saga. It has already been noted that models (either 3d, or renders of them) do not come in a format owned by any of the civ games. Pcx, Nif, Png etc are universally used and have nothing to do with 2k or Firaxis.

 

[Flying Pig]

True, in the same way that Van Gogh didn't invent the canvas or oil paints, but the models are still creative works that somebody has sat down and worked on. Modders are given carte blanche to do what they want with them, but I'm sure the original designers would be horrified by the sight of some of my adaptations of them!

 

[Commander Bello]

You seem to have lost some episodes of this saga. It has already been noted that models (either 3d, or renders of them) do not come in a format owned by any of the civ games. Pcx, Nif, Png etc are universally used and have nothing to do with 2k or Firaxis.

If you are going to make this a basis for your argumentation, the same stands true for any work of yours, right?

 

[Kyriakos]

If you are going to make this a basis for your argumentation, the same stands true for any work of yours, right?

Don't see it; i am not arguing that i own copyright of the formats pcx or nif, just that i own what i make with a 3d modeller which has that agreement with me (as Blender, or any other commercially used modeller has).
In my view only in the case of modellers or other mod programs that come built-in to a game you could argue that what you make could be seen as not owned by you.

 

[Flying Pig]

So are you arguing that any mod which only includes files in the formats .pcx, .nif, .xml and so on should not be subject to any kind of author control? My point is that just because you don't own the tools, that doesn't mean that you don't have any ownership over what you make with them.

 

[Padjur]

Let me tell you that under licence laws on the web it does not matter if you have read tutorials (who hasn't?) or if your work is the replica of existant objects (such as the Hagia Sophia). If you made it on your own, it is yours.
.

2k has nothing to do with my work. My work is either in pcx form (3d render) or nif (3d model), both of which formats were not invented by 2k, nor is 2k in any way particularly involved (read: not at all) in their creation; it simply uses them in some of its games.

Don't see it; i am not arguing that i own copyright of the formats pcx or nif, just that i own what i make with a 3d modeller which has that agreement with me (as Blender, or any other commercially used modeller has).

Your views on the law are irrational, but lets apply them to you and see how we get on.
Your models use .nif or are in pcx form, both of which formats were not invented by You nor were you in any way particularly involved (read: not at all) in their creation; you simply use them in some of your creations.

So using your logic your model can be downloaded altered and adapted by someone, without your permission, or credit because the files are standard formats and they put in a lot of "hard work" into them, therefore they belong to them as you have nothing to do with their work.

Perhaps you might argue that what matters is what the data in the file is and to what purpose it is meant to be used for.
And you'd be right to, in law that is the only thing that matters, so you cannot say that your files are not dependent on the game and claim exclusive rights to them.
Once they are used in a mod the license agreement applies which is:

Any Mod that is developed and is supplied by one of its authors is free to use as long as credit is given. No third party copyrighted material maybe be used without permission.

Now we are are prepared to give you this, which is very reasonable of us considering
Modder says that permission is required. Derivative works are only allowed with permission, as long as no other rights are violated.

But this is not reasonable, you have no legal, ethical or moral right to claim this
Modder says that No Derivative works are allowed.

Now you may say the opinion of people like me is worthless but having uploaded files, doesn't make you qualified to express an opinion on the law.
The game manufacturer has chosen to make their Code freely available, no permission required.
A person who has enjoyed the freedom to change at will, the manufactures code cannot then expect to claim exclusive rights and
nor can you claim that they have nothing to do with the game as they are clearly intended for that purpose.
Therefore you cannot refuse permission to others to use your code, without good reason and "they might make a mess of your files" is not a good reason to refuse, 2K let you do what you want with their game without getting precious about it so should you!
It is not a matter of forcing you, it is a question of duty to the modding community.
Modding requires sharing, how else can we mod, if 2K hadn't shared their game your models would be pointless.
Therefore the principle of sharing should be upheld by the modding community
but it is reasonable that we should ask, out of respect for the work you have put in.
But you must have a good reason to refuse to sanction a request, and if you don't have a good reason you should sanction it, out of respect to 2K who have made it possible.

If you can't show some respect , why should we respect you?

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Nobody here is talking about suddenly abandoning all reason and normal relations between modders.

I don't know. From the amount of bitterness I'm seeing in this thread, I see problems in the modding community going forward.

I don't think it's possible to make a rule that will make everyone happy. It just won't happen. Until this point, there has always been a sense of collaboration and sharing in the modding community. Sure, there are some that abuse it, but that will happen even if there are new rules enacted. For the most part, though, modders generate things to share with the community, for the love of the game we play. I don't slave over the mods I've made to tell people that they can't use them. I make them for the community, whether that be just the people that play the game, or for modders to use bits and pieces of. (Some of you might say that BAT is just a pastiche of other mods, but there is a large amount of original content within it.)

I think the original Moddiquette was fine the way it was. Maybe some language stating that the modder has to state that he/she doesn't want the content used might be appropriate, but let's remember that we do this to make the game better for others. We shouldn't do it to have exclusive content, or to claim bragging rights. We should definitely get credit for our work, but lets not get silly about it.

[/$0.02]