Proposed Policy Change - the Modiquette

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:
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?

Probably my english has become poorer, or your understanding of what i said was peculiar. The fact that i did not invent the pcx or nif does not in any way mean i do not own my work which just happens to be adapted or released in that format.

You then go on to speak of the community, when i, and not you, am the one who shares his works here, and abide by its laws. Namely i accept that i have zero control over what people do in their private modding of my work. However public derivatives are another issue alltogether; why should i be made to "share" my rights there? Just because you say it? Or due to some shadowy good of the community? Most active modders in civIII are artists themselves- due to the old age of the game- many modders of civIV are the same, and to them the request for control over derivatives sounds logical.

As for code used by me (?) i simply make 3d models. I have no use of code of any kind, and certaintly not of 2k's or Firaxis'. Like i said my work is not only used in civ, since it is 3d it is used in other games as well (eg Total War). Now if you were reffering to the code made by the programmers of Blender, then your argument again has been answered: Blender has an agreement with its community that the works of the artists made with Blender do not in any way belong to the Blender corporation; any other stance would have been suicidal for Blender since then no one would want to use it.

You are thinking of this issue in purely computer-game terms, and then purely civ terms, and, lastly, purely CFC ones. What if i were a graphical artist making paintings with 3d software? Would Blender own my work? (then i could not ever sell it to anyone, like painters do). Or would some site own it, lets say DeviantArt, just because i had uploaded it there?

The answer to all that is that simply you missed the point, or altered it for whatever reason. Copyright remains with the original artist, anything else will open a huge can of Cthulic Deepones...
 
Blender is, first and foremost, a tool for creating 3d art. Civ is, first and foremost, a game. It's a game that also makes for a great modding platform, but it's primary reason for existence is still to be a game.

Also, I'm afraid the Internet is rendering traditional notions of intellectual property obsolete. Having grown up in this era, quite frankly, I don't understand why people want to place restrictions on their work. Asking for credit is one thing. Actively restricting how your work can be used is another. Why should other modders be forced to re-invent the wheel? It doesn't make sense. I highly recommend the book "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution" by Steven Levy. It explains the free software viewpoint in more detail.
 
Because as much as it's nice to be friendly and cooperative, you can not and should not make that mandatory.

As ultimately this site can do what it wants when it comes to mandatory sharing, but all files uploaded prior to the change will need to be kept at the original agreement.
 
Let us please continue this discussion without insulting and getting personal. :thumbsup:

Moderator Action: Padjur's signature has been removed. In future, please report the post instead of quoting it and let the staff handle it. Thanks.

Edit:
Ok, no problem. :thumbsup:
(Just thought this might also be handled without staff intervention.)
 
I created a poll in the site feedback forum below on this debate. I'm interested in seeing how many people take which side of this debate.
 
I actually like his signature, although it is illegal in cfc to do this sort of thing ;)

Anyway, obviously anyone can make derivatives of my work in their private little mod. The moment it becomes public though they still need permission. It is called respect for the wishes of the creator whose work you chose to use. If you do not like that, then just don't use the work in a public mod :)

Well, i guess i will have to observe how this new change goes. At worst i just won't upload as much as i used to. At best there will be a clearer understanding, leading to less friction.
But i am pretty sure nothing will change in the end.
 
In an ideal world, everyone would be sharing, holding hands, and singing "Kumbayah."

As much as it'd be nice to have something of that sort, it simply cannot and should not be forced and it's rather paternalistic to consider forcing anyone to get along with everyone. If a modder is too retentive, then just let him/her isolate him/herself and focus on working with some other modder who is more open or accords to your view of things - that would be far more productive than to exacerbate antagonisms for the sake of exacerbating them.
 
Anyway, obviously anyone can make derivatives of my work in their private little mod. The moment it becomes public though they still need permission.
As far as I see it, they don't. Otherwise the moderators could have closed this thread since long, as - except for their attempt to gain control over linked content outside of CFC - nothing would be left for discussion.
 
Merry Christmas.

It is common practice at least up to now to disallow derivatives if the creator asks so. Generally most people do not, but some do. In most cases, again, if asked, people will allow it, unless there is some problem looming.
 
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 if I create an image using paper and paint, it isn't mine because I didn't invent paper or paint ?
 
so if I create an image using paper and paint, it isn't mine because I didn't invent paper or paint ?

:lol::goodjob:

Exectly! And if you use a brush, your art is also Not yours because...

Many rubbish was propagated here, from Pseudo lawers...
If someone did not study jurisprudence or have
another law-based education, it is better to talk less about law. Yes of course, Law is interpretable and every lawyers have his own truth... i have recommended not to use the law as an argument. because it leads to nothing in our situation. Sorry for my words, but this Law discussion Must have an end, it would be the best!
But It is Not enougt to copy and paste some Textes from Wiki...
otherwise the jurassic study would not take 5 years.
I do not want to sound arrogant, but there is too much talk about Law from People wich have no practise with Law.
It is evident that the artist holds all rights on his/her work!
it does not matter on what medium the artwork was "immortalized", whether paper, digital, or on the cfc website! All rights are always belong to the artist!
as long as he does not have a contract, by creating art professionally for a company.
no matter what you always want to Tell us.
sorry for the rude words. but it's getting more and more impressive as if you do not respect the artist, not the other way around. Ensure art comes from art, nothing comes from nothing. Nevertheless you should be glad that there are people such as kyrios, who only demand there right as payment!
Please, dont Tell me something about Law, i know most of it better than many of you guys. But Thats Not the Point. What WE Need is a Solution for the Problem, Not a juristic Battle.
But i think a Solution, everyone's is satisfield, will not happen. one side will have to make concessions. Or Not... and then both sides will have to draw their consequences.
We are all based on preliminary services ...but thats no Argument for Free using, because you are loged in in CFC Forum, uploadet stuff, have a Thread or just Post a link...
 
The solution is work within the guidelines of the "modiquette" and stay, or don't and leave.
 
But that makes it a norm, not an etiquette.
 
And if you don't abide by an "etiquette", you get ostracised ... simple really.
 
Yes, but there's a difference between ostracism and having to leave.
 
I can think of lots of ways to abuse this.
 
I can think of lots of ways to abuse this.

There are lots of ways to abuse any system. And I'm starting to think that this discussion is being helpful in revealing tensions in the modding community that have been ignored for a long while.
 
Yes, but there's a difference between ostracism and having to leave.
What I meant to say was choose to abide or choose to leave.

It should never be forced.
 
I didn't read everything in the last 15 or so pages. But, I still think that how it was previously worked fine and should not be changed (i.e., perfect is the enemy of good; don't fix what ain't broken). And if there is a change, it should be a clarification of the default situation and not a forced change - that way things can keep working organically as they have so far.

Thus I voted that yes, modders should be able to add restrictions - but I'm okay with clarifying that the default is that such restrictions do not exist.

It might be different if there weren't 11 years of having a more flexible, if informal, policy.

Practically, I don't think there will be a difference in what I post either way. So I probably won't be checking this thread again - if you really want my input, please PM me to alert me to it.

DaveShack said:
Originally Posted by draft
Unless stated otherwise by its author(s), any original 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)

Any derivative works, when allowed, are submitted to the sharing and modification rules set by the original author(s) or the forum's default rules if none were specified.

I'd be okay with this, although I think it gets more wordy than it needs to be by trying to cover too many cases. Maybe cut it down to:

Unless stated otherwise by its author(s), any original 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

Since 3rd party rights are (I believe) already at least implicitly required to be respected, and the second paragraph is partially redundant (that the default is default when not otherwise specified) and might contradict the "unless otherwise stated" part. (For example, if I make a map I might say "anyone can use this without asking permission" but be fine with a scenario that uses that map saying "please ask before changing this scenario" even though that isn't what I said for my creation) tl;dr: What's the second paragraph really add?

Isn't it pretty simple ?

If the mod creator(s) does not explicitly state anything different, he does allow reuse of his work.
And of course credits should be given.

I would think so...

This proposed policy sounds like it is essentially forcing everyone to use a license a bit like the Creative Commons — Attribution license. I think it would be better to allow mod authors to use whatever license they want to use for their mod; and perhaps just use the CC license as a default if the author doesn't specify anything.

Basically my thinking. Clarifying the default isn't a bad thing. Forcing one policy when there's already 10 years of stuff here... more controversial.

Given the open minded spirit of the forum and the general free exchange and summarization of informations on the boards I've visited and enjoyed, I think it's quite fair I share my creations the same way people I've built upon shared theirs (tutorial, charts, models) : to be used and abused.

To satisfy most points, I think it would be best to search along the lines of Quintilus's proposition. It confirms what I think it's the general opinion of the subject and what I think is the best for the community while allowing authorized derivate works from outside CFC to be released without worry and creators specifically not agreeing with this policy to protect their assets.

Credits is always a must, though. :)

Glad to see someone noticed what I wrote! I think you also make a good point that the current open-minded spirit is working well, and that there are few cases where sharing isn't allowed.

Where there is disagreement it ought to be handled as an individual situation.

<snip>

Thunderfall owns the site. Staff are his public voice. Does Thunderfall really want to remove our ability to negotiate our own ways of collaborating? Such language is there in the policy. Does Thunderfall really want to tell us we have no choice about the boundaries of the use of our work? Such language is there in the policy. Does Thunderfall really want moderators to start infracting and banning members who don't follow the proper procedures in creation? That's the language of policy rather than guidelines.

I agree with the first quoted sentence. It seems like what happened is there was one sticky case (the Caveman2Cosmos case), and it blew up into trying to make a policy for everyone.

And it's a good point about Thunderfall's views. Ultimately, the site should run the way Thunderfall wants it to, and he should make the calls for decisions that affect the whole site. If he wants to delegate it, fair enough, but it's not clear who should have that authority for such a broad-reaching policy. I know Thunderfall hasn't been as active recently, so I could certainly understand delegating (and I'd trust if ainwood or Lefty Scaevola were proposing this that it was OK by Thunderfall). But this seems like an initiative of the Civ4 modding community (and perhaps somewhat the Civ5 modding community), when Thunderfall & Co. should likely make the call.

I don't know. From the amount of bitterness I'm seeing in this thread, I see problems in the modding community going forward.[/$0.02]

It's interesting; I don't think there was so much bitterness until this thread came into existence.
 
Top Bottom