Proposed Policy Change - the Modiquette

[ls612]

I could live with that if something is spelled out in the rules about multiple authors on a single mod.

 

[kiwitt]

I agree to the proposal - simply add and (s) to the word Author as in Authors(s)

 

[Takhisis]

But would the agreement of all authors or only of one of them, or a majority, or a plurality, be necessary for establishing the degree to which a work can be shared/reused/edited?

 

[kiwitt]

I believe the main Authors(s) or Mod Team(s) will/should be responsible for determining what permissions are granted for internal content used as they have likely already sought that permission already and post the appropriate permissions status with their mod. In addition they would likely have contact info for them directly and if permission is required for internal content the contact information for the content maker would also need to be given if they have agreed to for it to be be shared with approval from them. If the internal content can not be shared (i.e. it is restricted to the actual mod only) then that is also stated in the mod posting.

 

[ls612]

But would the agreement of all authors or only of one of them, or a majority, or a plurality, be necessary for establishing the degree to which a work can be shared/reused/edited?

And what if the person wanting to make a derivative is an author, and another author who has contributed evenly to the mod wants to prevent that?

 

[Takhisis]

That's the kind of snowballing complication I'm afraid of…

 

[ls612]

That's the kind of snowballing complication I'm afraid of…

It's one that nearly happened last month, and could potentially happen in the future, so I think it would be nice to have it addressed while we're on this topic.

 

[kiwitt]

Welcome to collaborative project management, where communication between project members are key. For projects with multiple authors they need to develop their own internal protocols that are acceptable them. I believe those type of issues are outside the scope of CFC administration/moderation.

 

[raystuttgart]

Thoughts ?

Sounds good.

A general attitude of sharing is expected.
Protection if necessary is possible.

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

Looks good to me also.

 

[ls612]

Welcome to collaborative project management, where communication between project members are key. For projects with multiple authors they need to develop their own internal protocols that are acceptable them. I believe those type of issues are outside the scope of CFC administration/moderation.

I agree with that and we have that for C2C. But in the specific instance I'm thinking of I was thinking about making a fork off of C2C, and another modder threatened to ask a site admin to prevent me from doing that. I'm not still planning on doing that, but I think in that case it could very well have become a CFC administration/moderation issue.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I think it is quite acceptable.

 

[Dale]

I've always taken a relaxed attitude about having my work adapted by others, insisting only that due credit be given, but I object to having CFC imposing this sort of rule to work linked from my SMAC(X) forum. That's pretty high-handed, and would tend to sour me on sharing the occasional GotM here.

Indeed, I control what I link here, but do not like the notion that I somehow surrender any rights because someone else happened to post a link to my work. I hate to be difficult over a matter of principle for rights I never asserted in the first place, but others are more proprietary than I, and the difference between surrendering a right and having it taken is not a trivial one.

The part about links could use more thought.

Sorry to say, but the act of actually allowing someone to download something from your link comes with implied transfer of rights. By providing a link to a file, even if hosted elsewhere, you at the very least are giving people the right to download and use the file. If the issue is that someone else may post a link to the file on your forum, then it's quite established that it's the Rights holder's responsibility to ensure proper use of their files. If you find someone linking to your files that you don't approve of, I'm certain a message to the admins here at CFC will have it cleared up in no time. Also, end of the day, don't like it don't post it.

Seems stupid to say "here's a link to my file but you can't use it".

For things like GOTM, scenarios etc that actually rely on the use of a game to run the downloaded files, if you read through the game's license you will find you have no rights anyways. This was a bit of a contention when Civ4 was released because specifically in the license file was stated that any user-created content that relied on the use of Civ4 to use the user-created content remained the property of 2K/Firaxis.

So essentially, nearly everything in the download database is owned by the game's license holders, not by the people who created it.

 

[Blue Monkey]

...
This seems to us the best way forward in light of everything that's been said here.

Thoughts?

Having come back to look at this thread after quite a break I have only reviewed the last three pages. Plotinus' proposed wording seems very well-tempered & fair.


However, as has been pointed out -

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.

Looking at the proposed guidelines -

2. When you upload content, you automatically grant permission for it to be used by all members of this community unless you specify otherwise.

A skewed - imho - interpretation would allow someone to pursue personal grudges by refusing permission to another particular member or members. There is probably not a need to add or change wording of the rules or modiquette. But were such a situation to arise how would an official complaint that work was used without permission be handled?

 

[BvBPL]

Sorry to say, but the act of actually allowing someone to download something from your link comes with implied transfer of rights. By providing a link to a file, even if hosted elsewhere, you at the very least are giving people the right to download and use the file.

The right to use a downloaded file doesn't necessarily come with the right to take it apart and grab, say, an art asset for an unrelated project. What's more, generally an implied right can be headed off fairly rapidly by having the author explicitly voiding that right.

For things like GOTM, scenarios etc that actually rely on the use of a game to run the downloaded files, if you read through the game's license you will find you have no rights anyways. This was a bit of a contention when Civ4 was released because specifically in the license file was stated that any user-created content that relied on the use of Civ4 to use the user-created content remained the property of 2K/Firaxis.

So essentially, nearly everything in the download database is owned by the game's license holders, not by the people who created it.

The fact that, legally, the publisher of the property may have some property right (and probably not an absolute property right at that) on user-modifications shouldn't affect the equitable rights of good-natured individuals to control their creative work and how it is presented to others. I don't see the claim that 2K legally owns mods to be a valid reason not to support the rights of authors within the community (and particularly since the modder in question works in SMAX, which may very well have a different EULA that is a more permissive of user modification. Not that I want to read it, mind you.).

 

[Commander Bello]

The fact that, legally, the publisher of the property may have some property right (and probably not an absolute property right at that) on user-modifications shouldn't affect the equitable rights of good-natured individuals to control their creative work and how it is presented to others. I don't see the claim that 2K legally owns mods to be a valid reason not to support the rights of authors within the community (...)

If the rights to modifications are hold by Firaxis, there is obviously no way for anybody else to "control his creative work".

If something, may it be "art" in the broadest sense or whatever else is posted in a game forum, or uploaded there, or even only linked to and is in the respective format to be read by the game's engine, then it is meant to be used within the game - it is a modification then.

And I can be artist as much as I want, as long as the rights are hold by somebody else, I cannot claim those rights. End of story.

 

[BvBPL]

You are taking it for granted that Fraxis (or 2k, or whomever) has full and total ownership of all modifications done to their software. This isn't necessarily the case. Contrast the relevant bits of Civ 4's EULA:

Spoiler :

If you create levels, add-on packs, sequels or other items to the Software using the SOFTWARE's level editor, including the construction of new levels (collectively, the "Modifications"), you are subject to the following restrictions: (i) the SOFTWARE's level editor and associated development tools and documentation (collectively "SDK") are considered separate from the SOFTWARE in the sense that they are not guaranteed or supported by the OWNER. However, the OWNER retains all copyrights and intellectual rights to the SDK, as stated in this license. (ii) your Modifications must require a full, registered copy of the Software to run; (iii) you may not distribute a Modification that contains an executable file which has been changed or modified in any way; (iv) your Modifications must not contain any libelous, defamatory or other illegal material, material that is scandalous or invades the rights of privacy or publicity of any third party, or contain any trademarks, copyright-protected work or other property of third parties; (v) your Modifications must be distributed solely for free. Neither you nor any other person or party may sell them to anyone, commercially exploit them in any way, or charge anyone for using them without a license from the OWNER. OWNER encourages noncommercial distribution of quality Modifications. If you desire to commercially distribute your Modifications, please contact OWNER at the address below for the terms and conditions under which the Modifications may be commercially distributed; (vi) your Modifications shall not be supported by the OWNER. The prohibitions and restrictions in this Section apply to anyone in possession of the Software or any of your Modifications.

With the relevant bit from Civ V:

Spoiler :

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.

For Civ IV, Fraxis does retain some rights to mods made by third parties, notably the right to bar their commercial distribution, however many rights are retained by the mods' authors. For Civ V, on the other, Fraxis reserves a great deal more rights.

When drafting a standard for the CFF community, it is seems best to construe authorship rights as broadly as possible because those rights vary from game to game. For Civ IV mods, most authorship rights are retain by the authors so it seems reasonable to not require those authors to release all of those rights under the incorrect assumption that they are all held by Fraxis.

In addition, the rights retain by Fraxis for Civ V mods are not absolute from the get go. Many of those rights, such as claiming to be the author, only come into being when Fraxis chooses to exercise them. Once they do so, it would appear that the mods' authors have fewer rights retained, relative to Civ IV mod authors, BUT until Fraxis exercises that option to retain those rights, the rights in question remain with the authors.

Finally, it just doesn't make sense to try and wedge the legalism of a EULA into a discussion of how a fan based community should handle its creative material. Even if Fraxis automatically owned every modification built for every game supported by this site, fairness would still demand that we, as a community that wishes to promote creativity in its members, recognize authorship rights on our own as it supports that goal of promoting creativity as well as recognizing those authors who have made contributions to the mod community.

 

[raystuttgart]

I don't see the claim that 2K legally owns mods to be a valid reason not to support the rights of authors within the community ...

Finally, it just doesn't make sense to try and wedge the legalism of a EULA into a discussion of how a fan based community should handle its creative material. Even if Fraxis automatically owned every modification built for every game supported by this site, fairness would still demand that we, as a community that wishes to promote creativity in its members, recognize authorship rights on our own as it supports that goal of promoting creativity as well as recognizing those authors who have made contributions to the mod community.

Exactly.

We have not been discussing about the rights of a software company or a publisher.
All we have been discussing about is, how this forum and this community will handle modders' rights and wishes about their own creative work.

Almost everybody said, that he generally agrees with this proposal.
So what are we still discussing about ?

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

I am 100% in support of this.

The more we can build off of each other, the greater things we can achieve.

 

[kiwitt]

The more we can build off of each other, the greater things we can achieve.

I am quite a fan of "one-liners"