Proposed Policy Change - the Modiquette

[Supa]

They should ask me first, is all i am claiming, and it seems perfectly reasonable to me.

It does, and it's very fine and quite doable in the present but what about other cases. What if tomorrow I'm taking up the fancy to modify pesoloco's units or what if I need them modified for a mod of mine ? How can I contact pesoloco to get his blessing ? Is it fair because he's not around ?

Spoiler Short background for this example for non-Civ-III modders :

pesoloco was among the first creators to release units for Civilization III back in 2002. His last message is from 2004.

What about an unnamed creator 5/10 years from now that would like to modify my work for his vintage Civ-III mod and I'm not there anymore ? Is it "though luck for him" ? Or would my work will be up to grab because of my absence ?

One advantage of this policy is that hypothetical user wouldn't be in an ethical turmoil: that stuff would be free to be modified and released at a later date.

I haven't seen a lot of response to original Quintilus proposed addition : "Unless the author states otherwise..". While it wouldn't solve the Civ-IV case that apparently pushed the issue, it would satisfy both the "X years from now" argument and the "so many authors to contact to get a mod done" argument while preserving every author's will to restrict modifications of his work for whatever reasons he might choose to.

By the way, I understand why some people are bringing the public domain notion. While it's certainly comparable, I feel the spirit of the policy is about re-use and modification of the work for a Civilization-related mod. The wording however doesn't stress that out and might allow other uses. It ought to be reworded.

At last, I feel there is a confusion about what is exactly this Modiquette. A community enforced etiquette ? An unenforced guideline ? A set of moderator enforced rules ? I'm under the impression that this confusion alone stirs up quite a bit the feelings around.

 

[Gary Childress]

To play devil's advocate, perhaps: I don't think this is strictly a matter for the creators of mod art. I think modders who use other people's art here can have a say in this debate as well. On behalf of modders, CFC could put a disclaimer in the modiquette. Something like the following:

"If you don't want your work freely distributed here, don't post it. If you didn't make it, don't post it."

I mean ultimately it's up to the site's owners what they want on their website. And if we don't like it we can go somewhere else to post our stuff. But from a modder's point of view I would be more comfortable being able to operate with the assumption that I can use art on this site more or less as I wish, so long as it is only for non-commercial, recreational purposes. Sure, give credit whenver you can if you release something publicly based upon another's work. But most everything on this site is all in good fun I think. Making all kinds of rules and stipulations regarding the use of things posted here sort of ruins it for the modders I would think.

And if someone flagrantly does something malicious with what they find here then that can be addressed on a case by case basis. For the most part I would think it best to preserve a degree of freedom to use the stuff on this site with as few hassles as possible.

Just trying to look at things from a different perspective.

 

[kiwitt]

^ nicely said.

 

[tom2050]

I have a question for the (apparently few) people who don't want their work to be used in derivative works.

What does it hurt, if you're properly credited? I could see this being a problem if your art was commercial and the availability of similar content for free would take money out of your pocket, but if that were the case it would not make sense to post it in a free community in the first place. The point about others not profiting from your work has already been made, and yes that's an important point.

Assuming you're not doing it for money, then satisfaction would be my next guess. And people wanting to use my works as a basis for something more (and giving me credit for it) would increase my satisfaction, not decrease it. Now using it without credit is the sticking point, and that's what this thread is really about anyway -- in a nutshell it boils down to no using other people's work without properly giving credit. Isn't that what you want anyway?

Here is valid point of concern again for CFC ; CFC is already breaking their own policy forum rules to an extent by allowing copyright material (that is allowed to be used with permissions) from other developers to be uploaded here (since the CFC language is specific). If you make it so in your words: That material is 'free for everyone to use without permissions' in a sense and it is CFC official language that this is the case, it is a bit on the dangerous side to do something like that...

I get permissions to use game developers work and they provide the details to me in which it can be used. That is what has always been said to do. I credit them whom made it. Some other guy just comes around, takes without permission and figures 'oh free to use for whatever says CFC' and goes to town with said models for who knows what. A bit irresponsible to say the least, especially since CFC moderators make us take stuff off if "taken" from elsewhere without apparent permission. Yet now the whole world can use everything from CFC (all they have to do is join!) for whatever they want. Really?

Like I said, if I have permission to make derivative work of a game developers artwork, it doesn't mean that you do or anyone else does either. They need to ask for it.

 

[Camikaze]

for who knows what.

Yeah I don't know what. Can you give some examples that would be of concern?

 

[tom2050]

Yeah I don't know what. Can you give some examples that would be of concern?

Doesn't matter; it is called using game developers copyrighted works without permission because CFC said it's okay. Obviously something you don't care about. haha

 

[Quinzy]

I'm going to step in here again, as I've been following the argument but not particularly involved.

Once again, I will allow all my creations to be used in non-commercial mods so long as due credit is given, and I believe that while cooperation and free use should be promoted, and expected as the norm, it should not be enforced.

By posting materials on here, you should have authors' rights over it. You created it. You are the author. The artist.

That is, as the author you should have the right to be credited for your work and should have the right to refuse it's use (although use in private mods is impossible to enforce).

However, to make this issue somewhat simpler, you should only retain these rights if you state as such in a clause; something like:

"I retain the rights to this work, and derivatives of this work are forbidden without my express consent. This work may not be used in any work without my consent and credit."

Non-statement in this case would be equivocal to consent; that is, allowing people free use of your works for non-commercial works with due credit attributed.

If the website wishes, to alleviate some of the complications of non-activity, institute a time limit on the mentioned copyright; if the author has not been active for X number of years (as deemed by their last log-in date) then the authors' rights are brought down to the minimum, and the work may be free to use in non-commercial works with due credit.

All stated caveats and limitations of use stated prior to the enforcement of the new policy should be enforced as they were made in good faith.

It's your call Civfanatics, but I think protecting your artists is the best direction you can go. Promoting a healthy working relationship between users should be your goal.

 

[Blue Monkey]

One important element that has been left out of the discussion is the state of the creation in question. Many of us publicly post things that are still in the process of development. We also revisit & revise things we thought were finished after we consider the critiques offered by our peers. Some us actually need others to do something transformative with our work so that we can learn from their changes. Some of us don't want anything more than comments until we are absolutely satisified. Some of us need time - even years - to see what remains to be done. It really doesn't make sense to insist that an author has no say about the use of something they are still working on.

 

[Plotinus]

There's been some confusion over the status of the Modiquette itself, specifically whether it's actual (enforceable) rules or just (unenforceable) guidelines.

I've addressed this in this post, and I am also putting the core of the clarification in the OP of this thread.

To restate: the Modiquette has, to date, been unenforceable guidelines. We are thinking about introducing an enforceable rule about how other people's work is used. What's been proposed in this thread is just a proposal, not a fait accompli that we just want to rubber-stamp with the appearance of consultation. We're thinking about alternative proposals too that will be suggested and are trying to take account of the points that have been raised here. So please keep on debating what policy, if any, would be best, as the input really is appreciated.

 

[Takhisis]

No enforceable 'policy'. Guidelines, general advice, yes, but you can't tell people what to do.

 

[Blue Monkey]

We're thinking about alternative proposals too that will be suggested ...

Please clarify that. Alternative proposals from where? Staff? Some member wrote them up?

So please keep on debating what policy, if any, would be best, as the input really is appreciated.

I really don't think there is going to be a way to have a policy that is both enforceable and useful. A set of rules can be written and people punished but is that going to foster creativity & cooperation?

In my experience the people who take unfair advantage of how freely we share end up being ostracised. People won't work with them. Their work ends up not being used. For the most part there are other people to turn to that can better fill the same creative role.

In the few instances I'm aware of that staff had to become involved it was a case of a particular individual causing a problem rather than a pervasive pattern throughout the subforum. That sort of thing is best dealt with by whatever needs to done with that individual rather than placing unneeded strictures on everyone.

There are many legitimate reasons to limit who may use work. Including but not limited to - agreements already in place such as permission for conversions, betas that are posted for testing but that should not be altered by third parties, ... Trying to make a policy that would cover all situations and make allowances for all legitimate exceptions would likely result in a document so complex it wouldn't be understandable. Thinking about open-source and commons type licensing schemes as a comparison there are so many and the nuances that suit one situation would be wholly unsuitable in another.

If a particular group or subforum wants to post guidelines for themselves that's great. But hardened rules that constrain all of us in all situations? Troublesome as it may be to have to deal with the rare aberrant individual, better to deal with that as it happens than to bind everyone by something that doesn't suit.

 

[Gedemon]

Please clarify that. Alternative proposals from where? Staff? Some member wrote them up?

From staff, based on the points raised in this thread, with emphasis on how to protect the original creators.

I really don't think there is going to be a way to have a policy that is both enforceable and useful. A set of rules can be written and people punished but is that going to foster creativity & cooperation?

That's a question we must keep in mind, yes.

I deeply regret that we failed to present the problem correctly from the beginning, but cooperation was a central element in it.

In my experience the people who take unfair advantage of how freely we share end up being ostracised. People won't work with them. Their work ends up not being used. For the most part there are other people to turn to that can better fill the same creative role.

Yes but so much (and sometime precious) time is lost in the process of "reinventing the wheel".

In the few instances I'm aware of that staff had to become involved it was a case of a particular individual causing a problem rather than a pervasive pattern throughout the subforum. That sort of thing is best dealt with by whatever needs to done with that individual rather than placing unneeded strictures on everyone.

There are many legitimate reasons to limit who may use work. Including but not limited to - agreements already in place such as permission for conversions, betas that are posted for testing but that should not be altered by third parties, ... Trying to make a policy that would cover all situations and make allowances for all legitimate exceptions would likely result in a document so complex it wouldn't be understandable. Thinking about open-source and commons type licensing schemes as a comparison there are so many and the nuances that suit one situation would be wholly unsuitable in another.

Some good point were raised about the sharing limitations. I think that the best answer to that problem (posted a few pages back) is to begin the new proposition by "Unless stated otherwise by its author(s), ..."

We'll see if it can be kept relatively simple this way, else we'll just have to deal each case individually.

If a particular group or subforum wants to post guidelines for themselves that's great. But hardened rules that constrain all of us in all situations? Troublesome as it may be to have to deal with the rare aberrant individual, better to deal with that as it happens than to bind everyone by something that doesn't suit.

Guidelines are good, they can be set separately, be worked on by members of the respective sections, and act as reminder without enforcing anything. But they have limits, that's the reason for the actual proposal.

On a personal basis, I don't see anything wrong in having specific rules or even no rule at all where it's not needed.

But even with a general rule, it does not mean that it have to be enforced the same way in each section, its exact application should be at the discretion of the assigned moderators/admins.

 

[kiwitt]

I believe the civfanatics team should shut down this debate rather quickly, before it gets out of hand and alienates too many people. We have a friendly co-operative modding community atmosphere and this debate is seriously tainting that.

I propose you leave the modiquette as it is for the modders, as it is a nice set of guidelines for all people to use. If you don't want to abide by the guidelines that is up to you.

If you want to make a rule change (i.e. enforceable), this needs to be added to the actual site rules directly, leaving the modiquette as it is.

The modiquette, is simply a way to behave as a modder, much like the earlier netiquette for internet usage and the much earlier etiquette on how to behave in the company of others. It was never intended to be a set of rules.

 

[ls612]

I believe the civfanatics team should shut down this debate rather quickly, before it gets out of hand and alienates too many people. We have a friendly co-operative modding community atmosphere and this debate is seriously tainting that.

I'd love to agree with you, but there are some issues. I'm aware of the main reason for the this being implemented, and I can say that in that specific case there was a problem with a specific person (I won't name names) who was being very rude to us. To make things more annoying we haven't actually used any of his things in C2C.

Now some could argue (I counted myself among them before) that this is just a site rules thing, and that it can be handled that way, but after continuing on and off for 10 months I have to agree that SOMETHING needs to be codified by CFC admins about what they will and will not allow in exchange for granting the privilege of hosting mods on CFC.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

After six pages of this foolishness, I feel compelled to add a thought or two.

So, as I understand some of this, some of you want to be able to upload things to CFC, but reserve the right to
turn about and complain if anyone tries to use the items that you upload? Are we putting our mods up on an App store?
I don't think so. To my way of thinking, CFC has always had a thriving and generous modding community that is based on sharing and
general goodwill between modders. We collaborate, we share, we make each other's items better, or give them more exposure. That seems to have always been the spirit of this place.

I think that the Modiquette is fine just as it is, with maybe adding the item about "unless the author..."

Fair use, with attribution, for the benefit of the CFC community. That should be our goal. If you don't want your things used, then say so, or don't upload them. For our part, don't use something that requires permission without that permission.

If you want go to all the trouble to make a policy about something enforceable, how about going after the people that strip the attribution comments out of source code and claim it as their own? Or that claim someone's work as their own. Now that is something worth getting worked up about. That to me is a breach of modiquette. Using an item from the public download pages that is only for the Civ community, and not for commercial gain (or anything else), shouldn't leave someone with a sense that they've "stolen" something. Especially if credit is given, or permission can't be obtained because the poster is no longer with us.

All I'm saying is don't go overboard and make a bunch of rules that stifle the creativity and collaboration of this site. Please.

 

[Monaldinio]

@is612

You can name my Name, its No Problem for me.

Maybe i was a a "little" Bit rud, but how would you feel if your read, by accident, "there is a mod wich have some featers WE should copy and integrate them into our mod!" And without my permission!?
and it was not the first time that I read of these plans. maybe that was a reason more why I was upset... I have invested a lot of time in modifying models, Creating New Models, designing graphics, adding Code, all by my own! Im Not such a Big modteam as the c2c Croew. Im a "One man Show"...
I also think, it is a little bit strange when someone says, "we take his mod as a reference point because we find everything we are looking for ..." But everyone sees things differently ... yes, maybe all models are already available in the forum, but i have made the effort to seek it. why are you not just as diligently? all I want is, that I have the opportunity to decide what happens with my work. I would not be delegated by an upper Power.
and as I have understood many opinions, I'm not the only one who thinking so.

@lemon

Thats WE called in Germany "Kasus Knacksus!" - the crucial point. I have Never uploadet stuff to the CFC Server, i use other Services. Thats the reason why i thought, "you" Need my permission.

But some guys argue, linking a downloadlink and runing a thread, is enough to fulfilled the status "freely usable". and how will be made my modifications better by just copying and pasting??? I get nothing back - improved ... I just can not imagine that even someone writes " Hey Monaldinio, WE use your Code, here is the improved Version." because no one makes this effort ...
you could say "you use stuff wich has been uploaded on the forum!"... True, but I have also said i had no problem with it if I could publish anything, because of this reason.
I just created a thread and post download links because I thought that someone might have fun, to play my mod. further more, i expand the mod variety... but I do not publish, so it is getting exploited. if this is not so intended, or is exploited, I have no problem to mod only for myself...
Its not about faim, clicks or downloads ...

Sorry, my english isnt so good...

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that, if you do not plan to allow html to make life easier by use of creative commons licences, you should at least make it understood that there are no derivatives allowed IF the creator states so in his dl page (which i always do).

 

[ainwood]

I am not a modder. I kept a cursory overview of the discussions in the staff forum over the modiquette, and the direction that the discussions were going in. Besides some discussions about a specific dispute related to all of this, the staff discussions began in mod November about a proposal to formalise the modiquette into something a bit more formal. Policy or rule? Don't know. After some discussion, admin input was asked for. My suggestion was:

Suggest you post this to the modding community as a proposal for feedback, rather than as a rule being imposed. And see what they think.

Please do not think that my response was in any way a response to someone suggesting that we impose a rule! It was not.

So: it was posted for feedback. So why?
So many people are affected and feel strongly about this, we want everyone to get the chance to have their say and help draft a policy that can be adopted. We want the sorts of issues that have been raised (derivative use, commercial use, opt-in or opt-out, how to handle those that use others' work but won't return the courtesy, etc etc) to be discussed and to shape something that people can mostly agree on (preferably) or mostly tolerate.

We want to do this to avoid disputes in the future, and to let people who post their modding content to our site (or the various variations of linking to it from here etc) to know where they stand with respect to people who may download and use that content. That allows people to make an informed choice about whether they want to post their stuff here or not, and hopefully helps keep a vibrant modding community happy.

There is nothing nefarious here. The discussion could have been framed better and "organised" (forum location) better, but we are where we are, and it seems that people have found the discussions. If we could please put those issues aside and concentrate on discussing the issues as to what sort of implicit or explicit agreement there should be with respect to use of mods and components etc, then perhaps we can move this forward?

 

[kiwitt]

I know that the Base of my Mod is from the Planetfall Mod...thats why i say, only the content who is developed by me ( Code, grafic ect.) is not free to use, thats One of the reasons why i leave the Forum, in this Way im consequent...

I dont want to Share my work, so that another Party use it in another Mod!

Can you not see the double-standard here?

You take someone else's work, modify it, change it enhance it, yet are unwilling to share it yourself, when the tables are turned.

If you freely share your work, your reputation will be enhanced and you will also gain more assistance, to help you develop your mod further. This is how our modding community works. It is very much a co-operative community. Your mod would not exist if it were not for other modders willing to share their knowledge, code and other developments. Not willing to share could be seen is a sign of "arrogance", that is not really welcome here.

If you develop artworks, models etc., and some people want to use it in their mod, you should feel honoured that this happens. Take a look at snafusmith models for example. He has created hundreds of models and freely shares them and is now one of the most respected modders on this forum.

I have always saw this as like an "open-source" community and we are all here to make the best game series even better, thanks to Firaxis/2KGames, giving us the tools and hooks into the code to do this.

If you don't want to share your work, don't post links to it on here. Its as simple as that. You are free to post links to your mod on other forums.

@is612

You can name my Name, its No Problem for me.

Maybe i was a a "little" Bit rud, but how would you feel if your read, by accident, "there is a mod wich have some featers WE should copy and integrate them into our mod!" And without my permission!?
and it was not the first time that I read of these plans. maybe that was a reason more why I was upset... I have invested a lot of time in modifying models, Creating New Models, designing graphics, adding Code, all by my own! Im Not such a Big modteam as the c2c Croew. Im a "One man Show"...
I also think, it is a little bit strange when someone says, "we take his mod as a reference point because we find everything we are looking for ..." But everyone sees things differently ... yes, maybe all models are already available in the forum, but i have made the effort to seek it. why are you not just as diligently? all I want is, that I have the opportunity to decide what happens with my work. I would not be delegated by an upper Power.
and as I have understood many opinions, I'm not the only one who thinking so.

I believe, when you saw these comments, you could have reported them to the moderators. They can then contact the posters and have them give you credit for your work.

The moderators are there essentially to ensure that everyone behaves well towards each other and the site remains a nice place to be.

@lemon

Thats WE called in Germany "Kasus Knacksus!" - the crucial point. I have Never uploadet stuff to the CFC Server, i use other Services. Thats the reason why i thought, "you" Need my permission.

But some guys argue, linking a downloadlink and runing a thread, is enough to fulfilled the status "freely usable". and how will be made my modifications better by just copying and pasting??? I get nothing back - improved ... I just can not imagine that even someone writes " Hey Monaldinio, WE use your Code, here is the improved Version." because no one makes this effort ...
you could say "you use stuff wich has been uploaded on the forum!"... True, but I have also said i had no problem with it if I could publish anything, because of this reason.
I just created a thread and post download links because I thought that someone might have fun, to play my mod. further more, i expand the mod variety... but I do not publish, so it is getting exploited. if this is not so intended, or is exploited, I have no problem to mod only for myself...
Its not about faim, clicks or downloads ...

Sorry, my english isnt so good...

This is how I started modding too! I wanted other people to enjoy what I created, and I had spent 2 years developing what I have created on my own as well.

I liked "The Road to War", however, it was not really suited to my playing style, so I modified extensively, so it is almost another type of mod. And as you can see in my signature, the original author of "The Road to War", is very happy to have what I have done to enhance the mod further.

This is what modding is about. There are hundreds of mods and mods-mods in existence for Civilization, and many thousands more that are never even published for others and are simply a personal mod they use themselves.

It should be noted, that many modders have even gone so far as to create tutorials on how to do virtually anthing
http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=177

 

[raystuttgart]

I have always saw this as like an "open-source" community and we are all here to make the best game series even better, ...

I agree with that.

However:

A) Modders should at least try to inform and ask other modders first, before reusing large parts of their work.
It is simply a matter of politeness.

B) Witch Trials / Blaming others for not wanting their work to be reused do not help anybody.
At some point the accused modder will simply block.

C) If a Modder does not want to share his work, then simply accept that.
Every other modder can decide for himself how he will react on that.
Easiest thing is to simply not cooperate with that modder anymore yourself.

Summary of my personal opinion:

Guidelines are a good thing.
Rules that try to force other modders to share their work are not.

The creative work of a modder does still belong to the modder.
It is great, if he is willing to share that and a pitty if he is not.

Modders can handle things by themselves.
If somebody is impolite or uncooperative, simply ignore him.