Proposed Policy Change - the Modiquette

[raystuttgart]

Utterly unacceptable.

It is not even legal.

Example:
Our mod contains music from a composer, who has given rights of usage to our mod only.
(Anybody else, who would simply use that music without the permission of that composer might be sued.)

I don't think that this is seriously discussed to break legal Copyrights or to simply deny a modders right to decide what happens about his own work.
It is probably only a misunderstanding.

 

[Gary Childress]

Hi Kyriakos, in a sense it may show little respect, in other senses I suspect it has more to do with practicality. I suppose from a staff viewpoint, allowing authors to make all sorts of conditions on use of their creations creates a lot of work for them to keep the peace. Probably a LOT of time and resources would be spent arbitrating disputes. I'm sure they don't want to get themselves quagmired in that.

EDIT: Or at least that's my guess on the reasons for the simplified rule above.

 

[Kyriakos]

I agree with you Gary, in the (few) cases of banning work for use as it is. Such cases can indeed be eclipsed (and i am not against it that much). BUT: it is not at all a minor issue to allow derivatives of all works without any permission from their creator, and it would be a hugely wrong move to try to impose such a nonsensical rule.

 

[Camikaze]

What if the word 'reasonable' was thrown in, so that people could use without seeking permission, but creators would have recourse should a use not be reasonable?

As another angle to look at the issue from, when you place a restriction on the use of your work, you're necessarily enlisting CFC staff, without consultation, in the enforcement of that restriction. CFC staff cannot ignore it without getting into dangerous territory. If no standard is set, CFC staff are virtually bound to maintain each and every different restriction various creators come up with. If one creator wants their work only used in a certain way, the staff have to police that or the site is hosting and facilitating the infringement of any relevant rights the creator may have. Another creator might place a different restriction on the use of their work, in which case staff have to police that in a different way. etc. It's not just a matter of the staff having to arbitrate disputes, but of individual restrictions foisting potential liability upon the site. Standardising policy should be looked at less as an attempt to undermine the rights of mod creators, and more as an attempt to only accept for upload those mods that don't co-opt the staff to unwillingly protect user's personal rights.

 

[Gary Childress]

It is not even legal.

Example:
Our mod contains music from a composer, who has given rights of usage to our mod only.
(Anybody else, who would simply use that music without the permission of that composer might be sued.)

I don't think that this is seriously discussed to break legal Copyrights or to simply deny a modders right to decide what happens about his own work.
It is probably only a misunderstanding.

If I am a new member signing on and I've read the line in the modiquette quoted above then I'm sure I would start out under the assumption that it would be OK for me to use the music in your mod for my own mod, given the way the quote is formulated.

If the quote above becomes either formal or informal "policy", then it sort of contradicts the wishes of your composer, I think.

 

[raystuttgart]

See the Spoiler of this post.

We explicitly state and explain how our work can be used and what can not be done.
If this is not respected by another modder, he simply does break Copyrights and might be sued ...

If the forum would ever suggest to officially ignore all Copyrights, then I would need to leave this forum in order to protect
the work of the people that have been so generous to allow the use of their work to us.

Again:
The things currently discussed (ignoring Coyprights and the rights of modders to decide about their own work) are not even legal.
If a modder explicitly states how his work can or cannot be reused, that must be respected.

But as I said, this is probably only a misunderstanding.
(I simply cannot believe that the people in charge of this forum seriously discuss becoming illegal.)

 

[Gary Childress]

What if the word 'reasonable' was thrown in, so that people could use without seeking permission, but creators would have recourse should a use not be reasonable?

As another angle to look at the issue from, when you place a restriction on the use of your work, you're necessarily enlisting CFC staff, without consultation, in the enforcement of that restriction. CFC staff cannot ignore it without getting into dangerous territory. If no standard is set, CFC staff are virtually bound to maintain each and every different restriction various creators come up with. If one creator wants their work only used in a certain way, the staff have to police that or the site is hosting and facilitating the infringement of any relevant rights the creator may have. Another creator might place a different restriction on the use of their work, in which case staff have to police that in a different way. etc. It's not just a matter of the staff having to arbitrate disputes, but of individual restrictions foisting potential liability upon the site. Standardising policy should be looked at less as an attempt to undermine the rights of mod creators, and more as an attempt to only accept for upload those mods that don't co-opt the staff to unwillingly protect user's personal rights.

I assume the word "reasonable" would be thrown in something like this?

Any Mod that is developed using CivFanatics resources or is supplied by one of its authors through links in the forums or Downloads database is free to use, within reasonable limits, without permission, as long as credit is given.

 

[Camikaze]

Add 'to the extent that such use does not conflict with third party copyright restrictions' on the end maybe.

 

[raystuttgart]

The crucial point is:

If permission is explicitly not granted by whoever (the modder itself, a third party like a company or a composer), this must be respected.
Otherwise, if the modder does not explicitly state that something may not be reused, it may be considered that it is allowed to reuse it.

Everything else is definitely illegal.

 

[Gary Childress]

How about something like this?

Any Mod that is developed using CivFanatics resources or is supplied by one of its authors through links in the forums or Downloads database is free to use, within reasonable limits, without permission, as long as credit is given, unless otherwise indicated by its author.

It keeps it short and simple and leaves some flexibility for interpretation.

 

[Kyriakos]

I can live with that. Maybe add a specific place for that indication, such as the mod's page, or the link to the database.

 

[raystuttgart]

How about something like this?
...
It keeps it short and simple and leaves some flexibility for interpretation.

Why would we need that rule at all then ?
The rule does say nothing that is not common sense and this community has worked so far without it, too.

 

[Kyriakos]

Why would we need that rule at all then.
The rule does say nothing that is not common sense and this community has worked so far without it, too.

While it won't help in the direction the mods wanted, it might help formalize one's right to maintain control of his work. Since in the past mods had to manually erase derivatives of my work, when we had only the unwritten law to go by. If there was a standard in this issue then the mods would have an easier job. The mods would be more safe too.
Mods, mods, mods, mods...and in end you could not tell the difference

 

[raystuttgart]

Well ok, I think the admins and moderators have gotten a lot of input now.

This probably was really all simply a misunderstanding.
I still believe that "Officially declaring that breaking Copyrights is ok" or "Denying rights of modders to decide about their own work" was never really considered.

Edit:
I don't believe that formalizing rights about ownership of intellectual property in a forum rule is necessary,
since it is already formalized by (international) law.

 

[Takhisis]

How about something like this?

Any Mod that is developed using CivFanatics resources or is supplied by one of its authors through links in the forums or Downloads database is free to use, within reasonable limits, without permission, as long as credit is given, unless otherwise indicated by its author.

It keeps it short and simple and leaves some flexibility for interpretation.

The 'Supplied within links in the forums' bit, how does it apply if you're linking to an off-site database with its own ruleset?

Well ok, I think the admins and moderators have gotten enough input.

This probably was really all simply a misunderstanding.
I still believe that "Officially declaring that breaking Copyrights is ok" or "Denying rights of modders to decide about their own work" was never really considered.

Edit:
I don't believe that formalizing rights about ownership of intellectual property in a forum rule is necessary,
since it is already formalized by (international) law.

Rules on donation contracts?

 

[raystuttgart]

Rules on donation contracts ?

Sorry, I do not understand the question.

 

[Takhisis]

Yes, you're claiming international law. Which international law(s) are you referring to?

 

[raystuttgart]

Yes, you're claiming international law. Which international law(s) are you referring to?

I was referring to Intelectual Property in general.
Graphics, code, ... created by modders are also considered "Intellectual Property" to my knowledge.
The music we have been given rights of usage by a befriended composer definitely is.

There is a lot to read about that topic and I must admit, that I have not read all of it.
But it is handled, clarified by international law.

Edit:
As I said, I am very willing to share my work as everybody can read in our forum here.
But I get a little bit upset, if somebody tells me that I don't have the right to decide if I want to share or not because I generally have no rights at all for my work.
And I get even more upset, if somebody says "stealing" copyrighted work from people, that have been generous and given allowance of usage to us, is no problem.

Edit 2:
"Intelectual Property" can be shared of course and this is the normal case in this forum to my experience.
And if nothing else is explicitly said about work uploaded or linked here, I think it should be considered, that it is wanted to be shared.
But there is simply no legal way of forcing people to share their "Intelectual Property", if they don't want to.

 

[Monaldinio]

Yes, you're claiming international law. Which international law(s) are you referring to?

...Let the gini "law" in the bottle!!! I highly recommend!
whether German law or Anglo-American law, it does not matter.
the only positiv thing is, it is well defined...
should someone really come up with the idea to use the Copyright Law, many many heads will roll her...
I think a "yes" and "no" For permission should/must be enough to handle this request ...

 

[Flying Pig]

How about something like this?

It keeps it short and simple and leaves some flexibility for interpretation.

I would support that as well. Not compulsory, but an assume-OK rather than assume-not attitude - much better.