Proposed Policy Change - the Modiquette

[ls612]

A big mod is a derivative work itself...unless really everything is original in it. Which I doubt.
Means normally no permission should be required.

That I think underscores a flaw with the proposed rules, most mods involve significant contributions from more than one person. That makes the matter of derivative works something that IMO should not be one person's decision.

 

[raystuttgart]

I have an issue with this, how would it be applied to large multiple-person projects such as C2C? Who's permission is necessary ? Would one modder on a large team be able to tell others not to make derivatives, when the mod is worked on by ten people ?

That is usually simply a team decision then.
You could contact one team member and he would then discuss with the others.
They way they will make that decision is their business.

In most cases a team will have clarified and stated the way they want to share and cooperate with others already long before.

A big mod is a derivative work itself...unless really everything is original in it. Which I doubt.
Means normally no permission should be required.

Does that mean that all terms of usage for a big mod - usually created by a big mod team - could be ignored ?
Does that mean that anybody who creates a mod that contains something from somebody else cannot decide about his work anymore ?

 

[Monaldinio]

I would like to ask what this Decissions means for me...?!?

 

[raystuttgart]

I would like to ask what this Decissions means for me...?!?

There is no decision yet.

There was only a proposal for a new rule which to my opinion was reasonable.
But some people still don't feel comfortable with it.

 

[raystuttgart]

Considering mods to be derivate work:

I do have a problem with declaring a complete mod "derivate work" just because it also contains work from others.
So yes, parts of such a mod might be "derivate work" but not the complete mod itself.

I do insist, that we have also created many new features containing code, graphics, texts, ...
that are original to us and that those aspects are not declared "derivate work".

Considering mods being created by a team:

Could one of us decide alone about important aspects related to our mod ?
Definitely not. All team members would have a word in that.

Could one of our team member suddenly decide to ignore any terms of usage or permissions we have agreed to ?
Definitely not. Again, all team members would have a word in that.

 

[Monaldinio]

Ray, please, "translate" this Prospal for my fall...
I am willing to give modders my permission to use my stuff, wich is created by me , for "privatemodding", i have absolutely no problem with this. But Not for publicing in CFC in a nother mod....

this derivate clause was specially built for "events" like us, for maintained the status quo, no Need of modders permission. So i understand this clause ...but i can be wrong!

 

[raystuttgart]

Ray, please, "translate" this Prospal for my fall...

Ok I will try.
(Although some aspects like "What is considered derivate work ?" are not absolutely clear to me also.)

Spoiler :

Solange es nicht anderweitig von dem Autor bzw. den Autoren festgelegt wurde,
steht jegliche ursprüngliche Arbeit, die durch Links im Forum oder per Download in der Datenbank verfügbar ist,
für jeglichen nicht kommerzielle Nutzung innerhalb der Community - ohne explizit benötigte Erlaubnis - frei zur Verfügung.
Credits müssen dabei gegeben werden und Rechte von Dritten (andere als IP Haltern des Civilization Franchise oder Nutzer diese Forums)
dürfen dabei nicht verletzt werden.

Jegliche "abgeleitete Arbeit", falls diese überhaupt erlaubt ist, fällt unter die selben Regeln bezüglich Verfügbarkeit und Änderbarkeit,
wie die ursprüngliche Arbeit oder die Standardregeln des Forums, wenn vom ursprünglichen Autor keine Regeln explizit genannt wurden.

As I said, after reading this a second time, I am wondering a bit, what is all considered "derivate work".
Declaring complete mods as "derivate work" would be a nogo for me.

this derivate clause was specially built for "events" like us, for maintained the status quo, no Need of modders permission.

For me, the status quo never was that explicitly stated terms of usage or permission could be ignored.

As I said, we (our team) don't have any problems with sharing and cooperating.
It is in the very own interest of our team to share and cooperate.

I simply cannot accept that somebody generally denies a modder's (or a mod team's) rights about his (or the team's) work.
It is a matter of respect for a lot of hard work, it is a matter of keeping up motivation of modders and
it simply a matter of modders being able to protect their work froum abuse.

 

[Monaldinio]

. I simply cannot accept that somebody generally denies a modder's (or a mod team's) rights about his (or the team's) work.
It is a matter of respect for a lot of hard work, it is a matter of keeping up motivation of modders and
it simply a matter of modders being able to protect their work froum abuse.

Right, my opinion too...

 

[Kyriakos]

Scenarios:

Modder includes 3rd party (e.g. music) with permission and states this. The 3rd party works cannot be derived without obtaining rights.

Modder does not state any sharing rules. Derivative works are allowed as long as no other rights are violated.

Modder says that permission is required. Derivative works are only allowed with permission, as long as no other rights are violated.

In any case, EULA enforcement is not included in the scope. In all cases, proper credit must be given.

I agree too.

 

[Kyriakos]

What constitutes a modders work? If said modder has used tutorials, read threads and asked questions, received help in writing code, or has used or modified graphics and studied other mods codes etc and incorporates this in his mod, can he then claim that it is all his own work?
What are you (who like to think of yourself's as so important) doing to the community!
What of newer members, just starting out who, because you don't want to share will not have the advantages that you had in producing your mod. The fact is, you have taken advantage of others willingness to share but are not willing to do likewise and seek to gain all the credit for yourself.

This is still a community and this is a Rule change and every member has a right to be heard and that includes those who do not have a big fancy mod to there name.
I understand that there is a need in certain circumstances to require permission but it is also now necessary to protect sharing and openness. You can dismiss the EULA if you want but the fact remains civ modding exists because of the openness of 2K and the fact they allowed you to do what you want with their code, you would nothing without that.
Therefore the rule change must also require people to share "their" work, the community as a whole must be protected and not just the rights of a few powerful individuals.
Whats next on your agenda, consultancy fees? Are we going to have to buy the rights to your mod? pay to download it? start to sue each other for infringement of intellectual property: its patents, trademarks, user interface and style and other alleged similarities in mods?
Admin have a duty to protect the rights of all.
Those who want the right to demand permission must have reasonable Cause for doing so and saying "I worked hard on it" is not sufficient!
What exactly are they claiming to right of ownership to? The concept? The whole mod? Elements in it?


One other thing if a modder accidentally forgets to include a credit for a unit in his mod he will be banned, hope those who think the wording is fine are aware of that!

Ludicrous. I have read tutorials on Blender, not on this site, but at the Blender forums. Does this mean my work is owned by the Blender corporation?

I think that even if a modder has left the community, the rule that his/her work can only be modified after permission should stand. If you cannot come to contact with the creator then you simply cannot make any derivate by default.

 

[embryodead]

Considering mods to be derivate work:

I do have a problem with declaring a complete mod "derivate work" just because it also contains work from others.
So yes, parts of such a mod might be "derivate work" but not the complete mod itself.

In CFC terms, we have an existing convention that mods that are modifications of other complete mods are called "modmods", and special (informal) rules apply to them (i.e. permissions and/or subforum locations). In CFC terms I'd consider modmods to be derivative works, not just any mods that include other people's assets (I'm aware that virtually all mods would be considered derivative under copyright law, but it's not about legal matters).

My understanding is that if you create a modmod based on default sharing rules, then default sharing rules apply also to your modifications, unless you arrange this differently with the original mod's creator(s). After all design and programming are no worse than art assets. That seems fair to me, and of course excludes any 3rd party assets originally exempted from default rules because of copyrights or individual permissions.

However, if all mods are treated as derivative works, and no permission can be required to create a modmod, then that part would be worse than the modiquette, which states permission is required, and it explains why quite well. Other parts of the proposed policy I find clear and reasonable as well.

 

[The_J]

Any other suggestion for preventing leeching from the community?

Seems we'll not meet our initial goal to keep things simple ^^.

I think that even if a modder has left the community, the rule that his/her work can only be modified after permission should stand. If you cannot come to contact with the creator then you simply cannot make any derivate by default.

You know, this might render quite some parts of the CFC database useless.
Else: Swear to me that you'll still be here in 10 or 20 years, and that you'll in 10 or 20 years still be concerned about your work for a game from the stone age (would also include Civ2 or 4).

 

[AbsintheRed]

I think he meant only in cases, where the creator specifically said that permission is needed

 

[Kyriakos]

I think he meant only in cases, where the creator specifically said that permission is needed

Correct. I understand, The_J, that the default position is that no permission is needed (or to rephrase: by not saying otherwise you cancel the need for such a permission to be had). So again if someone meant for his work to be modified freely, it won't matter if they are gone.

In my case (and other people's, judging from this debate) permission is needed, for many reasons. I spend valuable time to make these graphics and i ask that i maintain some level of control on their public use. Again, i do not want people who maim them with their mofications to be able to do so freely, nor do i want the work to be used in any commercial project.

 

[raystuttgart]

My understanding is that if you create a modmod based on default sharing rules, then default sharing rules apply also to your modifications, unless you arrange this differently with the original mod's creator(s).

That is exactly the point.

We as modders arrange how things considering our work (usage, publications or derivates) are supposed to be handled.

We accept others modders' terms of usage / permissions.
Other modders accept our terms of usage / permissions.

All a new rule should really say:

A) Give credits.
B) Accept terms of usage / permissions. (Including 3rd party rights.)
C) If nothing is explicitly stated, then the work can be considered free to use.

After all design and programming are no worse than art assets. That seems fair to me, and of course excludes any 3rd party assets originally exempted from default rules because of copyrights or individual permissions.

Fully agree.

However, if all mods are treated as derivative works, and no permission can be required to create a modmod, then that part would be worse than the modiquette, which states permission is required, and it explains why quite well.

Also agree.

Other parts of the proposed policy I find clear and reasonable as well.

Agree again.

 

[Lplate]

A big mod is a derivative work itself...unless really everything is original in it. Which I doubt.
Means normally no permission should be required.

I'd disagree with this. Where there's a team, the team can agree to what extent they'd like to make their work available for use. There's no reason to treat it any differently from a solo mod, i.e. there's an assumption you can use it unless the author(s) state otherwise.
What I'd consider a big mod could be pretty much a solo effort, just look at Pazyryk's Ea or Spatzimaus's Civ 5 mods. It might be rare to achieve complete originality in Civ 4 (and earlier versions) but pioneers seem to be working away in Lua.

 

[Monaldinio]

Ludicrous. I have read tutorials on Blender, not on this site, but at the Blender forums. Does this mean my work is owned by the Blender corporation?

if i would help a modder with coding, Artwork ect his work is owned by me! for sure! ;-) Sorry for Out of topic...

 

[raystuttgart]

We are partially talking about fictional problems.

1. Almost all modders I know allow usages and derivates of their work under reasonable conditions or without any conditions at all.

2. Within a modding community friendship and contacts grow.
The more you give, the more you get.
It is a self regulating system.

3. Forcing modders to share does not work anyways.
Programmers could simply not upload their source code.
Modders could simply not publish to community any more at all.

So I really don't think we need more than this:

A) Give credits.
B) Accept terms of usage / permissions. (Including 3rd party rights.)
C) If nothing is explicitly stated, then the work can be considered free to use.

No exceptions, no loopholes.

Basically this is all we need:

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)

 

[Padjur]

"One other thing if a modder accidentally forgets to include a credit for a unit in his mod he will be banned, hope those who think the wording is fine are aware of that!"

lolwut nobody said anything like that.

In all cases, proper credit must be given.

The rule change states "in all cases" therefore, if a modder accidentally forgets to include a credit for a unit in his mod, he has broken the rule and five years down the line who is to say what has been said in this thread or what current Admin members intended.
What of this scenario (from the Modiquette) "Most people who have worked longer than a week on a mod will know this situation: You dig through your folders of downloaded stuff, and you find something which you really need at this moment...but you have no clue who made it. Should you not use it?". Under the rule change, no you can't use it because you must give credit in all cases.

For me, the status quo never was that explicitly stated terms of usage or permission could be ignored.

As I said, we (our team) don't have any problems with sharing and cooperating.
It is in the very own interest of our team to share and cooperate.

I simply cannot accept that somebody generally denies a modder's (or a mod team's) rights about his (or the team's) work.
It is a matter of respect for a lot of hard work, it is a matter of keeping up motivation of modders and
it simply a matter of modders being able to protect their work froum abuse.

I understand this and fully support your intention.

As I said, after reading this a second time, I am wondering a bit, what is all considered "derivative work".
Declaring complete mods as "Derivative work" would be a nogo for me.

Precisely, it must be clear what can and cannot be defined as derivative work, as I say I understand your intention but will that intention be understood 5 years down the line from a new set of admin who are attempting to interpret from the rule what that intention was?

Ludicrous. I have read tutorials on Blender, not on this site, but at the Blender forums. Does this mean my work is owned by the Blender corporation?

Of course not but it is no more Ludicrous than claiming it is "all your own work", without the openness of 2K and Blender and their communities it would not be possible to have done what you have.
Consider: The whole is the sum of its constituent parts and is therefore the better for it. In seeking to protect an individual part (which I support) we cannot afford to damage that which made it possible.
A dispute occurred this year that needs to be addressed, in creating this rule the question needs to be asked will this rule (which seeks to prevent an unpleasantness) not create other unpleasantness's down the line.
That's all

 

[raystuttgart]

Under the rule change, no you can't use it because you must give credit in all cases.

As stated many times already, everybody can forget credits or in some cases people do not even know who to credit.
But that is no problem.

It is simply about the following:

The original author contacts somebody and says:
"Hey my friend, what you are using was created by me. I would really appreciate, if you list me in your credits."
If that is really the case that other person should say:
"Oh you are right. Sorry that I forgot you. I will correct right away. Thanks for reminding."

Of course, a modder should try to keep his credits updated without being reminded.

Knowingly claiming that something is your work, if it is not, is a big nogo, of course.
But even that can be handled without banning outright.

That is all the part about the credits says.