Proposed Policy Change - the Modiquette

[Monaldinio]

. Of course not but it is no more Ludicrous than claiming it is "all your own work",

no one say that! Always the Same Argument! Tzzzz...

. without the openness of 2K and Blender and their communities it would not be possible to have done what you have.

Aha...and if i would Build a Car, i would Not be able to Do that without the inventor of the weel?!?

And without Konrad Zuse 2k wound be able to Do anything...
That means all rights of the following work lay by suze?!
Nice analogue...
I Must i Little Bit smiley obout all the Lawyers here...

 

[raystuttgart]

A dispute occurred this year that needs to be addressed, ...

Well maybe. But not in a public thread like this.
(The public discussion about that, did not help to resolve the issue at all.)

And as I said, there is no good way to force a modder to share if he does not want to.

Also, this was a single issue. (Ok, maybe things like that happen from time to time.)
But is it really worth generally questioning the rights of modders because of that ?

... 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.

I really believe, it would prevent a lot of unpleasantness and stop some endless arguing.

Basically what we are talking about (credits, respecting modders' rights, respecting 3rd party rights) has been commom practice until now.
So why should it suddenly become problematic, once an official rule is derived from that commom practice ?

The same rule (not the exact wording of course) is applied in many other modding forums as well.
And they all still exist and work well.

 

[Kyriakos]

"O
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

I still think you are wrong, since:

A) 2k has nothing to do with my work. My work is either in pcx form (3d render) or nif (3d model), both of which formats were not invented by 2k, nor is 2k in any way particularly involved (read: not at all) in their creation; it simply uses them in some of its games.

B) The Blender freeware program does not own what you make with it. It would have been suicide to argue otherwise, no one would use that program. It is the same as any program you pay for, only in this case it is free. No copyright of your work by Blender is owned by the Blender company in any way at all.

C) To argue that i am using some tools which were not made by me is not very interesting or poignant an arguement. Archimedes was using mathematics invented by previous mathematicians, but this mean his own on math or early physics is not his own? Obviously he did not invent math, and i did not invent the 3d model, but this does not in any way mean that my work with a 3d modeller is anything other than entirely my own and all rights for it belong to me. In fact it is even more clear-cut than the case of some manipulator of science, since all my work is made from nothing, all models are by me, i use no models by other people.

Anyway, i think by now we are beginning to have a reasonable concensus on what the rules will be.

 

[The_J]

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

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.

I got that. Would still make some parts of the database not usable.
Therefore please swear that you'll still be here in 10 years and in case not, that you then would really still care about what happens with your graphics here.

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.

Pazyryk has quite some people listed in his thread, and I'd be damned if you can really find a big mod here, which doesn't use a single new unit graphic.

"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!" 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.

I hope we don't appear so dumb that we'd really do that .
Nobody has ever been banned here for one single simple offense.

 

[raystuttgart]

We are kind of turning in circles again and again.
Moderators and administrators have probably heard all arguments 10 times already.
Also it seems as if only a handful of people are still really discussing this topic anyways.

So I suggest:

Moderators and administrators take this weekend to think about all they heard and then finally decide on a rule.

 

[Kyriakos]

In the case of CivIII more than in CivIV, modifying graphics is not really that common. Most people either make their own graphics, or modify ones from other games (and most times they do not appear to ask for permission for that, which could land cfc in trouble). Some are very carefull (like Tom) and ask for permission all the time to use 3rd party graphics, but others just modify anything they can get their hands to.

But the point is that really in civIII at least it is not that needed to have derivatives of existant work by another person, since you cannot really improve it while keeping the original feel, due to the fact that you cannot open a 3d render with a 3d modeller; it is merely pseudo-3d at this point.

In civIV there is more reason to modify existant work, since you can open the model in your own program, and change it. But again it is a double-edged sword, since someone worked for some time in order to make it, and it is a bit offensive (in my personal view, and for me) to just alter the model a bit and then claim it as your own, or to alter it without seeking permission.

As to leaving the site: in 10 years time maybe cfc won't even exist the way civV is turning to be quite the disaster, but even if it does exist is it not a bit melanholic to think that people won't be able to best a work that is 10 years old by then?

 

[The_J]

But again it is a double-edged sword, since someone worked for some time in order to make it, and it is a bit offensive (in my personal view, and for me) to just alter the model a bit and then claim it as your own, or to alter it without seeking permission.

Credits would sure have to be given .
And as far as I've seen, the most people who make only minor modifications normally also say so and don't claim the whole thing for themself.

As to leaving the site: in 10 years time maybe cfc won't even exist the way civV is turning to be quite the disaster, but even if it does exist is it not a bit melanholic to think that people won't be able to best a work that is 10 years old by then?

I'm pretty sure the same sentence was heard after every Civ release (besides the first), but we're still here and I don't see a good reason to believe in our vanishing (unless the Mayans are a bit late...).

 

[Padjur]

I hope we don't appear so dumb that we'd really do that .
Nobody has ever been banned here for one single simple offense.

No i'm well aware of what your views are The_J and they are very fair and reasonable and I am am well aware that you would not ban someone for such a thing. But maybe a new member down the line, when they read this rule "In all cases, proper credit must be given" might think that all means all, the word all is an absolute, how are they to know the caveats (an explanation to prevent misinterpretation) if they are not expressed?

We are kind of turning in circles again and again.

This maybe so. But I hope that good work in the future, by some young, up and coming modder, will be possible, it would a shame if they were to be prevented from doing so by your rule. I know you say that you do not wish to do that so lets hope there is no misinterpretation of it in the future.

A) 2k has nothing to do with my work.

Interesting so what are you doing here then, this is a modding forum for 2K's Civilization game, shouldn't you be on your own site, you could call it Kyriakos.Modelling.Com with a disclaimer such as "not to be used in the well know civilization game by 2K".

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

Interesting so what are you doing here then, this is a modding forum for 2K's Civilization game, shouldn't you be on your own site, you could call it Kyriakos.Modelling.Com with a disclaimer such as "not to be used in the well know civilization game by 2K".

If we go by that logic, then the Total War, GalCiv, and Rise of Nations players have no place in this forum.

 

[Kyriakos]

If we go by that logic, then the Total War, GalCiv, and Rise of Nations players have no place in this forum.

And 2k indeed has nothing to do with my work. Don't confuse/ignore the fact that (as has been noted so many times) the format of the work is not owned by 2k, and not restricted to 2k products. In fact other games do have some graphics by me, since other games also use pcx/png or collada files etc.

 

[The_J]

No i'm well aware of what your views are The_J and they are very fair and reasonable and I am am well aware that you would not ban someone for such a thing. But maybe a new member down the line, when they read this rule "In all cases, proper credit must be given" might think that all means all, the word all is an absolute, how are they to know the caveats (an explanation to prevent misinterpretation) if they are not expressed?

We'd probably add a note about the modiquette for the respective subforums (if existent), where you could read more specific about how we exactly deal with such stuff .

Interesting so what are you doing here then, this is a modding forum for 2K's Civilization game, shouldn't you be on your own site, you could call it Kyriakos.Modelling.Com with a disclaimer such as "not to be used in the well know civilization game by 2K".

please stay reasonable.

 

[raystuttgart]

But I hope that good work in the future, by some young, up and coming modder, will be possible, it would a shame if they were to be prevented from doing so by your rule. I know you say that you do not wish to do that so lets hope there is no misinterpretation of it in the future.

I don't really get the problem or what you are afraid of.

How does

• Respecting others work
• Asking for permissions (even if not required, it is still polite)
• Giving credits

prevent good work from new upcoming modders ?

It is what most of us have always been doing.

If new upcoming modders build up some relationships with other (experienced) modders and behave in a reasonable way,
why should they have problems with those rules ?
There have always been and there always will be modders that cooperate, help and share.

 

[DaveShack]

I saw a comment about being banned straight away for forgetting to give credit. It would be very unlikely for that to be a first response, only as a last resort after persistent refusal to give credit after being asked/reminded, or for continuing to use material after being refused permission.

Using artwork from mod A within mod B is reuse, whether the artwork is changed or not. So the language might need an update.

I'd think a team effort would be the joint property of the team, and any team members' response to a request for permission to use the material would have to be construed as permission of the team unless specified otherwise. If other members of a team are concerned with this, they should make an agreement within the team of who the spokesperson will be or specify/provide a contact method which will ensure the response is a team response. That gets into the "how to develop as a team" discussion and outside the policy / rule discussion.

Edit:
On the period of inactivity question -- if the original author is not around to complain about reuse without permission, how would we know that permission was not given? There is an honor system aspect to all this -- we expect people who use others' work to do the right thing, and if there is a complaint we expect it to be an honest complaint. And personally I would like to see a great deal of reasonableness too.

 

[Kyriakos]

You could of course allow modding team badges

 

[Kyriakos]

On the period of inactivity question -- if the original author is not around to complain about reuse without permission, how would we know that permission was not given? There is an honor system aspect to all this -- we expect people who use others' work to do the right thing, and if there is a complaint we expect it to be an honest complaint. And personally I would like to see a great deal of reasonableness too.

If you have to be suspicious of this, you could

a) as mentioned only ask for permission from gone creators if they state in their mod page that permission is needed, and

b) a moderator will have to run a check (send an email, or other contact that the original parties supposedly used) to see if permission was indeed given.

 

[raystuttgart]

There is an honor system aspect to all this -- we expect people who use others' work to do the right thing, and if there is a complaint we expect it to be an honest complaint. And personally I would like to see a great deal of reasonableness too.

Fully agree with that.
Good interaction between modders is based on aspects like friendship, respect, sense of honor and reason.

 

[DaveShack]

If you have to be suspicious of this, you could

a) as mentioned only ask for permission from gone creators if they state in their mod page that permission is needed, and

b) a moderator will have to run a check (send an email, or other contact that the original parties supposedly used) to see if permission was indeed given.

I think you misunderstood my point. We'd only have a reason to check if an original party complained. And if they complained, then they're not inactive.

 

[Kyriakos]

Yes, which is why i suggested you by default searched into it, IF the modder who left had made it clear he wanted no derivatives, even when he was around

 

[leif erikson]

How is a moderator expected to know who is using what mod?

Think it is an unreasonable expectation that staff is going to do pre-emptive checks every time someone wishes to use a mod?

 

[Kyriakos]

Well it was not my idea to bring this up. However, in practice, it would not be impossible, since in each community people tend to know when a work is not offered for derivatives, and they tend to know who uses what. Now it may be well a tall order to expect this sort of thing to be reported, but personally i do not really feel it is worth not forming a general rule that works by people who have left should not be modified if they specified they don't want derivatives made.