Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PraPoredos

ARMA III & Steam WORKSHOP

Recommended Posts

So... my own minor point of discussion is... if Valve "take" ownership of the IP for uploaded content, are they then also responsible for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Responsible in what way? I think they fall short of taking ownership of it, they just take revocable rights to modify, distribute, and maybe some other things if you are eligible to agree to their terms.

Edited by Max Power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Responsible in what way? I think they fall short of taking ownership of it, they just take revocable rights to modify, distribute, and maybe some other things if you are eligible to agree to their terms.

Well in that case it falls short of what IP means doesn't it? Whoever owns the IP rights is responsible for the content, so content that includes stolen assets, offensive assets, malicious code, derivatives, secret information, sensitive information etc, all those things are the responsibility of the IP holder yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well in that case it falls short of what IP means doesn't it? Whoever owns the IP rights is responsible for the content, so content that includes stolen assets, offensive assets, malicious code, derivatives, secret information, sensitive information etc, all those things are the responsibility of the IP holder yes?

Someone who is using someone's IP improperly doesn't 'own' it. You aren't eligible to enter into an agreement with SWS if you do not own the IP you're sending them, so I guess they would never be responsible for something like that. The uploader would always be the closest thing to liable that can result from something like that.

If they changed something and it ended up blowing up computers, they could probably be held responsible for that if it could be proved that the exploding computers were caused by those changes, or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone who is using someone's IP improperly doesn't 'own' it. You aren't eligible to enter into an agreement with SWS if you do not own the IP you're sending them, so I guess they would never be responsible for something like that. The uploader would always be the closest thing to liable that can result from something like that.

If they changed something and it ended up blowing up computers, they could probably be held responsible for that if it could be proved that the exploding computers were caused by those changes, or something like that.

Well this is the thing that is very hazy to me. Someone improperly uploading stolen content is one thing: someone uploading content owned by them, but which has other problems (security, offense etc) is another thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.. Is it possible to create malware in a mission script? I think that's a good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well this is the thing that is very hazy to me. Someone improperly uploading stolen content is one thing: someone uploading content owned by them, but which has other problems (security, offense etc) is another thing.

I trust downloading from valve more then armaholics. just my two cents.

plus it has been confirmed there will be steam workshop for mission deployments. But you will still be able to download from armaholics if you like and pop it in the correct folder as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I trust downloading from valve more then armaholics. just my two cents.

Perhaps. (ArmAHolic for me ;)) but the question isn't who is more trustworthy, the content will be similar, the question is who is responsible. For ArmAHolic, the guy who made the addon is the guy responsible. For SWS....? If they wish to own the IP for uploaded content, then it indicates a responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest issue with the Steamworkshop will be that most, if not all, non-profit user generated content for a Game like Armed Assault 3 is set to be as realistic as possible.

Therefor Addons would mostly use source content of already protected Content, Logos and concepts.

This pop up in my mind the first time i noticed BI created close to real models of curtain Firearms but named them in a fashion an IP conflict with the company that produces the real thing won't happen. You can see such methods on other Games as well, where Product and producer names are altered in order to not create an IP conflict in the first place.

Though our Community of dedicated addon creators does not work in such a fashion, we are proud of what we create for our beloved titles. The naming for most items is therefor the same as the real product, for example a Colt M4A1 Rifle.

Taken from the colt firearms website:

The trademarks and/or service marks of Defense include, but are not limited to, the trademarks and service marks listed below. Some or all of these trademarks or service marks have been registered in the trademark registries of the European Union and/or foreign countries.

Therfor most addons will have a conflict with licensing because we create content for the game that is Trademarked or license protected. Though we do not create this content to generate profit, it is still already licensed or even Trademarked by the respective license holders. So in conclusion: Even if whole addon packs would be releasable on the Workshop, it would break single or even multiple trademark and license rights. The high ammount of Public interist in Steam could then in turn initiate said license holders to engage in legal actions towards the uploader, Steam or even BI for potentially incorporating the content into there game or other titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Colt, there was an interesting court case back in December 2005 where a US District Court in Maine ruled against Colt (which had brought a case against Bushmaster) to the point of determining that the term "M4" in conjunction with a certain style of carbines was/had become so generic a term that it could not be trademarked... so at least those addons should be safe. :lol: Just trying to inject some levity here on the trademark issue...

(H&K had settled out of court but conceded the trademark issue -- and changed to "HK416" from the original "HKM4" name -- while Bushmaster went for a summary judgment both to dismiss Colt's infringement claim and to cancel Colt's federal trademark registration for "M4"; a magistrate judge ruled in favor of Bushmaster and the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit upheld this decision in May 2007.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they wish to own the IP for uploaded content, then it indicates a responsibility.

I don't think they take ownership. I think it's integral to differentiate between ownership and retaining certain rights. SWS forces you to give Valve certain rights (pretty much all of them), but it I think that doesn't preclude the person who produced the work from doing whatever they want with with their stuff as well.

Say you gave me something and agreed to an 'irrevocable, do whatever I please with it license'. After that, I could do whatever I wanted with your stuff, and you would be powerless to stop me. I guess the question is that if what I got the rights to distribute was a virus, would I be accountable for the virus I was distributing. I think I would be considered the victim of fraud or something similar.

Edited by Max Power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So... my own minor point of discussion is... if Valve "take" ownership of the IP for uploaded content, are they then also responsible for it?

Nope. The SWS Agreements Section 2-a-b states:

You grant to Valve a worldwide, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, assignable right and license to (a) use, copy, distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, modify, and create derivative works from Your Contribution in any media, (b) identify You as the source of the Contribution, and © sublicense these rights, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law.

They side step any liability that way. Essentially they are saying This guy made it but he also gave us a non-exclusive license to do what we want with. I would suggest they would be liable for anything "offensive" that's added to the original but anything 'wrong' with the original is the uploader's liability.

Edited by RKSL-Rock
Added Section numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of Colt, there was an interesting court case back in December 2005 where a US District Court in Maine ruled against Colt (which had brought a case against Bushmaster) to the point of determining that the term "M4" in conjunction with a certain style of carbines was/had become so generic a term that it could not be trademarked... so at least those addons should be safe. :lol: Just trying to inject some levity here on the trademark issue...

(H&K had settled out of court but conceded the trademark issue -- and changed to "HK416" from the original "HKM4" name -- while Bushmaster went for a summary judgment both to dismiss Colt's infringement claim and to cancel Colt's federal trademark registration for "M4"; a magistrate judge ruled in favor of Bushmaster and the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit upheld this decision in May 2007.)

On the other hand Colt Defense could legaly force you to change the name of the rifle ingame, as well as removing all company related logos and markings on the rifle. Which would in return leaves us with a final product we will not be happy with. Most modders look to create there content as close to the real-life counterpart as possible. Especially if it leads to the model having the exact or close to real life messurements and such. Rule of thumb is: The more exposure your work recives, the more likely it is that the company that owns the respective trademarks will take action. Just like all weapons in Counter-Strike still had there real names until 1.5 or 1.6 hit the field, then you recived the funny names so Steam was able to avoid any kind of legal action towards them.

Even if you won't recive any legal shambalaya from the company, they will still generate stress for you, the guy that wanted to enlighten everyones game experiance with a carefully modeled Object. And on top of the non-contributing community members looking into your work and submitting sugguestions you will also have the lawyer jumping your back like a b....

Though this does not have to be the case with all manufacturing companys, but most of them will take these steps. Asking the companys for a proper permission to submit your work to the public is close to impossible.

Edited by fluttershy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... there is a "fair use" clause in IP though right? Under cartain conditions (educational for example but there may be other examples).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admittedly I'm not sure what the rules are in Colt's case and "M4" beyond the realm of actual-firearms branding -- in this case video games -- but it's been seemingly reported that the inability of Colt to make certain claims also applied to the general appearance. Seems like where your concern lies is that the idea that someone will want to go "right down to the markings and company logos" because otherwise it wouldn't look right to them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... there is a "fair use" clause in IP though right? Under cartain conditions (educational for example but there may be other examples).

Commercial exploitation doesn't fall under fair use as I understand it. As I understand it, if BIS were to use "Colt M4" in ArmA3 then they would be liable. If you released it as a "freeware" addon, it might be different.

Quoted from Wikipedia - I apologise but its easy access Link to Wikipage - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.

I suppose it depends on what factors the judge considers in the balancing test. I would imagine one at least is "does this impact on the original author's/owner's product or brand line." Another would likely be (again assumption here) how the product is portrayed. Ie is it negative or positive - if its positive its kind of hard to prove loss of image or profits which is the common claim in this sort of case.

From what I've read about the Colt case weren't all technical designations (eg M4, M16, F-18 etc) declared to be in the public domain and therefore not subject to copyright claims? But the use of "Colt" as trademark ultimately upheld?

Edited by RKSL-Rock
Added the link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think legaly products from the Steam workshop are about equal to promotional material. If user generated content that is done in a proper fashion with high details and proper modeling increases the potential sales of the product, simply because it features a curtain well made item. A good example is DayZ, which is a free addon for everyone to download and install, that already owns Armed Assault 2. This free addition to the original title boosted the sales beyond belive.

Other Modifications, which are now full stand alone titles done the same, Counter-Strike for example increased the already significant Half-Life sales, as well as DOTA increasing late era Warcraft 3 sales.

Therefor Addons can potentially generate income for the initial producer of the plattform they are featured on.

And yes i am sure there will be addon makers that will get a product exactly right, down to the last detail, not because they want to generate income with it but to give the community THE XYZ Platecarrier that current deployed troops use.

In the end its what the individual companys do that own the trademarks and copyrights for thoose materials. Legaly its a very very large area to layout as you see fit but in the end the registration and rights belong to someone that is completly uninvolved in the final free product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't you already put yourself in the firing line by using a Steam game which means you never really 'own' the software as it resides with Steam... so just adding more to their ownership and you lease it is just the way of this gaming system.

Until Steam goes under or doesn't let me get to my games then I don't have an issue and don't want to spend the next xx amount of years worrying about, there's plenty more to be worried about in the world than this... surely ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise SWS's clauses are somewhat ambiguous ...... all corporations do it. I see it every day at work.

Write it so you don't paint yourself solidly into a corner, leave yourself some leg-room (in the words) so to do an about-face at any time.

Language takes ownership, but making sure they have a solid link to the contributor/original IP provider, just in case they need to slam him/her because of some heat they may have attracted from elsewhere (i.e. stolen IP within content).

.... they take one step to the left, up their hands in the air and say "Don't look at me! He provided it." .... pointing at the supposed author (or submitter).

This whole situation also works unwell the OTHER WAY AROUND. You submit a legit addon, then Valve suddenly takes it down ..... WTF?! ..... it could take 6 months to find out who the shit-stirrer is thats making (repeat) claims that the addon is actually his and wants it removed from SWS.

It's worked here for the last 8+ years because the community and the hosts were available, much more open and certainly approachable. i.e. Community accountability.

Can't get that without Valve/BIS stepping in with a similar real-time sense of proper process ownership.

..... Moderated submissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haven't you already put yourself in the firing line by using a Steam game which means you never really 'own' the software as it resides with Steam... so just adding more to their ownership and you lease it is just the way of this gaming system.

Until Steam goes under or doesn't let me get to my games then I don't have an issue and don't want to spend the next xx amount of years worrying about, there's plenty more to be worried about in the world than this... surely ?

For the record, you never "own" a game if you have it on CD. It's a license agreement, one that can be cancelled (and hence, your "ownership" revoked) if you do not abide by the rules of the agreement.

But that is an entirely different thing. Currently, I *do* own e.g. my M4 models by european law since I am the creator. The Steam Workshop Agreement asks me to grant Valve the right to use, sub-license, display publicliy, blah blah blah, and make derivate works out of it. I don't know how far that derivation goes, but as I understand it, this means that a theoretical Arma 3 DLC from Valve could be SOLD that contains these models without me getting anything from it.

There is a considerate difference between how you get a game (which always works the same, you don't own it, you license it) and giving away far-reaching rights to custom content you produced for the game, especially considering the people here that do modelling or texturing work for a living and normally charge for such rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I've read about the Colt case weren't all technical designations (eg M4, M16, F-18 etc) declared to be in the public domain and therefore not subject to copyright claims? But the use of "Colt" as trademark ultimately upheld?
I don't recall it being all technical designations, but it seems that the fact that other manufacturers were using terms like "Rock River Arms M4" or "<manufacturer> M4" played a role in the outcome of the case; the appeals court's ruling mentioned that "Bushmaster presented evidence that the relevant consuming public continues to associate M4 with the military designation for a carbine that has certain characteristics. Colt has presented no more than a scintilla of evidence to show that the relevant public has come to understand M4 as an identifier of a Colt-made product."

Incidentally, I took a look over at the weapons list of Medal of Honor: Warfighter due to the game's brief Internet notoriety for EA's dealings with gunmakers -- turns out that the only "M4" type weapons in that are branded H&K (HK416/416C), Daniel Defense (DDM4V1/DDMK18) and LaRue (LaRue OBR 5.56) -- and ran across this Ars Technica article claiming that EA considered authentic weapon appearances to be fair use.

From the Reuters article that the Ars Technica article mentioned:

EA also says video game makers can have branded guns in their games without getting licenses, meaning the industry could drop the gun companies and keep their guns.

Activision, the industry leader, declined to comment on whether it licenses gun designs from gun manufacturers or if it would stop doing so. Branded guns have consistently been featured in its blockbuster shooter games like the decade-old "Call of Duty."

"We're telling a story and we have a point of view," EA's President of Labels Frank Gibeau, who leads product development of EA's biggest franchises, said in an interview. "A book doesn't pay for saying the word 'Colt,' for example."

Put another way, EA is asserting a constitutional free speech right to use trademarks without permission in its ever-more-realistic games

But EA's legal theory is now being tested in court. Aircraft maker Bell Helicopter, a unit of Textron Inc, has argued that Electronic Arts' depiction of its helicopters in "Battlefield" was beyond fair use and amounted to a trademark infringement. EA preemptively went to court, suing Bell Helicopter to settle the issue.

The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, has set a jury trial for the case in June.

Also, as an interesting point of note:
Edited by Chortles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't recall it being all technical designations, but it seems that the fact that other manufacturers were using terms like "Rock River Arms M4" or "<manufacturer> M4" played a role in the outcome of the case; the appeals court's ruling mentioned that "Bushmaster presented evidence that the relevant consuming public continues to associate M4 with the military designation for a carbine that has certain characteristics. Colt has presented no more than a scintilla of evidence to show that the relevant public has come to understand M4 as an identifier of a Colt-made product."

Incidentally, I took a look over at the weapons list of Medal of Honor: Warfighter due to the game's brief Internet notoriety for EA's dealings with gunmakers, and ran across this Ars Technica article claiming that EA considered authentic weapon appearances to be fair use.

From the Reuters article that the Ars Technica article mentioned:Also, as an interesting point of note:

Well there is precedent at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty much what I'm looking at and the reason that I'm posting up those quotes -- sure, they've got the "AAA publisher" and big money status, but it's still blatant as hell flouting, complete with "preemptively" suing Bell Helicopter. The reason I also looked at the Colt case with interest is that if it's true that the general physical appearance/likeness is in fact one of the "generic" aspects that Colt couldn't lock down and not just the term "M4", then it's a seemingly defined area where addon makers have legal room and thus precedent, you're right...

Edited by Chortles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly no addon maker has the legal department of an industrial software giant behind him. Of course a complete, to the last point, recreation of, for example a combat rifle, does appear as "fair use" for the creator, since he took a lot of time to research every little aspect to make the addon perfect, but in return the license holder does not feel the "fair use" justified because he is not agreeing with the terms the content is used, distributed or balanced. Since the addon maker is responsible for the config characteristics of the rifle, they might feel different on these values and therefor your addon, even though it is completly free, is not according to the fair use agreement.

Top that of with terrible company management that is looking to go to court for every last cent in your pocket and you have a big issue at hand.

Further complications can arise if a company that is featured in a modification already sold licenses to other game developers.

Again the public interist and easy of use is the main issue at hand. We have not been concerened with the issue during any other BI Title that used perfectly recreated objects from trademarked and licsensed products because to be fair, getting addons to run on the former titles was a bit more tricky then going into the steamworkshop and pick your flavoure from a public display. If EA wouldnt have made a fortune out of there products no company would even consider to take legal actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about Rocket using Coke and Pepsi in his mod?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×