Content Licensing - Questions and Answers

[John87 12]

Is it legal using and modify some parts of "Arma 3 Asset Samples" for MANW addons?

Edited December 14, 2014 by John87

[rksl-rock 1300]

Thanks for the clarification.Although I'm more interested in the attitudes we have to the situation.

Not so much the legal detail.I was trying to reference trademarks/IP in a loose sense.

Thats not how your posts read.

RKSL-Rock you do commercial work outside of this site.So you've obviously had to deal

with issues regarding IP laws.Or at least,would have to be aware of them,so as not to

fall foul of them.

Yes I did a lot of commercial work outside of this community and I've had a large part of that business destroyed by IP/Copyright theft.

A person's living is not being destroyed by someone editing a 3-4 year old addon with no terms

of use and an iffy paint job.Especially if the edited material is removed on request.And where

the original content still exists on the server from which it was downloaded.

Actually it is. You are undermining their library of works. Eroding their right to be acknowledged as the author of those works.

The fact that the real author has to:

1. Be aware of the theft - Not always possible if the stolen content is ported to a platform they aren't aware of.
   
2. Make the take down request - in my experience these are most often ignored until I engage a lawyer to take action.
   
3. and in a lot of cases continually chase that request to ensure his right are protected - requires a lot of effort to constantly pursue an manage.
   

I'm also very interested in the "attitudes" toward IP theft. I've seen a lot of total BS written on these forums about "the end users rights to do anything they like as long as its not commercial" and how "once its on the net its up for grabs".

For me the problem is education. As you and others proved in this thread have proved people do not understand the rules or the laws. People generally do not want to acknowledge the Author's rights because it an inconvenience to them. They want to do what they want without consequence. And that my friend is not right.

Could we not interpret that example as "fair use" while monitoring it,without invoking threats of

legal action?

Nope. Its not fair use to re-use unique content. Going back to the Toyota analogy, its would be the equivalent of "borrowing" a new car and sticking your own Logo and Brand name on it. Its still a Toyota you just tried to make someone else think it was made by you. Even if you acknowledge its a Toyota (i.e. give Credit) and you add new wheels, fix the squeaky door and the leak in the boot seals (ie "improving it") its still Toyota's IP. That's not fair use. Its Fraud and misrepresentation.

Fair Use would:

1. be to make a representation of my representation for Public release.
   
2. "Private" alteration for the purpose of illustration, parody or art. Where the altered version of the product is not distributed only the image of it.
   
3. "Private version" where that use is restricted to just you. The moment that is passed to even one individual then its no longer private use.
   

Any aspect where you alter the product and offer it to anyone for free or for gain on a minor or commercial basis means that "Fair use" no longer applies and you break the law.

The only way you can use "3-4 year old addon with no terms of use and an iffy paint job" is with the consent of the Author or Owner. You just have to be patient and make the effort to track them down. Other people do it. Not always successfully but quite a lot of the time it pays off.

Edited December 13, 2014 by RKSL-Rock
typoa

[Macser 776]

Thats not how your posts read.

I'm not sure how to respond to that.I tried to be non specific.I didn't quote any sources that I can remember.So in that regard the general tone was "loose".I'm not well versed in legal jargon,so maybe there were inaccuracies.I think I can live with that.

People generally do not want to acknowledge the Author's rights because it an inconvenience to them.

They want to do what they want without consequence. And that my friend is not right.

I agree.Although you and I can't presume to know what people in general think.

I'll leave it at that for myself.I don't want to get into a situation where it becomes personal.

I may not agree with you on everything relating to this subject.That doesn't mean however that

I'm without a conscience.Even if it is only a hobby,based on a video game.

[rksl-rock 1300]

I'm not sure how to respond to that.I tried to be non specific.I didn't quote any sources that I can remember.So in that regard the general tone was "loose".I'm not well versed in legal jargon,so maybe there were inaccuracies.I think I can live with that.

I we referring to the fact that at several points in your posts you seem to challenge the points of law described. In that context talking about "loose concepts" doesn't seem to fit.

I agree.Although you and I can't presume to know what people in general think.

After 12 years in this community and over 15 years modding all i can go off is my own personal experience.

I'll leave it at that for myself.I don't want to get into a situation where it becomes personal.

I may not agree with you on everything relating to this subject.That doesn't mean however that

I'm without a conscience.Even if it is only a hobby,based on a video game.

I'm not trying to make it personal against you but i am trying to explain the actual laws in an open and simple way. And convey why people do take such great offense when people abuse their good faith and commitment to the community of a video game.

To give you some perspective. I've put well over 14,000 hours of my life into making Freeware content for this community.

I did it because I enjoyed the process of making models. I enjoy working with my friends, creating something special and I've learnt a lot of new skills and improved others. I've never charged anyone for those ArmA addons. I've never profited in any material way. But in return I reserve the right to be recognised as the author and owner of that content.

For anyone to take my addons and hack and re-brand them without my consent is a huge slap in my face. And should they start profiting from them (as several people have tried to do) I am sure as hell going to protect my rights.

Its no different for any other author's work. First and foremost seeking permission is a basic courtesy. Anyone with the any morals will ask. If someone takes/borrows/steals work you've done how would you feel?

I know people that left the community in OFP times, skipped ArmA1 and returned to ArmA2 to find thier addons in other people's mods with a single line credit at the bottom of a huge readme. No one recognised that they just appluded the "new" mod team for their work. Only that single line acknowledged that they made the content, no one asked permission. And they were told to stop moaning about it. They arent part of this community anymore.

If you want to blame someone about the emotion and willingness to bring law into the situation. Blame the lazy people that claim its OK to steal. Its them that have made Authors have to write restrictive EULAs. Its not the Authors that are to blame.

Education is the answer.

And if that fails, hunting parties. Pitch Forks, shot guns I dont mind. :p

Edited December 14, 2014 by RKSL-Rock

[vilas 477]

To give you some perspective. I've put well over 14,000 hours of my life into making Freeware content for this community.

yes, such things might be hard to understand for newcomers who just came with Arma3, but many old moders spent like 8 or 10 thousands hours ,

you spent 12 years, i spent ca 9.5-10 years , countless weekends ,

many newcomers or those who abuse addons think it is 5 minutes or hour to do something,

people who make islands can spend even half year on making island and things that happened in dayz server admins hosting addons (as example) is pissing, when you spent 500 hours or more to do weapon pack and someone put it on server and collect donor perk or put to zip and collect donations, while it was 500 or 1000 hours of work (weapons pack containing 130 weapons i made which were often repacked and monetized (donations, donor perks) by several dayz servers of which i read on some dayz forums "lets take 10 weapons from it and put to our mod, players want it")

once upon a time i found one mod forum which was discussing which cars to rip from my cars pack etc.

cars pack was more than 1000 hours cause car is more complicated than rifle, my cars pack was once upon a time essential for one dayz mod to collect donations (with my rifles pack)

[cifordayzserver 119]

Author's rights only become an issue when you want them not to have any.

There are dozens of authors here who are more than happy to share source or allow redistribution/repackaging, you just need to do so with permission.

The number one misconception seems to revolve around Author's ownership, and all the misconceptions are fairly easy to clear up.

Misconceptions:

1. If you publish your work in a PBO, it's fine for anyone to redistribute that work unchanged

- NO, even Play With Six, and Armaholic are sometimes requested to NOT mirror addons, and they ALWAYS comply with those requests. They provide a service that community authors KNOW respects authors rights, and they notify authors on their release threads of their mirroring of the content.

2. Once you use BI's tools, or pack your work into a PBO BI owns it

- NO, BI doesn't own the work of anyone, Steam requires that you grant them rights to redistribute your work, however at NO POINT do you transfer your copyrights to Steam or BI EVER, unless they cut you a check and contract signed by all parties.

3. If an author has "abandoned" their work it's open for modification

- NO, that author may well have "abandoned" work in Arma due to financial gain in the same/similar arena of expertise, and may also have included all sorts of tricks, techniques, or content that is now monetized or sold for exclusive use in alternate formats/venues... Any derivative work based on their previous publications may put their current works at risk.

4. No one "owns" something once it's published on Armaholic.

- NO, publication in a public venue is actually the cornerstone of modern copyrights. Publishing the work publicly ESTABLISHES your ownership, it doesn't negate it.

I personally love to share any work I'm involved with, and enjoy working on "open" projects for Arma, however others can not, or do not wish to, do so. There is NO more important issue than maintaining mutual respect for any/all authors and their individual position on use/modification of THEIR content.

I think it would be a very good idea, for Bohemia or the forum moderators to put in place a more pro-active system for authors to clarify their position in general, or globally if they feel strongly one way or the other.

Maybe even establish a section of the forums for people interested in sharing their content openly. That way it's 100 percent clear only items published their are free to use/modify/redistribute.

However until such a time, there is ZERO question, you CAN NOT redistribute even a collection of mods among your friends without being in technical violation of the current rules. You can HOST them, and you can point people to where they are currently available for download. You could even make a PWS collection so that everyone and the server are all running the same modpack. However you CAN NOT redistribute anyone's work w/o their direct approval, much less modify them and do the same, or re-introduce them to the existing pipeline of mod releases (BIF, Armaholic, PWS etc).

[Macser 776]

:D

Ok.This is definitely my last post....

I've created content for people myself over the years.I still do.It probably goes unnoticed.

But that's fine.It's usually something small.Nonetheless I put effort into everything I do.

Even when it's free.

If the work was something I genuinely cared about I'd provide clear terms of use.When an

individual decides to ignore those terms,then I'll go after them.

On the other hand.If I didn't provide terms in another work,and permission was at least sought,

I wouldn't be bothered about it.As long as a thread existed here showing it's progress.

So I can jump in at any time and voice my concerns.Or ask for it to be removed,if I thought it

was warranted.

I'm not as tolerant as I might sound.I just don't see the need for aggressive tactics in every

situation.

[norsk2277 96]

Just have a question

Am i allowed to copyright a mpmission self created mission without letting anyone else modify or share?

[afkellogg 10]

How to delete post on the forums?

Edited January 9, 2015 by AFKELLOGG

[Chairborne 2594]

@norsk: BI has an encrypted type of PBO they use for their DLC to avoid anyone opening them (EBO format). However i'm not sure how you can do this with the current tools we have.

[orcinus 121]

@CiforDayZServer: Good post. I agree with every word. Modders are the lifeblood of ArmA, IMO even more so in A3 than in A2/CO. Without expressions of gratitude & without respect for them, for their work, and for their rights to that work, more will give up or leave & put their work on closed servers.

[Roddy 10]

Hello,

I've read the game content usage rules regarding monetization of video content created in DayZ on YouTube... so here's my related question that I'm hoping someone can give me some advice on: as long as I follow your guidelines, is there any reason to join a gamer network?

Tnx

[slatts 1978]

Is there any official word on the usage of Queens Gambit content? I can't find any unbin'd data but can see there's PBO versions to download. Unless I'm over looking something.

[ballou 10]

Ok where do I start I know by telling bis to go and f*** themselves you got to be the the biggest bunch of self centred pricks I have come across and as far as this goes I will do what I want with my servers so please do your worse if you do manage to stop them I will drag your arse through the courts and make you look like bigger pricks then you already are bunch of knob jockies

[slatts 1978]

Ok where do I start I know by telling bis to go and f*** themselves

You post in the right thread for a start.

[neko_len 10]

Question: If i want to make a mod in　ArmA II that uses, say, music from III, does that fall under the general license?

[JdB 151]

Question: If i want to make a mod in　ArmA II that uses, say, music from III, does that fall under the general license?

No content from ArmA3 may be ported to any other game, ArmA3 is excluded from the general license.

[neko_len 10]

No content from ArmA3 may be ported to any other game, ArmA3 is excluded from the general license.

figured it was something like that, steam only and all. thx for answer...and im having a lil bit of trouble understanding the details of general license, specifically what BIS stuff that is not covered...its a tad confusing to me.

[C4mp3r 10]

Can i monetizate a montage video?

According with rules (http://www.bistudio.com/community/game-content-usage-rules/monetization-youtube )

"You may make money using your videos of our Game, for instance by putting ads on them, as long as you also add your own unique content to the video, such as an audio commentary. The amount you add must be enough to make it fair and worthwhile for someone to pay for it or for you to make money from it. For example you cannot simply include your logo, web address or indent but you could add an audio commentary or your own music if you are creating a music video."

My point is, a montage video requires work to cut clips, sinc audio, but there are nothink like "own unique content".

[Jackal326 1181]

My point is, a montage video requires work to cut clips, sinc audio, but there are nothink like "own unique content".

Then that is probably your answer. Its not so much the work involved, its the content within the video that would be monetised. As such you'd need to offer something more than a load of clips cut together, such as a voice-over (a la Dyslexi videos).

[Chairborne 2594]

I believe the fact that you modify it your own way is in itself a unique content and as such it should fall under fair use agreements.

Also as far as i know BI only requires you to fill in a form and send it to them to be allowed to monetize videos showing arma content.

[JdB 151]

I believe the fact that you modify it your own way is in itself a unique content and as such it should fall under fair use agreements.

It's still showing other people's IP without their permission (or sharing the income with them) and therefore not legal no matter how much you edit it.

[C4mp3r 10]

I believe the fact that you modify it your own way is in itself a unique content and as such it should fall under fair use agreements.

Also as far as i know BI only requires you to fill in a form and send it to them to be allowed to monetize videos showing arma content.

Then that is probably your answer. Its not so much the work involved, its the content within the video that would be monetised. As such you'd need to offer something more than a load of clips cut together, such as a voice-over (a la Dyslexi videos).

Thanks for answer. In doubt, the video will not be monetizated. But i disagree that there are "not so much work". In my montage, there are 38 clips and each one requires much work. I need play for 15 minutes to get one good clip(in average), watch in high speed this videos to cut each clip and only after this, put a music(Royalty Free music) and make the montage.

Here is the video

Edited March 15, 2015 by C4mp3r
grammar

[Jackal326 1181]

You misunderstood me. I did not mean that there is no work involved in making the video(s). What I meant was it is not the work involved in making the video that is being monetised but the content of the video itself that is being monetised.

[baermitumlaut 62]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but I think it fits in here.

Can I take a texture from Arma 3, modify it (in this case I just want to change the color intensity) and put it in my own A3 mod?