Jump to content
Maio

Content Licensing - Questions and Answers

Recommended Posts

Next case: I think this time it is more complicated. I want to know what you guys think as a community plus hearing anything from BIS dev would be cool aswell.

So we <as a clan> are developing new mod and we want to include some others people work in it. As some other people work we mean a lot of mods but getting permits for some is really complicated.

For example acquiring the permission to these is really hard:

*MiG-23 MF Syrian Air Force - http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=19343

*Harrier Gr3 RAFG - http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=13704

*Chieftain MBT - http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=13577

*FV510 Warrior - http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=16123

As you probably noticed these mods do not have a specific license, but for example citizensnip(Mig-23 author) left his mod unbinarized.

Our point is we dont want to steal anything from anyone, we just want to include their improved mods in our project and leave them as the original authors. Logic dictates that everything will be okay but who knows?

I tried to contact citizensnip even on facebook but since mid-october I have not received any reply and he haven't even read these message. Trouble isnt registered on BIF and his last post on armaholic was written like 14 months ago, tried to get his e-mail from armaholic admin, waiting for reply.

Guys what is your opinion? What should we do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't use content where you can't contact the author. Just because he doesnt say something doesnt mean it's free for grabs. Same with unlicensed mods (iirc licenses where introduced later then A2)

The analogy for me would be that if you find a car that is not locked and has the keys in it, you still dont have the right to drive around with it (even if you have good intentions and would bring it back to where you found it after usage). My opinion.

Edited by Fennek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Fennek. His analogy is spot on. Especially if there's no license it would be important to get the author's permission I think. You can mess around with it in private all you want anyway, nobody can do anything about that but adding something without permission and releasing it to the public is rather disrespectful in my opinion. Since the mods in question are on Armaholic you can always link to them when releasing your mod as a recommendation for extras.

On a side note, +1 to you for asking. We can only hope more people follow your example :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can not contact the authors, it means they have long do not work for arma.

In this case, there is nothing wrong to use their work - just do not forget to mention their authorship.

citizensnip has a topic on the forum, where he posted in free access their models. Unfortunately the link is dead ... And he no longer goes online So, you can use his models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That thread can't really be used as proof, because it seems the majority of the models posted there were ripped from other games, or were mashups of models from multiple games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If its just a set of mods you want to use as a clan, you can make a mod pack to ease the download of course.

If you want to make a mod pack to release for the general public, you need to get the permission to redistribute.

If you want to modify the mods itself, and not just add to it/modify their configs via an extra mod,

you need to get permission (unless a license tells you can do whatever you want).

If the author is not reachable with reasonable effort, you are to contact the BI forum moderators.

They will try as well and if they dont succeed, the policy so far was you can go ahead as long as state the source

clearly and give credits accordingly.

Edited by .kju [PvPscene]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
;2824595']If its just a set of mods you want to use as a clan' date=' you can make a mod pack to ease the download of course.

If you want to make a mod to release for the general public, you need to get the permission to redistribute.

If you want to modify the mods itself, and not just add to it/modify their configs via an extra mod,

you need to get permission (unless a license tells you can do whatever you want).

If the author is not reachable with reasonable effort, you are to contact the BI forum moderators.

They will try as well and if they dont succeed, the policy so far was you can go ahead as long as state the source

clearly and give credits accordingly.[/quote']

This is incorrect both from a legal perspective as well as how the moderators look at it.

Forum rules:

The first and most fundamental rule is that you must seek permission to alter someone's work, to mirror it or use it in any way other than for personal use. No permission, no editing, no mirroring, no adding to your mod pack, no editing and sharing around your private squad, none of that is acceptable.

As well as:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?113376-ATTN-Addon-Makers-Rules-of-content-permissions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we go to such paradoxes. Tell me who did get rights from Kalachnikov to add his weapons in the Arma? WOW thats great law breaking. How can people make content with real fire control systems or with real weapons sights even if this stuff is being still in use in many armies. What about talking to the original inventors of weapons/tank stuff before putting it in the game such as Arma 2. I do not think that placing exactly the same models of equipment in Arma isnt law breaking.

I feel like everything is taking this too serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kalashnikov did not create the models that are put into Arma. Yes, they are based on his inventions but that doesn't have to do anything with this in my opinion. Same goes for fire control systems and / or weapon sights. Nobody can stop you from creating something from scratch that mirrors a real life thing, wether that is a vehicle, weapon or whatever when information about it is publicly available.

If the copyright / trademark owners of the real-life stuff truely have a problem with what you mentioned, they almost always step in to handle their business and protect their assets. In other modding communities projects have been shut down because they received a Cease and Desist. I remember a total conversion Lord of the Rings-mod for another game engine that suffered that fate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the patents? Don't you think informations about for example fcs could be primitively obtained from an illegal sites? how can we prove it and check this out?

You make references to the civil law when it suits you what about the basic rule containing in a few words "Qui tacet, consentire videtur."? How the content license rights refers to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I have made any references to civil law in my posts.

And I'm not a legal expert but as far as I know, patents don't come into play until you attempt to make a real-life copy of a product and try to sell it and maybe even try to pass it off as the real thing. Chinese Lego comes to mind. However, this is not the case in Arma modding.

As for your quote, this is the full one, which translates a bit different:

Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit (He who is silent, when he ought to have spoken and was able to, is taken to agree)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus

How do you know if the creators are able to respond?

Still, I suppose you can take that route, assuming you'd remove the mod(s) once the creator voices his disagreement but not everyone may agree with it when you do that.

I don't like to get into legal arguments because the way I see it, it's a matter of respect between people.

However, in the end, nothing is stopping you from adding them to your mod without explicit permission. Then again, nothing is also stopping you from releasing an updated version of your mod once you do get permission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun companies do get royalties to add their weapons in a game. Asking permission is always the right way to go about editing mods if they are not yours. No answer = No. And just because your clan is the only ones going to be using it doesn't make it ok to not obtain permission first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now Im talking about mig-23 from citizensnip we resigned to relase mod with trouble mods because getting contact with him would be much harder than we thought.

@BadLuck he is silent for like a year or more and like I said we tried to communicate him on fb, and if it will be necessary to write to his friends and try to ask them how is he doing :)

Theoretically, we could base our model on this created by Citizen just like modelers base their work on real designers. Tell me what if addon makers is dead, mod rights are being pass to his immediate family, or what? Or his work is simply lost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he didn't leave it To anyone and his family is not in contact yes the work is lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@BadLuck he is silent for like a year or more and like I said we tried to communicate him on fb, and if it will be necessary to write to his friends and try to ask them how is he doing :)

Theoretically, we could base our model on this created by Citizen just like modelers base their work on real designers. Tell me what if addon makers is dead, mod rights are being pass to his immediate family, or what? Or his work is simply lost?

I sincerely hope you do manage to contact him and that he will let you use the model in your mod but like M1lkm8n said, for me, no answer = no. And yes, you could base your model on his if you wanted to as long as it's not a simple copy.

As far as addon makers who have passed on go, I would consider their work lost unless they have made it clear somehow that others are allowed to continue their work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
;2824595']If its just a set of mods you want to use as a clan' date=' you can make a mod pack to ease the download of course.

If you want to make a mod to release for the general public, you need to get the permission to redistribute.

If you want to modify the mods itself, and not just add to it/modify their configs via an extra mod,

you need to get permission (unless a license tells you can do whatever you want).

If the author is not reachable with reasonable effort, you are to contact the BI forum moderators.

They will try as well and if they dont succeed, the policy so far was you can go ahead as long as state the source

clearly and give credits accordingly.[/quote']

What a load of bollocks.

I see JDB beat me to it

That has NEVER been the community rules. Permission must always be sought. And if you or the BI mods cannot reach the user the default position is that the answer is NO and you may not modify or adapt that authors work. Strangely enough its also the law's view in nearly every country in the world.

EDIT: Interesting statement linked from Kju's own link

Maruk-Reddit-Comment.JPG

If it applies to BIS content it applies to our content too.

Edited by RKSL-Rock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the difference between the APL licenses and a Freeware License? I came across a mod that uses a Freeware license and nothing else. Where does that fall? It states that permission must be granted by the license holders prior to any use of said mod in any mission or mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you need to get permission (unless a license tells you can do whatever you want)

@ JdB

Maybe you have to read again more closely what I wrote.

If the author is not reachable with reasonable effort, you are to contact the BI forum moderators.

They will try as well and if they dont succeed, the policy so far was you can go ahead as long as state the source

clearly and give credits accordingly.

If you take offence with this process, take it to Placebo.

It is not me who established this process.

If its just a set of mods you want to use as a clan, you can make a mod pack to ease the download of course.

If you take offense with that, you are far from reality and common practice since OFP and everywhere.

Only if you want to publish something for the general public, you have to get permission to repack it.

@ RKSL-Rock

Do you want to imply that every download without a license cannot be used for anything?

the BI mods cannot reach the user the default position is that the answer is NO and you may not modify or adapt that authors work

Take that to the forums moderators and Placebo, if you disagree with their stance and practice.

Also check:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works

The situation is not that simple and one sided as you portray it. The society as a whole has multiple and often divergent interests,

but the commercial one is not the only one - just the one often with the most power to influence the rule making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when is silent consent a rule?

I haven't been around as long as you have but the only answer to the question always was "if the author doesn't give you the go then you can't use it, period.".

(Unless the author clearly states the content provided can be modificated freely, like what vilas did)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
;2825969']

@ RKSL-Rock

Do you want to imply that every download without a license cannot be used for anything?

You can still use it just like any other mod. The issue lies in editing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@keeway

regarding Trouble's warrior and chieftain, we obtained permission from him to repack them on 8 May 2014.

Hi eggbeast

Sorry I have been meaning to reply . .

Its good news that you guys are enjoying using the baor stuff, I have not done much arma wise for a good while now, but like to check on whats happening still

I will be happy to dig out the p3d's & ship them over to you all,

They are as we know a bit dodgy all over, the models really probably need a complete re -work in order to un wrap ect .. .

Cheers

Trouble

So we sought and obtained his permission less than 6 months ago to re-pack them with new configs.

However he didn't yet return and send us the mlods, which is a shame, but he did give us implicit permission to re-config them.

So if he returns I can mention your request, but you can also message him.

http://forums.bistudio.com/member.php?63293-trouble

If we do get the mlods we have plans for the textures and adding memory points to fix the turrets and vision etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I say anything else.I create my own content or only edit work at an author's request.

I think it's only right to ask if it's ok to edit something you didn't create.And respect any existing

statements regarding usage.

But it's also true that some work that could be useful may be buried for the

sake of bureaucracy.Specifically work that has no license attached,and has lay dormant

for years.With the author out of reach.Something that could benefit from a polish,or be made

functional.Or even finished in the way it was intended.Not something to be stolen or taken credit for.

I personally don't see the need to demonise people for that kind of thing. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
;2825969']@ JdB

Maybe you have to read again more closely what I wrote.

If you take offence with this process' date=' take it to Placebo.

It is not me who established this process.

If you take offense with that, you are far from reality and common practice since OFP and everywhere.

Only if you want to publish something for the general public, you have to get permission to repack it.[/quote']

Actually its not common practice that i've seen in the last 10-12 years.

The debate about what you call "abandonware" was heated one some time ago. With Dwarden claiming that if you couldnt get an answer within 2 weeks/months (depending on the medium you saw it in ie BIF/Skype) it was ok to use. A large number of people complained bitterly about that bit of law breaking. I believe the acceptable time period never was agreed.

I would like to see the link where Placebo publicly said that.

@ RKSL-Rock

Do you want to imply that every download without a license cannot be used for anything?

Again you are choosing to twist my words. You always try this.

What i am saying (no need for implication) is that the law is that while no licence is attached or evident' date=' the authors rights are protected. This means that by default the strictest interpretation of Copyright and IP rights are applied. Meaning that you may not edit/modify/redistribute/profit or otherwise commercialize the content.

Take that to the forums moderators and Placebo, if you disagree with their stance and practice.

Also check:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works

The situation is not that simple and one sided as you portray it. The society as a whole has multiple and often divergent interests,

but the commercial one is not the only one - just the one often with the most power to influence the rule making.

Ah yes but look again at the section about Copyright Expiration...

Once the copyright on a piece of software has expired, it automatically falls into public domain. Such software can be legally distributed without restrictions. However, due to the length of copyright terms in most countries, this has yet to happen for most software. All countries that observe the Berne Convention enforce copyright ownership for at least 50 years after publication or the author's death.

It is not possible for an "addon" to be classified as Abandonware for atleast another 38 years. Assuming it was an OFP addon of course. ;)

An author can choose to abandon his IP and release it to the community. However from a legal point of view he has to state that and it then gets classified as Open-Source.

I fully acknowledge it is not always simple... but given the short lived nature of this and other communities creations the law is clear enough i think.

Edited by RKSL-Rock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally don't see the need to demonise people for that kind of thing. :)

+1

Anyway we will try to contact trouble via BIF, and as long as citizensnip wont appear on the scene we will try to make a workaround with mig-23.

In my opinion all kinds of addon police are cancer. Show me what you can do towards project like Arma 3 Life, dumbs. It's the real problem of ArmA, not adding to non-profit mod someone work with credits.

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

×