Jump to content
Maio

Content Licensing - Questions and Answers

Recommended Posts

Some people are jealous of their creations and don't like to be just a nameless/faceless contributor of a larger project that ends up giving credit just to the main author.

Furthermore, it is still their mod, i wouldn't want someone to just take any of my projects and twist it however they want without my consent, and i'm pretty sure you'd feel the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite possible that a creation may well become nameless and obscure after sufficient time.

Despite it being of decent quality.

I just think that's a shame.

But I wouldn't suggest carte blanche for people to take what they want and use it as they please.

Regardless of activity,the author should be contacted.Directly or indirectly.And it should be made

a matter of public record.

I don't think there's anything wrong with people looking out for each other.Even if at times they

may be overzealous.The A3life situation being a positive example,in my opinion.

I certainly wouldn't refer to other human beings,and their opinions as "cancer" or "a load of bollocks".

I don't see the need for comments like that.

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. :)

No one is trying to unjustly demonise anyone here. Personally what i am trying to do is to prevent the abuse of a poorly understood quasi-legal phrase.

When the debate first started way back when. I chipped in because I found some people were taking content from a mod and using it in their "own" projects. They claimed that they could not contact the original authors and because Dwarden had said they only needed to wait 2 weeks as long as they credited the author they could use it. Despite the fact that 3 out of the original members of the FLK mod team were still active users of this very forum. (I'm one of them btw)

The simple fact is that every time this argument gets raised in the last 12-13 years ive been part of this community someone lies and uses it as an excuse to steal/rip/modify/adapt another's work without bothering to ask.

Yet another simple fact is that its always been against the laws of copyright. If someone wants to release content into the community as Open source they will tell you.

Even if they don't want to enforce their claim and you want to use it all you need do is ask them to post on the forums sayings its OK - treat it as open source.

---------- Post added at 20:41 ---------- Previous post was at 20:36 ----------

...I don't think there's anything wrong with people looking out for each other.Even if at times they

may be overzealous.The A3life situation being a positive example,in my opinion.

I'm curious about your definition of over zealous is.

A number of people in this community pay thier rent and feed their families from making models. And they still release stuff here for free. I dont think its too much to ask you respect thier IP and rights.

I certainly wouldn't refer to other human beings,and their opinions as "cancer" or "a load of bollocks".

I don't see the need for comments like that.

I'd agree with the first part.

The second however. Kju's post really was "a load of bollocks". Which I'm told by a Police Officer I know almost a legally accepted statement. Its also legally less offensive than other phrases i've previously used to describe factually inaccurate and wildly mis leading statements. :)

Edited by RKSL-Rock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion all kinds of addon police are cancer.

mate, if you ever want to participate with help and resources from other Arma modders you might want to revise this viewpoint.

we rely on people in the community to help police stuff as BIS cannot help much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as I'm being on the scene I had prolonged contact with one person who calls himself "addon police". Since he was toxic from the start and should understand, that if I would like to steal something I wouldnt post here, and ask for help and advices. He even called me a thief and and he tried to set community against me. As long as people like this will be tolerated on the scene I would rather to keep out of here to avoid getting ban or something.

Edited by Keeway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeway.This probably isn't the best place to be airing private disputes.

I'm curious about your definition of over zealous is.

My definition of overzealous is the same as the dictionary definitions.

I was trying to say that the A3life debacle was a positive example of people looking out for each other.

A number of people in this community pay thier rent and feed their families from making models.And they still release stuff here for free. I dont think its too much to ask you respect thier IP and rights.

I don't understand why you're telling me that.I haven't advocated stealing from anyone.Commercial or otherwise.I don't earn money from modelling but I also release content for nothing.How does that relate to the opinions I've expressed?

The way you worded that last sentence it seems you think I've infringed on another's rights.

Is that the case?

I'm simply trying to provide a little balance.Calling people thieves or criminals out of hand,isn't

the best approach.And some individuals choose to do that.This is a hobby.A creative outlet.It has elements of art to it.Art is sometimes about reproduction.Reinvention.If we apply the kind of broad sweeping judgements that some people might suggest,then a large portion of the people on these boards could be considered thieves.

How many people have recreated weapons,vehicles and aircraft from a variety of manufacturers

without seeking permission to use their designs?Most of those products are easily identifiable merchandise created by recognised brand names.But we and the companies who make them,choose to use some discretion,because the intent is not to profit,or take undue credit.And of course,If those same manufacturers tell us to remove reproductions of their products,I and most of the people here would do so.Which is the right thing to do.Regardless of opinion.

Perhaps the same discretion could be applied in other situations?

Edited by Maczer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But keeway publicly saying that you have the right to do what you want even when you don't get an answer off the original authour to do anything to his addon in the skype channel, even when you got told you can't, you still persist we are cancer to the community we are the community and your just well a thief

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many people have recreated weapons,vehicles and aircraft from a variety of manufacturers

without seeking permission to use their designs?Most of those products are easily identifiable merchandise created by recognised brand names.But we and the companies who make them,choose to use some discretion,because the intent is not to profit,or take undue credit.And of course,If those same manufacturers tell us to remove reproductions of their products,I and most of the people here would do so.Which is the right thing to do.Regardless of opinion.

Perhaps the same discretion be applied in other situations?

You miss the fact that they still made the models themselves, despite being copies of real world items.

So it's still their intellectual property.

If i make a drawing of a car it's still something i made on my own and i'm the owner of the drawing, if someone takes my drawing for whatever reason he's taking something that isn't his.

If i'm not around and leave my drawing in a closet, forget about it and someone was to walk into my house and take my drawing without my consent, that would be stealing.

Just because i'm not around to claim property on it doesn't mean it's there for anyone else to grab it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't missed anything.And I think you're misunderstanding me.

If you don't want others to use your work,I'd have no hesitation in supporting you on that.

As to your example.The drawing/model may belong to the author.But it's likely the intellectual

property upon which it's based,does not.Modders have come to expect a certain amount of leniency

and discretion in that regard.

If such strict,high contrast rules are to be applied,regarding IP,should they not also apply to the people advocating them?

Or could judgements be made based on the context of the situation?

Not everybody intends misuse or harm.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't missed anything.And I think you're misunderstanding me.

If you don't want others to use your work,I'd have no hesitation in supporting you on that.

As to your example.The drawing/model may belong to the author.But it's likely the intellectual

property upon which it's based,does not.Modders have come to expect a certain amount of leniency

and discretion in that regard.

If such strict,high contrast rules are to be applied,regarding IP,should they not also apply to the people advocating them?

Or could judgements be made based on the context of the situation?

Not everybody intends misuse or harm.

:)

That's the great Thing about IP laws. They actually do cater very well for our particular circumstances. You see when I create a model of let's say a Eurofighter Typhoon, I'm not breaching EADS/BAES iP. I'm making an artistic representation that while it look rather a lot like a EADS EUROFIGHTER. It's not actually a large functional military jet. My add on looks rather a lot like that it, it's not going to compete against them in any marketplace. And since at no point have I taken any proprietary technologies owned by BAES OR EADS to make my artistic representation I'm never going to be in breach or their ip.

Now, if we get onto the use of the trademarked word "Eurofighter" that is where you are correct about leniency. but there is case law that allows the FAIR USE of a persons TRADEMARK (something completely differents to IP) as long as it does not damage the owners brand or negatively impact their business. Or use their brand to unfairly profit. You need to acquire a licence for that.

There is also precedent for several US aerospace companies winning cases against "modders" making representations of a B25 and various small arms etc. The modder concerned did this because they did not understand how to use someone else's trademark. Interestingly the case precedent was not recognised outside of that particular US state. (I believe) It took a bigger case to force the issue about how accurately you could represent a product in games. EA games vs Colt I belive. This ended in a ruling that US military designations were not subject to copyright or trademark laws. So it's perfectly fine to call a model of an M16 an M16 just not a Colt M16.

So unless you use a companies logo or brand names modders would not be in breach of IP, copyright or trademark laws.

The nice thing about UK and EU law is that it's considered acceptable, Fair use , to use well known brand names that describe a product in non-commercial context. Eg Hoover. The name is synonymous with the object. Eurofighter in my case is not only the brand it's the designation too.

Iincidentally it's also the reason that BIS have things like the Coyota etc in game. While it may look like a duck. It may even quack like a duck. Unless it's aquatic bird with webbed feet and a propensity for the top half of a sailor suit. It may not exactly be the duck you expect to find. ;)

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.

APL apply to YOUR addon made from BIS released MLODS

it doesn't apply to OUR made models

BIS released MLODS of their models - if you do addon using their release - you fall under their license

but if you try to do something from comunity made model from scratch - it doesn't

Since when is silent consent a rule?

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

i made this to config, not to models and repacking model/textures, i just said this to config file (which is separate file )

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.

not, it is different

if you make AK for mod for game for free - all is okay

if you start production of AK in real life for money - Izmash may sue you

for example you can make from scratch WHOLE model Leopard 2A4 if you just want change "machinegun on top"

but if you want to "change machinegun on turret" in my model of Leopard 2A4 you need my permission

does it sound clear ?

you CAN make another Leopard from scratch

you CANNOT edit other Leopard without permission

you cannot repack other Leopard to your PBO without permission

if someone uses "camo selection" by config, i believe you can release "reskins mod' which uses config "hiddenselection" to his models as well (config, texture, hiddenselection use),

probably a lot of profesional modelers who make for money and sell for money models of products can be sued by company if that company would want (but those companies do not do it to avoid mess plus they treat this is as free advertisment, so they have possibility but they not use possibility )

thats why in games you do not have Cold M4 but "X-4 machinegun" - because developer of that game had to change name or detail in real-life model,

thats why in Arma you have SUNDAT not DATSUN named on car,

but if you do DATSUN as mod for free (no money) you can type DATSUN

but if BIS would want to make VW Golf as VW GOLF they would probably had to ask Volkswagen GmbH, why ? cause game is sold for money

the same reason i made "Autobus" not "Solaris" bus and i changed lights - cause i had to do to VBS model of city bus so i made fictional

in VBS addons i must change/remove firm symbols , rename cars to "combi" "sedan" "small hatchback"

in Arma the same addon has Ford, Opel, Renault symbols and use name Ford Transit, but my addon in VBS is called "van" , not "Transit" and symbol of Ford is removed to avoid problems ,

when i make offroad Mercedes to VBS - it doesn't have Mercedes symbols on grill , i had to remove symbols and car is called "ofroad military", the same Mercedes released for free for Arma - has company symbol (3 springs star)

so companies do not sue anyone cause they are not shooting their own feet, but they could if they would want,

if you would make addon for free with Metallica painted on car - you can,

but i doubt you would sell game which rely on Metallica symbols without paying money to manager of that band or having agreement with them,

probably gun companies do not care or even are happy when they see HK MP5 in games,

but some cars company may think opposite - thats why in many games you have "Coyota" "Sundat" and "hatchback" ,

Edited by vilas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EA Says Use of Brands In Video Games Is Free Speech, and I think the courts agreed to that can't find the full link but i know i read it a while back it was 2 fingers to all the big companies, it's like writing a book making a film its just a representation to fill the story line.

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.

Freeware only designates that the released content may be used without cost for an unlimited amount of time in the way that the author intended it to, in this case by putting it in the addons folder or mod folder of a particular game made by BIS and using it ingame. APL is a license about editing content, not about using it as-is. All ArmA addons are freeware due to BIS having enforced this through the End User License Agreements included in it's games and tools, but that term does not say antything about any use other than simply using it ingame as-is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope dog, thief is someone who have stolen something or signed at the work of other and since I havent done anything like this, stop calling me thief. You definition is corrupted by your point of view. But wait, maybe its response to my statement :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't being specific regarding companies.Which is why I didn't mention any names.

I was simply trying to make a point.

Laws regarding IP can be flexible under certain circumstances.It may be legal to represent

something in 3d/2d as long as you remove trademarks,brands and such.But isn't that simply a workaround?

So a person can do what they want without fear of legal repercussions.

In principle,that IP is still being exploited to someone's benefit.For example,there are certain weapons that most people here could easily identify.Even when the markings are removed.The design is recognisable.Someone created it.It is their IP.Do all modders,out of courtesy,ask for permission to reproduce it?No.We take advantage of legalities.And continue on without giving it much thought.

As has been stated this isn't usually pursued.If there was a concerted effort to do so,communities

like this wouldn't exist.And possibly the games they're based on.Not to mention the impact on those

trying to make a living out of 3d/2d reproduction.

If companies or legislators can do this,when it's obvious there's no intent to deceive or profit,

it's also possible for a community of hobbyists to follow suit.If they want to.That's all I'm trying to say.

By the way.I'm not referring to recent material with clearly defined terms of use.That's a different

situation.

Edited by Maczer

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).

Edited by jecartas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope dog, thief is someone who have stolen something or signed at the work of other and since I havent done anything like this, stop calling me thief. You definition is corrupted by your point of view. But wait, maybe its response to my statement :confused:

If you use Content of other creators without having received a permission you are violating the law. Breaking the law is a crime and the one doing it is therefore a criminal. Therefore you would be a criminal if you use content without permission. Theft is the illegal act of taking another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. Intelectual Property, Virtual Models are also property. Therefore criminal and thief are correct labelings

What about the patents? Don't you think informations about for example fcs could be primitively obtained from an illegal sites?

I don't think you know how patents work right? Because for aquiring a patent you have to openly make the idea that you are trying to patent accessable to everybody. Top Secret Military equipment is never patented, guess why. And you only get a patent for something that can be protected. And you cant protect the shape of a cube, you can't protect how to calculate basic things, etc.

Saying the use of e.g. Eurofighter design as a 3D model and the use of somebody's model by someone else would be the same is not right. The person who created the model used the IP of the design bureau (ideas) to create a "product" with that IP from scratch. The person who uses the model of someone else to make a different version of is using an existing product of someone else, not just intelectual property (ideas).

Edited by Fennek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Fennek. :)

You used a car analogy not long ago.About getting into it and driving around without permission.

More than one example of using a legal technicality has been cited as a means of circumventing

copyright.And let's be honest.That's what it is.

Changing a few letters in a recognised brand name for instance.Or removing trademarks and logos.

That's essentially changing the paint job and switching the number plates,so you can drive around without permission.

Technically it may be legal.But isn't it a little devious?Or is it acceptable when it's a "faceless" corporation?

This community and others have been engaging in that practice for years.I'd say 90% of this community,including myself,has done this at some point.

I'm not suggesting we all get religion and ask for forgiveness.Or that it should be viewed as a hanging offence.But I still wouldn't like to see this community operating under a type of hypocrisy.

Here's a hypothethical scenario:

I create an addon which is geometrically pretty accurate.But my textures aren't really much good.

But I decide to release it anyway.At the time I didn't bother to include any terms of use.Maybe

I didn't think anyone would bother with it.After a few years sitting on the shelf it gets spotted

by a newcomer.This person isn't a great modeller,but they are a decent texture artist.

So they decide to go looking for me to ask permission.But I'm nowhere to be found.They try a few

different avenues but to no avail.They've made it obvious they have an interest on the relevant

forum.So it's a matter of public record.If misuse is intended it should be spotted fairly quickly.

Of course,the unchanged original addon still exists.

So they go ahead and update the textures and release it.Making it clear who the author is.

And also making it clear that I have veto over it's continued existence.So should I resurface

at some point and say,"take that down immediately!",they do so.

Is this the same as taking credit for my work?Or profiting from it financially?Or refusing to

remove it when evidence of wrong doing is shown?

Do you think I should hound that person out of the community for being a thief?

Are they any more or less devious than the rest of us?

Edited by Maczer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your hypothetical case doesnt really help your viewpoint. You can make new textures for the model without tampering with the authors addon if the author put the functionality in the model. Repacking the authors files it is not required for it to work. If he didnt put this functionality in the model then he clearly didnt want somebody to retexture it without direct cooperation with him.

Having retexturable parts on the model is 101 of arma modelmaking.

If he knew he wasnt any good at texturing and thought that somebody could improve on it he would have included the functionality like i said, and certainly also included a sentance about usage by other people, giving his ok for it to be improved right away...

Making a texture for a model without tampering with the authors original files (that means making the texture from scratch) i dont consider as theft. Because the original author's addon would still be required to play it, Credit is given and work original content remained untouched. Provided the texture was made properly and from scratch and not just some cheap ass filtering and color change of the original texture, that alot of "reskinners" do.

Changing a few letters in a recognised brand name for instance.Or removing trademarks and logos.

Logos and Trademarks are different. A model is not necessarily intelectual property, its virtual/"physical" property. Trademarks are protected letter combinations that you are not allowed to use without permission of the owner. The look of a car is not protected, you can use to base your virtual model/art on it. Unless you make the exact same product just without logos and sell it, which is counterfeit. A 3D model of a car is protected by copyright laws, you cant use it at all, no matter if the author is also the owner of the IP or not. A painter can make a drawing with superman. He doesnt own the IP but he still owns the image. Analogies to trademarks and logos are simply wrong.

Edited by Fennek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything you or I create could be referred to as intellectual property.

If he knew he wasnt any good at texturing and thought that somebody could improve on it

he would have included the functionality like i said, and certainly also included a sentance about usage

by other people, giving his ok for it to be improved right away...

The circumstances in that example were fairly specific.

It's become more common now to have some terms of use because awareness about it has been raised.Which is good.I believe including some form of license with your work should continue to be encouraged.And it stops other people from acting on the author's behalf.

I think genuine misuse should be highlighted by communities though,rather than employing legal means.

Analogies to trademarks and logos are simply wrong.

My references to trademarks and logos weren't an analogy.I don't see anything wrong about

discussing our attitudes to the subject with that as a reference point.

Even if I don't agree with everything you and others have said,I understand the motivation.

To take the current approach might protect someone's work from being abused,here.

But it also may consign it to the proverbial trash heap.Which for me is as much of a shame as

the content being misused.

In case there's any misunderstanding,I have no interest in using other peoples work.

I'm capable of creating pretty much anything I need.Not everyone has those skills though.

However.If I did wish to use or edit another's content,I would get permission.Or failing that

just do without it.But I only speak on my own behalf.

I don't think an opposing point of view is harmful.It can remind people of the original motivation

behind a campaign.Which could possibly get lost and end up becoming a kind of dogma.Which for

me at least,would be inappropriate for this kind of environment.

Edited by Maczer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anything you or I create could be referred to as intellectual property.

No, if i make a warhammer 40k model it is not my intelectual property, it's still that of the company that owns the IP. The model is mine however and just using it without my permission is theft of my property, not even the company that owns the IP can just use it. They can get rid of it if they want through a C&D order on base of their IP ownership but thats it.

I think genuine misuse should be highlighted by communities though,rather than employing legal means.

So you just want people to say "this is not good" rather then actually protecting copyrights? And if the thief doesnt give a crap about it?

If I did wish to use or edit another's content,I would get permission.Or failing that

just do without it.But I only speak on my own behalf.

Asking for permission, if none is given, use it anyway... And that's exactly the problem here. Copyright laws are pretty clear, there is nothing "dogmatic" about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether it's intentional or not your example illustrates what I'm talking about.

You made a model without asking permission,not because you want to misuse the IP.

Not out of malice or intent to deceive.

But if the owner of the IP sees this creation and asks for it to be removed you do it.

No need for a court case,or public humiliation.

It's not a simple thing to get involved in legal proceedings.And it's not always

appropriate.A community can band together and highlight genuine misuse,by showing it up.

I just think there's too much emphasis on legality for a hobby/past-time.

Asking for permission, if none is given, use it anyway...

I didn't write that anywhere and I'd appreciate you not misquoting me.

We don't agree on certain points.But I respect your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether it's intentional or not your example illustrates what I'm talking about.

You made a model without asking permission,not because you want to misuse the IP.

Not out of malice or intent to deceive.

But if the owner of the IP sees this creation and asks for it to be removed you do it.

No need for a court case,or public humiliation.

It's not a simple thing to get involved in legal proceedings.And it's not always

appropriate.A community can band together and highlight genuine misuse,by showing it up.

I just think there's too much emphasis on legality for a hobby/past-time.

I didn't write that anywhere and I'd appreciate you not misquoting me.

We don't agree on certain points.But I respect your opinion.

You are getting lost in what the IP actually is.

Look lets say I make a 3d model of a Toyota Land Cruiser.

My model does not infringe Toyota's IP. Why?

  1. My 3D Model is not a car. it does not use any of Toyota's proprietary designs. Nor is the model going to be accurate or detailed enough to constitute an attempt to copy or otherwise use those proprietary designs.
  2. 3D models are currently considered a creative piece of work or an artistic representation of a product or design. While Toyota can patent their design they have to accept "Fair use" regarding representations

In very simple terms, there are several different controls to protect people's work. All represent different aspects of enforceable laws:

  1. Intellectual property / Patent - This is commonly applied to the working aspects of the product. Engineering Designs etc things that are 100% unique to the owner. Eg Toyota's engine management systems. Panel pressing etc
  2. Copyright - In this example you could say its the overall concept and presentation - but this is also the area that is open to "fair use" and artistic representation. In our example the 3D model may look similar but its not a direct copy and unless you have very specific information about size, dimensions and surface flow that matches the Engineering models used to make the actual cars then its unlikely anyone could prosecute.
  3. Trademark - This relates to the company name, brand names and logos - any use of someone else's registered trademarks and its clear cut. You broke the law

Use of any registered logo, brand name or Trademark and you can be prosecuted for Trademark Infringement NOT IP theft. Make a "Parody" reference eg Coyota and its considered Fair Use as long as it is not malicious or damaging to the brand, trademark or portrays the brand owner in a negative light. Eg: Coyota High-Trux.

The interesting bit comes when you compare a product - in this case a Toyota Land Cruiser. With the model we made. So ask these questions:

  1. Is it a direct competitor to Toyota's product? ie Does it perform the same function as the the Toyota Land Cruiser?
  2. Does it negatively impact Toyota's business?
  3. Does it use any of Toyota's Propriety technologies?
  4. Does it use any of Toyota's Registered Copyrighted materials, brand names, logos or trademarks?

No is the answer to most of these. Legally our 3D model is only and artistic representation. The same as a sketch or painting etc. And as such considered the sole property of the "artist" or creator. Providing you arent stupid enough to use some ones logos etc as explained above you own everything you make.

Edited by RKSL-Rock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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

legal action?

Edited by Maczer

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

×