Re-uploading mods on the workshop

[Auss 208]

gotta start somewhere my friend 

[wld427 1705]

This topic should have been closed a long time ago with the statement...... "IF IT IS NOT YOURS JUST DON"T F@$KING DO IT".

[St. Jimmy 272]

4 minutes ago, montgomery said:

@ProfTournesol

 

Not lame, just realistic. You will never be able to police the sharing of files on the internet. Just ask the movie and music industry.

The point is that you can't just load them from certain place. You need to go semewhere else to dowload. That's usually enough.

[dmarkwick 261]

21 minutes ago, montgomery said:

 

Congrats, now how will you stop him from uploading it to the 500 trillion other places to upload files on the internet? 

 

I guess that Steam is one place where you CAN control it, AND it's the go-to place for most users I might hazard a guess.

[PuFu 4600]

6 hours ago, montgomery said:

 

Congrats, now how will you stop him from uploading it to the 500 trillion other places to upload files on the internet? 

1. read the steam agreement

2. read the mod EULA

3. read this thread from page 1

 

 

the emphasis is on READ...might also wanna read this post with a cup of salt

[Montgomery 205]

@PuFu

Cute post smartass, emphasis on smartass. Unfortunately your post does nothing to answer the question.

 

No addon maker will ever be able to control what happens with those files once they are released to the public. That's REALITY, like it or not. You can cry about it until you run out of tears, but it will never change.

[domokun 515]

57 minutes ago, montgomery said:

@PuFu

Cute post smartass, emphasis on smartass. Unfortunately your post does nothing to answer the question.

 

No addon maker will ever be able to control what happens with those files once they are released to the public. That's REALITY, like it or not. You can cry about it until you run out of tears, but it will never change.

@montgomery if you have nothing constructive to say, I'd advise you to cease your personal attacks.

This thread is about finding the best solutions to a complicated problem.

Like many things in life, there is no silver bullet.

[Montgomery 205]

4 minutes ago, domokun said:

@montgomery if you have nothing constructive to say, I'd advise you to cease your personal attacks.

This thread is about finding the best solutions to a complicated problem.

Like many things in life, there is no silver bullet.

I didn't attack anyone until I was attacked. There is no solution because the internet is filled with people who don't care about any rules or what most of us consider "the right thing to do". 

[PuFu 4600]

On 4/19/2017 at 8:43 PM, PuFu said:

from http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/ - in short, you need to OWN the Intellectual Property rights for the content you are uploading, so you need to be the original author

 

6. USER GENERATED CONTENT

D. Representations and Warranties

You represent and warrant to us that you have sufficient rights in all User Generated Content to grant Valve and other affected parties the licenses described under A. and B. above or in any license terms specific to the applicable Workshop-Enabled App or Workshop page. This includes, without limitation, any kind of intellectual property rights or other proprietary or personal rights affected by or included in the User Generated Content. In particular, with respect to Workshop Contributions, you represent and warrant that the Workshop Contribution was originally created by you (or, with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which others contributed besides you, by you and the other contributors, and in such case that you have the right to submit such Workshop Contribution on behalf of those other contributors).

You furthermore represent and warrant that the User Generated Content, your submission of that Content, and your granting of rights in that Content does not violate any applicable contract, law or regulation.

look, i already answered your previous question...you still didn't read it.

 

1 hour ago, montgomery said:

@PuFu

Cute post smartass, emphasis on smartass. Unfortunately your post does nothing to answer the question.

 

No addon maker will ever be able to control what happens with those files once they are released to the public. That's REALITY, like it or not. You can cry about it until you run out of tears, but it will never change.

ignorance is bliss...you're proof of that

 

no one wants to have full control about what happens to these files, but SW is not just another mirror as i have previously explained to you. no one would get their panties in a twist over you uploading it to any of the "trilions other places" that don't require sharing IP with the host

 

i am one of these addon makers that, while i cannot control everything, i do enforce the EULA, on SW and outside of it. deal with it.

[Montgomery 205]

@PuFu

Keep wasting your time, it's a battle that cannot be won. Too many people don't care about the rules.

[wld427 1705]

58 minutes ago, montgomery said:

@PuFu

Keep wasting your time, it's a battle that cannot be won. Too many people don't care about the rules.

and posts like this and this general attitude are exactly why most modders for the series have quit....

[Alwarren 2767]

@PuFu

Keep wasting your time, it's a battle that cannot be won. Too many people don't care about the rules.

 

We addon makers could easily win by not making our stuff public anymore. It's just that most of us try not to get discouraged by some arseholes. But that doesn't mean we're supposed to roll over and take it, nor does that make any of this right.

 

And as a matter of fact, quite a few DID stop making their addons public.

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[Montgomery 205]

@wld427 @Alwarren

You guys are acting like I support the editing, stealing, or uploading of addons without permission of the creator. Never once did I ever say anything like that. My point is that there are many people out there that do have that attitude and don't care about the rules. It's wrong, but there's not a lot that can be done about it. That's just the way it is.

[Macser 776]

Crossed words aside, we're at least being honest here. The subject matters to some and,  not so much to others. That much is obvious. I think that's being misinterpreted though. Even if you don't know why, or don't think it can be combatted effectively, you can still acknowledge the rights an author has. Which I think is the opinion being expressed.

 

But if it gets to a certain point will it push modders to withdraw from public releases? I think it's a real possibility. There are modders who are quite happy to share work amongst themselves, or with small groups. While they might like the fact their content is well known or respected, I think they can live without that if necessary. They can stop releases at any time, but continue doing what they enjoy, albeit with a smaller audience. They wouldn't really be on the losing side of that outcome.

 

It may not come down to that. But the behaviour of a few little toerags could potentially change some minds. These fools claim they don't need mods, and can get along fine without the people who create them. Suggesting that if the authors in question have a problem, they should get out of the mod scene altogether. I have actually seen that sentiment expressed in more than one location.

 

Well that works both ways. As cold as it may sound, a modder who loves what they do, doesn't need them either. For anyone who does enjoy the work of their favourite authors, and abides by terms, that's worth noting. 

[BroBeans. 279]

1 hour ago, montgomery said:

@wld427 @Alwarren

You guys are acting like I support the editing, stealing, or uploading of addons without permission of the creator. Never once did I ever say anything like that. My point is that there are many people out there that do have that attitude and don't care about the rules. It's wrong, but there's not a lot that can be done about it. That's just the way it is.

 

Mate just because people break the law doesn't mean you should remove the law. 

 

The fact is, yes people will always find a way to skirt it. Does that make it okay? No. We still need to try enforce in anyway we can. One way, is bringing awareness to those who somehow don't understand basic IP Law. Sure it might only weed out a few, but at least it's a step forward to stopping false uploads on the centre of Arma 3 mods. I don't particularly like SWS, but I sure as hell don't like it when people upload my, or anyone elses, content without permission. 

 

How there is a debate over this astounds me. It's a simple fact. No one should upload anything they don't have the rights too. Theres no buts, ifs or maybes. Strictly, if you don't own it don't bloody muck around with it without the Authors permission. I struggle to understand how people see this as a grey area..

[Macser 776]

One other small point that might get lost.

 

I may be wrong, but I'd hazard a guess and say the mods/addons being uploaded or edited are well made. I don't think something that's not, is going to have much of a following. I'm sure the uploaders are aware of that. I would also hazard a guess, that the people who put the most into a project, are likely to be the ones putting some restrictions on their work. 

 

A question to the members who have no problem with these small restrictions. Leaving aside any arguments about why the restrictions exist. Given what I've just said above, are these really the people you want pissed off? 

[road runner 4344]

considering the majority of addons use either A2 or A3 products, that have been edited accordingly, surely this means they also do not own said intellectual property? 

Surely IP is directly related to an asset created by you, that is not governed by another persons IP ? IE if you make a model, from scratch, and post it on steam, that's the true sense of IP? But if you use models from BIS, they are the proprietors of the IP rights?

BIS are the ones who own the copyright, trademarks and patents.

Same goes for the camo patterns that are readily available all over the internet, unless you created those by yourself, and have registered those for copyright, then technically speaking, according to the Law, if you use another persons cammo pattern, you're actually breaking the steam terms and conditions too?

http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/

 

Quote

Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce.

IP is protected in law by, for example, patents, copyright and trademarks, which enable people to earn recognition or financial benefit from what they invent or create. By striking the right balance between the interests of innovators and the wider public interest, the IP system aims to foster an environment in which creativity and innovation can flourish.

How can a person who uses someone elses original work, lay claim to having the IP right when uploading their addon to steam?
If your addon contains anything from BIS, how can it be possible to own the IP?

[rksl-rock 1301]

3 hours ago, road runner said:

considering the majority of addons use either A2 or A3 products, that have been edited accordingly, surely this means they also do not own said intellectual property? 

Surely IP is directly related to an asset created by you, that is not governed by another persons IP ? IE if you make a model, from scratch, and post it on steam, that's the true sense of IP? But if you use models from BIS, they are the proprietors of the IP rights?

BIS are the ones who own the copyright, trademarks and patents.

Same goes for the camo patterns that are readily available all over the internet, unless you created those by yourself, and have registered those for copyright, then technically speaking, according to the Law, if you use another persons cammo pattern, you're actually breaking the steam terms and conditions too?

http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/

 

How can a person who uses someone elses original work, lay claim to having the IP right when uploading their addon to steam?
If your addon contains anything from BIS, how can it be possible to own the IP?

You have to be very careful,  Copyright, Trademarks and Patents are very different things.

 

Copyright = "the exclusive and assignable legal right, given to the originator for a fixed number of years, to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material."

Trademark = "a symbol, word, or words legally registered or established by use as representing a company or product."

Patent = "a government authority or licence conferring a right or title for a set period, especially the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention."

 

Technically speaking, by law anything you create is your IP.  You hold the copyright.  Unless of course your 'creation' uses stolen/adapted unauthorised content.  Then its just theft plain and simple. And contrary to popular internet myth it doesn't matter if the work is commercial or non-commercial in nature.  They only difference is the size of the penalty incured.  

 

Interesting side note: Even misrepresenting someone else's work as your own is legally considered deception and fraud.

 

If your creation is 100% unique then its all yours.   But your creation uses donated or "borrowed" content then it largely depends on the license for the source materials.  BIS allow the use of Samples and Assets (in the case of islands) as part of your projects. In the case of the samples they allow you to create derivatives.  Subject to some conditions of course. Which makes it your IP as long as you follow the terms of the source licences.

 

Models - From a legal point of view (and I have had this tested in court myself) Merely adapting someone's models does NOT give you rights over that model.  You have to do significant work to change/improve/otherwise alter the model to make it sustantially a different piece of work before you can claim it.  And even then, that change is rather subjective.  UK and US law is only just catching with all the real world implications of Digital Rights and Copyright in the virtual realm.  Right now in the case of 3D models; UK law treats them as "Works of Art".  As such its almost impossible for someone to use the original and get away with it.  They can "parody" it using the Fair Use clause but they cant actually alter it and expect to get away with it.

 

Another interesting Side note:  If you have to convert your model format for it to be editable.  Ie removing obfuscation, de-binarising or otherwise converting from a proprietry format its considered enough evidence wrong doing to constitue a of breach of IP.

 

Missions - I suppose (i've no experience of defending this in law) you can claim its a performance of literary work in the same way as a play's script, novella/book.

Scripts - Again I've not tesed this in court - I suspect they would be treated the same as computer programs and other functional works.

Tools and programs - Very well protected under currently law.

Islands - The basic premise still stands.  If its 100% unique then its yours.  If it uses donated or unlicensed content then you are on dodgy ground.  EG Google Earth images.  You'd have to check the licences on that.  

 

Note for Clarification:  In the case of Islands/Terrain using BIS models and vegitation. As long as these are referenced and not part of the user's "package or work", ie you dont distributed the actual models/textures etc. Then the user isn't breaching copyright.

 

Using your example of Camo Patterns doesnt really work.  Take MultiCam, MTP and CryeCam and the 1001 knock-offs.  Crye tested this in court and were told because of the random nature of the patterns its impossible to make any legal claim stick. Then someone came up with the Cammogrom, V-Cam and another 1001 derivatives.  Making the claim of copying the pattern almost unenforcible.  Its had become "Generic" in the eyes of the law.  Their response was to add their name into the patterns.  If you look closely at genuine MultiCam & CryeCam you'll see the name in small lettering all over.  That became easily enforceable then.  Even then all this really did was further protect their trademarks and brand identity.

 

The UK MoD, the IP holder for MTP have the same issue. But they were less interesed in the copyright.  More the mis-use of the Trademarks.  People had to apply for a licence to make MTP patterned products.  

 

So going back to the point and your final question.  As long as the "author" that uses BIS created, or other donated content in line with the original license and had authorisation to create Derivative Work they can claim IP rights to the new piece or work/product.  

 

IMPORTANT NOTE: But if no licence exist for the original source content then the position of the law is that you are in breach of the Original Author's copyright.

[dragon01 902]

3 hours ago, rksl-rock said:

And contrary to popular internet myth it doesn't matter if the work is commercial or non-commercial in nature.  They only difference is the size of the penalty incured.  

Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

 

If we're talking non-US law (Valve is an US company, though BI isn't), conditions vary on what can be considered fair use, but in general, non-commercial uses that can be claimed to be educational or parodical in nature are often protected. What falls under this can be a tricky question, and the answer varies by country. At any rate, fair use isn't theft and the "internet myth" is a longstanding part of the US law.

[rksl-rock 1301]

7 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

 

If we're talking non-US law (Valve is an US company, though BI isn't), conditions vary on what can be considered fair use, but in general, non-commercial uses that can be claimed to be educational or parodical in nature are often protected. What falls under this can be a tricky question, and the answer varies by country.

 

Not at all.  Fair use does not apply in this context.

 

If someone releases a modified addon where is the "educational or parodical" function?

 

 

EDIT:  Its also worth noting that if the orginal EULA/Licence states reverse engineering its forbidden thats another point of Law broken either in the EU or US.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#Legality

 

There is also that Myth that EULAs are not enforcable ...which is rubbish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement

 

[Alwarren 2767]

@wld427 @Alwarren
You guys are acting like I support the editing, stealing, or uploading of addons without permission of the creator. Never once did I ever say anything like that. My point is that there are many people out there that do have that attitude and don't care about the rules. It's wrong, but there's not a lot that can be done about it. That's just the way it is.

Im not. In no way did I imply that you are the problem. I merely pointed out the consequences of the current situation and how Modders could "solve" it.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[dragon01 902]

10 minutes ago, rksl-rock said:

 

Not at all.  Fair use does not apply in this context.

 

If someone releases a modified addon where is the "educational or parodical" function?

 

Depends on its nature. If it's one of those "silly" addons like that big duck of yours or the "Trump" reskin of the Abrams that was released some time ago, then it could be spun into parody with a little creative writing (or even without, Trump Tank is a pretty obviously a parody). Educational reasons, I think, would come up less often in copying addons themselves, but are a good argument for using real-life logos and trademarks (such as marque on cars). Also, an addon that is used for an accurate historical recreation of a particular fighting force at a certain time (say, using a Harrier model in a large Falklands War modpack) can certainly be considered to have educational value, as it depicts the hardware used in a particular historical context. 

 

All in all, the whole IP thing is way more nuanced than you describe it.

[rksl-rock 1301]

2 hours ago, dragon01 said:

Depends on its nature. If it's one of those "silly" addons like that big duck of yours, then it could be spun into parody with a little creative writing. Educational reasons, I think, would come up less often in copying addons themselves, but are a good argument for using real-life logos and trademarks (such as marque on cars). Also, an addon that is used for an accurate historical recreation of a particular fighting force at a certain time (say, using a Harrier model in a large Falklands War modpack) can certainly be considered to have educational value, as it depicts the hardware used in a particular historical context.

 

I dont think you actually fully understand what is and isn't actually protected.

 

I fail to see how adapting or re-releasing the Duck would be for the purposes of Parody? Yes it was a joke.  But how would re-uploading it or modifying it Parody my addon?  And Educational reasons for logos and trademarks, again I don't understand your point.  To use someone else's Trademark for criticism, parody and education is fine if you are commenting on an event or situation but if you try and use that excuse because you just want to stick it on an addon then that wont fly either.  Boeing and Toyota have both gone after commercial and non-commercials teams that have used their Trademarks without a license.

 

Returning to your Harrier and modpack analogy - This wouldnt apply either.  Thats an attempt to twist around the rule of IP law.  I'm certain that wouldn't stand in any court.  But to continue that analogy.

 

Just to touch back onto the actual topic:

 

You create a Falklands Mod Pack for release to the Public.  

Scenerio 1a: Uploading a collection to Steam Workshop  Your mod pack Includes addons and content you dont own right for.  In this instance you dont modify any of the addons.  You then upload it to Steam under your name claiming it as your own.

• You've broken the Steam End User Agreement by uploading content you do not own or have license to use.
• Fair use is no protection here.

Scenerio 1b: Uploading a collection to AN Other File Hosting  As above.  But it goes to another file hosting site.

• Depends on the Terms of Service of the Hosting platform but most do include a clause about illegal or copyrighted materials.
• But they still have the obligation to respond to a DMCA request or they become liable to a law suit.
• You could argue Fair use as you describe.  I seriously doubt it woudl fly if it was ever taken to court.   But in this context if the original files and were intact personally I wouldn't really mind.

Scenerio 2a: Modifying someone's work and upload to Steam Workshop.  You modify someone's work without permission then upload it to Steam under your name hence claiming it as your own.

• As before; You've broken the Steam End User Agreement by uploading content you do not own or have license to use.
• You've broken copyright law by modifying someone else's work without permission to do so.
• Dependant on the Author's EULA you are probably in breach of Licence.
• DMCA requests are enforceable because you don't own it.
• Fair Use doesnt help you with either of the above.

Scenerio 2b: Modifying someone's work and upload to AN Other File Hosting .  You modify someone's work without permission then upload it to another hosting site.

• Yet again a lot depends on the Terms of Service of the file hosting
• You've broken copyright law by modifying someone else's work without permission to do so.
• Dependant on the Author's EULA you are probably in breach of Licence.
• Fair Use doesnt help you with either of the above.

 

Now Fair Use, does allow you to use other people copyrighted content without permission to parody or criticse and even educate.  But it does not allow you to use it to make derivatives of the work for release for the same purpose or benefit. Eg:

 

Parody

• You could use a model of an F-35B to make a video when someone has to pay $5000 to start the engine.  Or where the F-35B is too fat to take off.  This would be making a joke about a real situation or event.
• You cannot use that same F-35B model to make another varient eg F-35C and paint it in Hello Kitty colours and use that as an excuse.

Criticism

• You could use a model of an F-35B to highlight the flaws in its design, in video or graphical presentations.
• I cant think of a reason what excuse you could use to justify fair use here.

Education

• You could use a model of an F-35B to illustrate aerodynamics, its special features etc  Anything to inform people in another medium etc.
• You could reverse engineer the model for your own educational purposes. 
• You cannot then use that model to create derivative works
• You cannot then distribute my physical IP for your purposes.  
•  

None of the above allows for any gain or profit.  That includes credit, purposes of reputation and other no compensatory benefits. Neither does it allow the distribution of copyrighted materials.  Deeding of rights or other legally binding contracts.  Fair use was introduced to combat Law suits designed to suppress information that may damage their brand, business etc.  It is very hard to apply to a derivative product, either physical or virtual.  Its meant to allow the discussion and criticism of content not the non-commercial copying of IP.

 

Fair use really isnt a defence when used in the context of modifying or distributing this kind of context.  If you modify my addon and re-release that addon back into the community there is no defence under Fair use.  Technically you could break my Duck addon apart to see how i did things to learn from it.  But the moment you distribute that reverse engineered content Fair Use ceases to apply.

 

Clarification:  Someone just asked me on Skype what qualifies me to make these comments.  

 

I am not a Lawyer in any form.  As some people here know, I ran a 3D content creation business for the better part of a decade.  I had to learn very quickly to protect my assets and IP form less scrupulous people. Infact I've taken 14 cases of IP issues to lawyers and court before today.  I only lost one.  The first one, because i wasnt fully prepared.  I've not lost one since.

 

 Pre and Post to that role I've worked as a Sub Contracts/Production Project Manager in the several industries for most of my civilian adult life.  Every day of that included Interllectual Property considerations.

 

Feel free to do your own research. Infact I highly recommend you do.

[dragon01 902]

25 minutes ago, rksl-rock said:

Returning to your Harrier and modpack analogy - This wouldnt apply either.  Thats an attempt to twist around the rule of IP law.  I'm certain that wouldn't stand in any court.

That depends on how much you're willing to pay for a lawyer. Twisting the rules is their job. :) Depending on the country, the judge, jury (when applicable) and lawyers involved, this sort of thing could end up being allowed. 

 

As for parody, consider a situation when someone pimps out the F-35 with a tank gun and gives it a "Make America Great Again" skin. It's a borderline case (are you parodying Trump, F-35, or excessive military spending in general?), but I can imagine ways in which it could fly. The duck was only an example (first one I could think of) of a non-serious mod for ArmA. You could have made a political joke out of it in Poland a few years ago in a similar way, I suppose, but today you'd be beating a dead horse (not that the law specifically protects good parody...).

 

I'm not a lawyer, either, but I currently have one, though not one that deals with copyright law. Just wanted to point out that the rules aren't as clear cut as you made it seem. Especially Fair Use, which in the US can be used for a lot of things (you seem to be writing from a British perspective, where it's much stricter). And of course, Steam Workshop, due to peculiarities of their license, is regulated in a different way. In particular, fair use doesn't apply there at all, as it doesn't give you rights to a work, but allows you to use it for certain purposes without having rights to it. However, for most part, you seemed to be talking the general case.

[rksl-rock 1301]

27 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

That depends on how much you're willing to pay for a lawyer. Twisting the rules is their job. :) Depending on the country, the judge, jury (when applicable) and lawyers involved, this sort of thing could end up being allowed. 

 

As for parody, consider a situation when someone pimps out the F-35 with a tank gun and gives it a "Make America Great Again" skin. It's a borderline case (are you parodying Trump, F-35, or excessive military spending in general?), but I can imagine ways in which it could fly. The duck was only an example (first one I could think of) of a non-serious mod for ArmA. You could have made a political joke out of it in Poland a few years ago in a similar way, I suppose, but today you'd be beating a dead horse (not that the law specifically protects good parody...).

 

I'm not a lawyer, either, but I currently have one, though not one that deals with copyright law. Just wanted to point out that the rules aren't as clear cut as you made it seem. Especially Fair Use, which in the US can be used for a lot of things (you seem to be writing from a British perspective, where it's much stricter). And of course, Steam Workshop, due to peculiarities of their license, is regulated in a different way. In particular, fair use doesn't apply there at all, as it doesn't give you rights to a work, but allows you to use it for certain purposes without having rights to it. However, for most part, you seemed to be talking the general case.

What i've posted is from actual experience.

 

Lawyers are weasely creatures to be sure.  I do have an IP specialist and what ive posted above is what i have learned in court and in nearly 20 years of dealing with this crap.  Yes there are loop holes to everything but then there is precedent and case law.  As I said I've not lost a case since the first one.  So I'd suggest my understanding of Copyright Law both in the UK/EU and US is actually pretty good.