Updating other people's assets... what do you think ?

[Cool_Z 1,547]

Hi skyliners !

We all know (well at least all people here, at simtropolis) that custom assets need several things to be really usable.

-A "not too high" tri count
-A "as low as possible but not so low it will make it look bad" LOD tri count
-A LOD (sometimes the auto system makes a good one but it happens once every thousand custom asset)
-LOD textures (for cars it might be even more important than the lod itself)
-Correct illumination maps for vehicles
-Nightlights

Sadly, some workshop uploaders seem not to follow these rules. The nightlights are a bit apart because the update is only two months old... but still some of the workshop assets are rendered worthless by some of these points.

One of them that actually enrages me is when uploaders use the main model as a LOD, it makes it look good, yeaaah, but most of the time it happens with big structures, and a 10000 tris LOD is damaging for players, it's actually a huge lack of respect for them.

 

Viewing all this, and the fact that some asset creators have not answered or reacted to update requests, what is your opinion on updating other people's assets when they obviously need to be updated ?

[Matthias King 348]

I think if you credit the original creator, and include the option to have the mod requested to be removed if they wish, then it should be fine.

I don't know if assets count as intellectual property, but I've seen at least a few people updating abandoned assets without problems. I've even seen a couple get the blessing from the original creator who doesn't have the time and/or desire to do it themselves.

I'm sure it's worth having a few more people chime in with opinions first before you do anything, but that's my two cents.

[Cool_Z 1,547]

 

I'm sure it's worth having a few more people chime in with opinions first before you do anything, but that's my two cents.

Yep that's why I ask.

 

The only situation that causes no concern for me is the "main model as a lod" one. Because it shows so much disrespect for players that these assets deserve to be remade (and the original one deserves to be removed from the workshop).

I also find it less of a problem if the asset is a conversion from an existing model.

When the asset is an original creation... it's where it gets complicated.

[Cool_Z 1,547]

I really don't see an issue with it if the artist has long abandoned CS:L, and has no plans on updating.

I haven't read any of the legal stuff, but I would imagine that you lose "ownership" of your asset as soon as you upload it to steam.

Hehe yeah... I wasn't actually thinking about the legal side of this... more about a "being fair" side.

 

And... how to be sure a person is not having plans for updating ? Ok some of them said it, but others didn't reply to the people asking for update, so we don't really know. 

[boformer 3,169]

This is very critical when there is no license attached to an asset, which means something like "All rights reserved". That's why I would suggest you to add a Creative Commons license to your own assets.

Software developers invented some legal methods to work with closed source code without publishing the modified source.

Usually a "patch" file that stores the differences between the original software and the modified code.

The original software (e.g. C:SL) is downloaded on the client. Then the installer decompiles the software on the clients, applies the patch file and compiles it again.

You can do the same with models and textures. My resource replacer mod supports the addition and modification of textures without reuploading the original asset. A feature to modify the vertices could be added as well.

[Turjan 1,048]

I would be inclined to say "do it", but I'm somewhat hesitant.

While you technically hand over ownership of your asset to Valve/CO/Paradox when you post your asset on the workshop, this only concerns marketability (potentially selling the item, using screenshots in promotional materials, etc.). You still retain copyright protection (at least in the US), which protects the artistic part of your creation and basically prevents it from being altered (the latter point is also true in some other countries). Some modders may see it as a slap to their face if you touch up their assets, and I'm afraid they may have some legal standing there. Which means I would be cautious.

You may get around this by applying enough changes to the model that it can count as your own creation, and you cannot reuse the original name. Of course, if your intention was to show the original creator how to do this, this will get lost. I've seen some drama when someone noticed textures from the original asset in a "recreation". Then again, if you do this right that's basically the same or even more work as making your own asset in the first place.

Of course, all of this becomes meaningless if you get the permission to go ahead by the original author. Keep in mind that what I said now is basically in line with the Simtropolis rules that forbid altering other people's assets without permission.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

By fixing up broken or unoptimized assets, you will perform a charitable public service. If you credit the original creator, provide a link (if available) to the original asset, and allow creators to politely issue take-down requests, you will be doing the ethical thing and be in the moral and legal clear/right. Some modders of various games make decent-looking mods with horrible technical specs (excessive polygons, sloppy code, etc), then try to stop others from fixing their mods or try to monetize their garbage. These modders often get negative publicity (as they should) and loose all support (including advertising revenue and donations) because of their bad behavior. If you were to run into problems when improving pretty assets with horrible optimization, I will be quick to defend you.

[GC_Vos 714]

I agree, the three cases in which I'd say there's no problem with this are no/bad illumination, no/bad lod or if an asset has been abandoned overall (for example no updates in 6 months time or no response after update requests).

Credit should be given where credit is due. I think a link to the original upload is more than enough.

I haven't encountered any issues with this (admittedly I haven't uploaded assets created by others) but I know people love redecorating stuff, so I feel honored when they do.

To me, once you've published something on the workshop, people should be able to do with it whatever they want. Isn't that the whole point of sharing it in the first place?

[boformer 3,169]

If that is true, you should bundle a license with the assets: http://creativecommons.org/choose/

Otherwise the license is "All rights reserved", that means you can sue anyone who reuploads your asset.

I will go ahead and add one to my ground textures and train stations.

[GC_Vos 714]

What's the point though from a practical pov?

Do you really want to get into licensing and legal agreements when you can just state "Yes please do whatever you want with this kthxbai!"

I know that wouldn't hold up in court but I wasn't planning to sue anybody.

[boformer 3,169]

You also tell people explicitly that they are allowed to modify and reupload your assets (without asking you).

In a year or two when you are inactive, no one will renember that you said that you will not sue anybody.

[Cyclone Boom 17,031]

Quite an interesting topic.

Even though content is shared free of charge, there are still some considerations.

In most legal systems, copyright is an automatic right for the original author, and doesn't require registration. This means they own the intellectual property, even if they no longer develop the work. Technically, adapting someone's asset classes it as a derivative work -- a new version based on the original. Here the owner would still retain the rights. The question is, whether this, combined with redistributing can be considered fair use or not.

In such case, the act of 'improving' an asset would be for the benefit of the C:SL community, not to undermine or damage the author's standing or reputation. So the nature would be good-willed, and the Steam Workshop isn't a commercial environment. It's different in a way to paid DLC or licensed software.

Interestingly Steam has a licence agreement which covers user generated content.

Section 6 reveals that upon sharing content, Valve is given non-exclusive rights to modify and create derivative works (for promotion purposes). Notice that it says non-exclusive. I think this means other people are entitled to the same rights, if permission is given from the author.

Sure it's possible to just go ahead and assume fair use, but it does involve risks. For example, if the new author asked for donations, or if monetisation ever came back to the Workshop. Potentially, I feel this could create a messy situation. In this case, the original owner may be entitled to claim any money received, as they still own the rights. If money if involved, it always gets a more serious matter.

Unless explicitly granted, such as from a CC licence, the best way forward would be to seek permission from the asset creator (approval to create the derivative work). Gaining this (preferably in written form) would establish an agreement, and would save possible implications. Credit could then be given in the new upload, providing details of the original author, and that permission has been granted.

Like Turjan said, this also happens to be the policy for uploads here on the STEX.

[Fantozzi 4,068]

The following covers only the case when a right holder of shared content (mostly the creator) didn't specify the rights of usage. It is only my point of view. In my homecountry they say: where is no prosecutor there is no case. If it is an individual right (like ownership f.e.) there is only one who can claim rights - the owner of the right. I know in many cases when people share things - perhaps modified - that were created originally by other users there is often an outrage: you can't do this! You have no permission! Well, people can complain like they want - as long as the original owner doesn't complain - the right holder - there is no 'case'. Only the right holder can justify this behavior as 'wrong' not the community. As the community also can't proof this right. The community can't decide on an individual right. It can't take away or give an individual right. It's always the right holder. Because he holds the right. Not the community. So in my opinion: if the owner disappeared, lost interest or something else, you tried to contact him, but he doesn't respond: just make use of the content he left. If he reappears and says you do wrong, you have to respect his ownership. But since that happens, no other person has the right to tell you you aren't allow to do so. The community can't permit the usage but it can't also forbid the usage. As the community holds (usually) no rights on shared content. The community can't take the part of the owner. And not me or anybody else. But caution: there are different rights. There may be different right holders on one piece of software for example. Not only the owner has rights also the distributor may have rights. The music in a computer game may have a different right holder than the graphics. And so on. Before you make use of content not owned by yourself you have to clear that out and to try to contact ALL possible right holders. Look at the credits - all the people mentioned there may have rights on this or that, as the distributor (like EA for example) may have the distribution rights but the artists may have their own rights on the content. It could happen that someone loads up a building here that uses a texture. The original creator had the permission from the creator of the texture to use it. Now you redo that building using the same texture. It my happen that the creator of the texture shows up and says you violated his rights. That's the tricky thing - on software it's really hard to find who might have rights. THEREFORE - you can ask the community if you can modify/reupload abbandoned content. The community may answer yes or no. But these answers are worthless. There is only one who can give a valid answer. And if he/she/them remains silent, doesn't respond you - there is only one chance left to get a step forward:  just try out. Otherwise let it be. But it's not possible that the community gives or takes a right that it doesn't own.

  Edited November 24, 2015 by fantozzi  

[krbe 193]

In most legal systems, copyright is an automatic right for the original author, and doesn't require registration. This means they own the intellectual property, even if they no longer develop the work. Technically, adapting someone's asset classes it as a derivative work -- a new version based on the original. Here the owner would still retain the rights. The question is, whether this, combined with redistributing can be considered fair use or not.

You can change that to ALL jurisdictions (countries)* that matter. When you create something intellectual -- given it fulfils a few very low standard conditions -- you own it, and are free to do what you want with it. No one else may use or assume anything except as provided by law (exceptions, unlike protection, varies between different countries).

* https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Berne_Convention_signatories.svg

In such case, the act of 'improving' an asset would be for the benefit of the C:SL community, not to undermine or damage the author's standing or reputation. So the nature would be good-willed, and the Steam Workshop isn't a commercial environment. It's different in a way to paid DLC or licensed software

You can of course claim that an improvement was not ill-intended, and that no harm actually took place. However, you are assuming, and in the eyes of the law this doesn't matter (except when it comes to damages). What if the rights holder didn't want his work to be improved upon and spread further? What if he wants to remove his original content -- e.g. because it defames an individual or contains trademarks he was not allowed to use? 

I know in many cases when people share things - perhaps modified - that were created originally by other users there is often an outrage: you can't do this! You have no permission! Well, people can complain like they want - as long as the original owner doesn't complain - the right holder - there is no 'case'. Only the right holder can justify this behavior as 'wrong' not the community. As the community also can't proof this right.

It's the other way round: Only the rights holder can authorise use of protected content. Which leads to the second point:

So in my opinion: if the owner disappeared, lost interest or something else, you tried to contact him, but he doesn't respond: just make use of the content he left. If he reappears and says you do wrong, you have to respect his ownership

 'Abandoned' intellectual property is still owned by someone (unless exceptionally, the rights are held by a company that is liquidated and the IP rights are not sold or given away to anyone). The creator still retains the rights to what he made as long as he lives, and the estate, his heirs or whoever he grants them to in his will for 50 to 85 years after his death. If he chase you after 20 years, that'll be your problem, because you have illegally exploited him for 20 years.

But since that happens, no other person has the right to tell you you aren't allow to do so. The community can't permit the usage but it can't also forbid the usage. As the community holds (usually) no rights on shared content. The community can't take the part of the owner. And not me or anybody else.

...

THEREFORE - you can ask the community if you can modify/reupload abbandoned content. The community may answer yes or no. But these answers are worthless. There is only one who can give a valid answer. And if he/she/them remains silent, doesn't respond you - there is only one chance left to get a step forward:  just try out.

Otherwise let it be. But it's not possible that the community gives or takes a right that it doesn't own.

The community facilitates and the community must make peace with itself over whether it is going to facilitate breaches of intellectual property law. Just like the mall only let premises to businesses it must make a decision on whether it will allow businesses that sell stolen goods rent from them. As you say: 'it's not possible that the community gives or takes a right that it doesn't own.' That notion must necessarily extend to you: You don't hold the rights. You can only use the property as defined by the law or the licence you are given.

 

The best solution would be that the site that you upload to would give you a range of different licence options when you upload: The standard reserved licence; some forms of CC licences; public domain. As regards the reserved licence, my personal opinion is that it should be automatically transformed into a sort of restrictive abandonware licence after say a year of inactivity of the original content creator. For example, if you ticked a box when PM'ing his content would automatically revert to an 'optimisation allowed' licence or something similar if not responded to within a year. This way you protect the author, as well as the community. If you want to retire and not have anyone alter your stuff, you need to pull it from the site.

[Cool_Z 1,547]

My god I'm even more confused now 

[krbe 193]

It's pretty simple really, and it all cooks down to this: Do not modify and publicise anything someone else made without their permission. Either explicit permission from them, or in the form of a licence.

If that licence is a sentence that says "Yes please do whatever you want with this kthxbai!" feel free to do whatever you want with it.

[Fantozzi 4,068]

 

My god I'm even more confused now 

 

Follow your heart, not the lawyers. Especially if they aren't really lawyers but only moralizers. You don't even steal, you don't do it for the money, don't you? You won't claim any rights, won't you?

If you really had to appear in court - you would have to pay for the damage you caused. The right holder would be asked: what damage caused this guy to you?

What could his answer be? If we talk about free content - all you might harm is his vanity. And that's not the business of earthly courts.

Just my opinion.

 

It's pretty simple really, and it all cooks down to this: Do not modify and publicise anything someone else made without their permission. Either explicit permission from them, or in the form of a licence.

If that licence is a sentence that says "Yes please do whatever you want with this kthxbai!" feel free to do whatever you want with it.

This sentence is no guarantee. The person who declare this might use third party content and might have no knowledge what he's talking about.

  Edited November 25, 2015 by fantozzi  

[krbe 193]

 

It's pretty simple really, and it all cooks down to this: Do not modify and publicise anything someone else made without their permission. Either explicit permission from them, or in the form of a licence.

If that licence is a sentence that says "Yes please do whatever you want with this kthxbai!" feel free to do whatever you want with it.

This sentence is no guarantee. The person who declare this might use third party content and might have no knowledge what he's talking about.

The need for permission or licence from third parties is contained in my sentence already. If this was the way people did it, cascading use of content wouldn't be a problem.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Copyright law is draconian, overbearing, and excessively long. Experts have proven that the optimum time period for protection is 14-20 years after publication. The whole "70 years after death of original rights holder" nonsense was made by greedy corporate lobbyists.

 

Now that I got that off my chest, it is impossible for you to lose any court case brought on by someone disliking redistribution of mods when you never charged, you made meaningful improvements, or the EAULA for the Workshop provides no extra rights for content creators. Any issues would be civil, not criminal, and certain breaches of copyright laws are completely impossible to punish and many breaches are impossible to punish without money and California jurisdiction.

[krbe 193]

Now that I got that off my chest, it is impossible for you to lose any court case brought on by someone disliking redistribution of mods when you never charged, you made meaningful improvements, or the EAULA for the Workshop provides no extra rights for content creators. Any issues would be civil, not criminal, and certain breaches of copyright laws are completely impossible to punish and many breaches are impossible to punish without money and California jurisdiction.

And you build that on what exactly? You see the thing about IP protection is that your intellectual property is considered yours, no matter how freely you first put the stuff out there. That is because the concept of intellectual property centres around moral rights and not economical rights. A classic French-Anglo/American debate, and one that the French won. That also means that for jurisdictions in the English traditions copyright law may behave a  little different. Bottom line is: It is yours, and you are free to do whatever you please with it in the manner you see fit. And the court is there to uphold your rights in case that is your wish.

Just because you make something better (supposedly), or you do something for free doesn't mean that it is OK. It is up to the rightsholder to manage his right as he sees fit, including seeking damages for unauthorised use, even if the stuff is freely available somewhere.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

@krbe

There are many laws in the USA that are immoral (go against established systems of morals), counterproductive (make things worse), unenforceable (the resources needed to enforce them would be much better spent elsewhere and would be bad publicity), and overall bad. If you look at the history of court cases regarding intellectual property, you will see that most outside California were thrown out or favored the little guy. Still, the EULA is a contract that overrides parts of copyright law so the best way to tell what theoretical trouble can be ran into is to look through the EULA instead of digging through legalese of US laws.

[Turjan 1,048]

Not sure whether it matters much whether a law is enforceable or not. It's just the matter that this may cause lots of drama. Or not. You never know, and I'm not sure whether it's worth the potential fallout. I've seen people getting mercilessly downvoted into oblivion because of things like that. You don't want to have an entourage of haters follow you around, unless you revel in such things.

All this said, I would love if someone put a bit of TLC into abandoned buildings like this or this. Or does anyone remember this station (lots of issues)? I just don't see it happen.

[Fantozzi 4,068]

Not sure whether it matters much whether a law is enforceable or not. It's just the matter that this may cause lots of drama. Or not. You never know, and I'm not sure whether it's worth the potential fallout. I've seen people getting mercilessly downvoted into oblivion because of things like that. You don't want to have an entourage of haters follow you around, unless you revel in such things.

All this said, I would love if someone put a bit of TLC into abandoned buildings like this or this. Or does anyone remember this station (lots of issues)? I just don't see it happen.

 

In my homecountry they use to say: "Viel Feind, viel Ehr."

Hm - and now, me, oh dear, trying to translate it:

"Who has a lot of enemis must be a honorable person."

 

[Cool_Z 1,547]

Not sure whether it matters much whether a law is enforceable or not. It's just the matter that this may cause lots of drama. Or not. You never know, and I'm not sure whether it's worth the potential fallout. I've seen people getting mercilessly downvoted into oblivion because of things like that. You don't want to have an entourage of haters follow you around, unless you revel in such things.

All this said, I would love if someone put a bit of TLC into abandoned buildings like this or this. Or does anyone remember this station (lots of issues)? I just don't see it happen.

Yep... Actually I think we should not focus on the legal stuff (we're not talking big money here, no money at all for most cases), but it's the drama that I would like to avoid.

[Cool_Z 1,547]

Ok... now I've started doing it...

 

The two assets I've updated (yet) have had people asking for nightlights for ages, and no responses at all... so I went the "just do it" way.

I think that's how I will do things. Lots of early builders have completely abandoned the game, and it's too sad to see all those assets left in teh dark (and with terrible lods).

 

I still will ask the most known early builders if they're still there, and if there's still hope for an update... but (and some here might say I'm wrong) if I get no answer, I will still go for the update.

[Matthias King 348]

I think you're in the clear as long as you ask first, then go if you get no response. And as long as you give all credit to the original creator, which you've done.

I think you're on solid ground.

[Turjan 1,048]

I hope I was clear that I didn't  have problems with eventual "wrongness". And in those cases where the creator has been gone for a year, a backlash is unlikely.

[Avanya 2,605]

I agree with Matthias King, as long as you credit them you should be fine. The way I see it you're doing it to keep the asset alive, which says the original creator made something really nice. It's sad to see good assets be left without updates (or proper lods), so I think it's a good initiative  

[Cool_Z 1,547]

12 minutes ago, AJ3D said:

Here is one that could use an update. The model should be around twice the size, and it could use a proper base lot. Its a great model, it just needs some tweaking.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=409893065&searchtext=Turning+Torso

 

Not really the same problem here. The asset is not broken. It's just that people do not agree on its size 

 

Fot an update like this, I would actually WANT a given authorization from the author.

[boformer 3,169]

I wish that contributors could update stuff. That would solve so many issues. Usually the original creators are ok with a LOD/illumination update, but the update process is so difficult.