Updating metro stations to be MOM compatible?

[alborzka 66]

There are a number of metro stations on the workshop, such as this or this, that are incompatible with Metro Overhaul Mod. The "Invalid Shape!" error comes up whenever you try to place it. Therefore, I was hoping to upload an updated version of these (and the several other) metro stations that give this error, so that they're compatible with MOM.

I've went over the Additional Public Transit thread (well, the parts after MOM was released) but couldn't find much on this. I've used the Asset Editor before, but never to make public transit assets (just residential). The idea is basically to load one of these metro station assets currently left in the dust, and just change the metro tunnels in them (or platforms? Noticed they're wider than tunnels) so that it's no longer an "invalid shape".

How do I go about doing this, and how can I make sure that it's MOM compatible (without going back and forth between Asset Editor and testing in a save game)?

[Bad Peanut 826]

you should approach the authors to ask permission to reupload their work - they might not want to support MOM if it's too big a hassle for them, and you certainly can't just steal their work (regardless of whether you give them credit or not).

If they don't let you and they report you for creative rights violation you could have your steam account revoked.

[alborzka 66]

I've seen a lot of the big modders (e.g. Matt Crux) who reupload other authors' work with giving credit since the original accounts may be inactive etc. But ofc I will ask first.

[Bad Peanut 826]

5 hours ago, alborzka said:

I've seen a lot of the big modders (e.g. Matt Crux) who reupload other authors' work with giving credit since the original accounts may be inactive etc. But ofc I will ask first.

well I've noticed very recently an increase in steam moderator's vigilance for any creator rights violations so be careful not to do anything against steam user agreement.

 

also just because others have done something wrong doesn't justify you doing the same wrong. You may find the people who Matt reuploaded were coincidentally uncaring about the fact, and you might find the people you are trying to reupload Do care

[Avanya 2,605]

Some of Matt's reuploaded stuff is also not 3D creations (I remember parking lots), which are very likely not under the same rights as models. Plus we don't know what private conversations he might have had with the creators.  

Asking is always the right thing to do, especially when we're talking about custom models.  

[alborzka 66]

Not to be nitpicky since I'll ask for permission regardless, but I'm honestly a bit confused by this since I'm new to creating assets. In academia, you can create articles / write stuff based on other people's work as long as you cite it and not claim their ideas as your own. Since that research is posted publicly (well, journal fees aside), and since both original and new authors make (or lose) no money from doing articles, its pretty much acceptable to work this way without having to ask the original authors first. If I'm not making any money off of assets and the original asset creator isn't losing any money if someone were to re-upload their work, and if I'm giving full credit to the original creator (with link to the original and a "change log", and posting the link to the updated asset on the original asset page telling the author "if you want me to delete it let me know" in case they've been inactive for weeks and getting prior contact with them was impossible), why would updating then be a problem? Again, I'm new so I'm genuinely curious.

[Bad Peanut 826]

Just now, alborzka said:

Not to be nitpicky since I'll ask regardless, but I'm honestly a bit confused by this since I'm new to creating assets. In academia, you can create articles / write stuff based on other people's work as long as you cite it and not claim their ideas as your own. Since that research is posted publicly (well, journal fees aside), and since both original and new authors make (or lose) no money from doing articles, its pretty much acceptable to work this way without having to ask the original authors first. If I'm not making any money off of assets and the original asset creator isn't losing any money if someone were to re-upload their work, and if I'm giving full credit to the original creator (with link to the original and a "change log", and posting the link to the updated asset on the original asset page telling the author "if you want me to delete it let me know" in case they've been inactive for weeks and getting prior contact with them was impossible), why would updating then be a problem? Again, I'm new so I'm genuinely curious.

you don't agree to a user agreement when using journal articles (or you do but it is an agreement that states that to use the work it just needs to be cited)
Steam User agreement states you cannot violate other people's creative content rights - which specifically says you cannot reupload other people's content unless with their express permission, therefore anyone who uploads their own creations are doing so because they know their rights are being protected. I do not allow people to reupload my assets, and I keep making assets because I know steam is behind me when it comes to challenging any infractions.

with the academia articles, you're trying to compare apples and oranges, sure they're both fruit but they're still completely different. 

It's good to ask these questions before doing it as long as you take heed from the answers, but don't disregard the answers just because they don't allow you to do what you want - otherwise you could face worse than  just having your steam account revoked.

[Bad Peanut 826]

7 minutes ago, alborzka said:

 if someone were to re-upload their work, and if I'm giving full credit to the original creator (with link to the original and a "change log", and posting the link to the updated asset on the original asset page telling the author "if you want me to delete it let me know" in case they've been inactive for weeks and getting prior contact with them was impossible), why would updating then be a problem? Again, I'm new so I'm genuinely curious.

Also this isn't asking permission, this is stealing and pretending that it doesn't matter. you have to get the express permission of the person you wish to reupload - if you can't (they're inactive or never on) then you CANNOT upload it anyway. it's what you agreed to when using steam, and you can be removed, and even sued if really necessary (although I believe it's not a civl suit but a lawsuit actioned by Valve corporation if you're a repeating offender. basically it means they can actually show monetary damages and can sue you for it (because if you're reposting work it compromises the integrity of the workshop which in turn could lose creators, which means less users, which means less visits to the site, which means damages.)

[Avanya 2,605]

Valve needs rights to everything we upload to the workshop, so they can distribute it, and you ofc can't hand over rights you don't have. Here's a bit of the agreement you and everyone else using the workshop has agreed to: 

Quote

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).

No doubt there's alot of content on the workshop which breaks this, which shows Valve don't really patrol the workshop, but instead rely on us reporting stolen assets. Generally our community doesn't seem to report assets which update abandoned assets and give credit, but that's technically still breaking the agreement. I know there's laws related to trademarks where you eventually lose your rights if you don't enforce them, which perhaps will also apply to workshop content (Note I'm just guessing here based on my limited knowledge on the area), meaning reuploaded assets might become public domain after a while (likely years) if they never get reported.

From my experience of having a few of my assets stolen and then taken down Valve aren't involved in any legal action. They remove the offending item from the workshop, which I guess clears them of any legal trouble (since the other user broke the agreement with Valve). One of the latest ones, who stole like 150 assets (no credit, deleting any comment saying it was stolen), still has an active account, so at the most I'd assume a suspended account if any action was taken. In that case I think only a few were reported by the original creator and I wouldn't be surprised if most of them are just set to private now and not actually deleted.

Anyways! Permission is always the way to go, but some people won't respond. Uploading them without permission is actually breaking the agreement with Valve, but I'd be very surprised if any very severe action was taken for that - especially if you add a disclaimer crediting the author.

[alborzka 66]

11 hours ago, Bad Peanut said:

Also this isn't asking permission, this is stealing and pretending that it doesn't matter. you have to get the express permission of the person you wish to reupload - if you can't (they're inactive or never on) then you CANNOT upload it anyway.

Is this the same for mods as well? Like if a mod has been abandoned and the code is on the description linking to Github, would it be stealing modifying the code and reuploading? Because if that's the case then Steam has quite a job on their hands with a good chunk of "updated" mods being stolen from the originals haha. But yeah I can see models/3D graphics and modding code being treated differently, that would make sense.

9 hours ago, Avanya said:

One of the latest ones, who stole like 150 assets (no credit, deleting any comment saying it was stolen), still has an active account

Jfc why would someone even do that??? Like especially if they're well known assets you're basically asking to get reported, plus I doubt all those assets had problems that needed fixing so ?? Wow that's really irritating to deal with ugh.

Thanks for the explanations y'all!

[Bad Peanut 826]

5 hours ago, alborzka said:

Is this the same for mods as well? Like if a mod has been abandoned and the code is on the description linking to Github, would it be stealing modifying the code and reuploading? Because if that's the case then Steam has quite a job on their hands with a good chunk of "updated" mods being stolen from the originals haha. But yeah I can see models/3D graphics and modding code being treated differently, that would make sense.

 

It's really for anything that's on steam, however I believe that quite a few of the mods that have been taken over have actually gotten a brief "okay" from the original authors, or they have changed the code enough that it doesn't matter

[Avanya 2,605]

Some of the assets barely had some changed decorations. Who knows what goes through someone's head when they think that's a good idea. xD

It's possible the code being on Github changes things - I haven't read the terms of use for Github. But if it's been published for everyone to see and/or use like that, it might be considered public domain by Valve. It definately makes proving ownership a whole lot more complicated that's for sure.