STEX Rules Clarification and Possible Revisions Discussion

[T Wrecks 10,210]

-Cori Edit:

These posts are being parsed out of a prior topic. Since the first post I move has to be the first one I'm adding this comment to the top of this one. I have not altered any of the original.

-Cori Edit End.

 

Okay, I think it won't hurt to describe the sharing policy again in simple terms. Let me try to put it down in an easily understandable manner.

In short, the policy is in place to ensure two things:

1. The creator receives credit for their creation, and it always remains clear who is the creator.
2. Content can be shared and enjoyed by others.

In detail, this means the following:

• If you make a BAT model, that model is your creation. Nobody else is allowed to say that it is their model.
• If you upload your creation on the STEX, it is still your creation. Others can download it and use it, but they cannot say it is their creation. Likewise, they cannot simply upload it again and say that it is their creation. They can also not upload it to another site under their own name. If they want to do that, they need to ask the creator for permission first.
   
• If you make a new lot for an existing building that is not your creation or any similar modification to an existing upload that is not yours, you are not allowed to include the original upload (the item that was created by somebody else). This is because it's not your creation.
  Instead, you need to provide a link to it so that people will have to download the original file as uploaded by the original creator (as a so-called "[external] dependency" - your creation depends on this original file).
• The modification is your work, your creation. You can upload it freely. It's yours. However, the pieces that you used for it are not yours. Therefore, you need to link to them so people will have to get them separately, from the original author.
• Any pictures you take of anything you make in SimCity are your creation. You took these pictures. Therefore, you can share these pictures as you like.

______________

That's basically it.

Let's check an example:

• Cycledogg has made wonderful textures. They are his creation. They will forever be his creation. Nothing will ever change that.
• Am I allowed to upload them here? No, because they are not my creation, and Cycledogg has not given me permission to upload them here.
• Am I allowed to upload them here if I ask him first and he says "yes, that's okay"? Yes, then I can upload because I have the creator's explicit permission. I will still have to mention that they are not my own work, though.

Now let's suppose I make a nice park in the Lot Editor using Cycledogg's textures, and I want to share my park by uploading.

• Can I just upload the park and Cycledogg's textures? No, because the park lot is my creation, but the textures are Cycledogg's creation.
• Can I upload the park and link to Cycledogg's textures? Yes, I can upload the park because the park is my creation. However, people will also have to click on the link to Cycledogg's textures. The link will take them to the download page for Cycledogg's textures. There they will see that this is an entirely separate creation, and that it was made by Cycledogg. They can probably even leave a rating and/or a comment there to say thanks to Cycledogg for making the textures.
• Can I simply use the park for myself, take pictures of it, and share these pictures online? Yes, I can do that because I took these pictures myself. Therefore, the pictures are my creation.

It's actually rather intuitive, I think.

If all this sounds too abstract, think of a car:

• Can you just take another person's car and say "This is mine, I'm giving it to you"? No, you can't because it's NOT yours.
• Can you make a tuning kit / spoiler, add it to the car and then say "This car with tuning kit / spoiler is mine, I'm giving it to you"? No, you can't because only the tuning kit/spoiler is yours, but not the car.
• Can you make a tuning kit / spoiler and say "This tuning kit / spoiler is mine, and I'm giving it to you. However, you'll need this particular car to use it"? Yes, you can. You are the creator of the tuning kit, therefore you can share it as you like and say it's yours. You are not sharing the car, and you are not saying you own the car. You merely inform people where to get this car from the original owner.
• Can you take a photograph of a car that has your tuning kit / spoiler attached to it, and share the photograph? Yes, you can because you made the photograph. You don't share the car or the tuning kit /spoiler, you only share the photograph. You do not claim to be the owner of the car.

I hope this helps to clear things up a little. If it doesn't, please don't hesitate to ask.

 

  Edited December 15, 2018 by CorinaMarie  
Parsed out posts to create a new topic.

[Cyclone Boom 17,031]

Quote

Can I redo the model JUST for MY СJ only-only-only ?

Yes, absolutely. That would constitute personal use. With the current longstanding community policy, what would be crossing the line is to modify models and then redistribute them without prior permission from the original creator. If intending to modify a BAT for the sole purpose of your CJ (to any extent), that is perfectly acceptable. So in other words, it's fine to edit them for your own game and to capture and post images for your CJ, but you may not upload the modifications without the author's approval.

I hope this clarifies.

  Edited December 15, 2018 by CorinaMarie  
Made quote anonymous.

[Tyberius06 12,267]

@Cyclone Boom

How about modifying a copied version of a model's s3d files with model tweaker (the always 20 s3d) - f.e. reorient car props to be in the same direction as other car props so they could be placed into the same prop family etc... - and releasing only the modifies s3d files in a dat as included dependency? Of course with applying the necessary IID modifications too (by changing the 5th digit of the instance IID to avoid conflicts). The original model still would be a mandatory external dependency. 

I read about this unclear opinions/statements. One said that permission is required from the creator, other said that it's not necessary because the original model still would be intact and linked as a mandatory dependency. 

Thanks in advance

- Tyberius

[Cyclone Boom 17,031]

35 minutes ago, Tyberius06 said:

How about modifying a copied version of a model's s3d files with model tweaker (the always 20 s3d) - f.e. reorient car props to be in the same direction as other car props so they could be placed into the same prop family etc... - and releasing only the modifies s3d files in a dat as included dependency?

Good question, and there's a bit of a grey area here.

The way I see it, and if I'm understanding correctly, this would be classed as a derivative work.

The reorienting modification being based upon the original S3D files as they were created by the author. Then without the originals, it wouldn't be possible to make the changes using Model Tweaker and then set new IIDs. It's true linking to the original model would limit the quantity of redistributed packaged files for ensuring full functionality, leaning more towards fair use. However, the fact still remains how there'd be those entries which the author produced, you've modified, and then released as a new unique instance. Therefore with the present longstanding file redistribution policies in place, it's still where permission is required from the author.

So unfortunately, even with valid intentions (and as much as I'd like to say Yes right now), this is the way things stand in the current climate. Similarly to including an entire model in one's content upload as an external dependency, it would need the author to grant specific approval for a derivative model to be included.

[rsc204 21,866]

8 hours ago, Tyberius06 said:

I read about this unclear opinions/statements. One said that permission is required from the creator, other said that it's not necessary because the original model still would be intact and linked as a mandatory dependency. 

I think some people don't fully understand that SC4 models are not 3D models in any sense. With the exception of Automata and some very specific areas at least (True 3D or RTK0 props), the S3D files actually constitute a LOD. In fact it's simpler than that, because these LODs are not even 3D, they just encompass the viewing angles you will see for a given zoom/rotation. As such, those S3D files and their related U/V mapping are not something that is considered a creators work. Frankly, they didn't create them either, the SC4BAT tool did, even when custom LODs are used.

However, this does not necessarily apply to proper True 3D models, because those shapes do require creation in 3D modelling software. Therefore they would not be considered fair use to re-distribute without permission.

With the regular batted models, a creator's content is considered to be the 2D rendered textures, that are applied to said S3D files. So provided you find a way that links back to the original download for those textures, there has never been an issue with distributing edited S3D files.

(CB got here before I could click send)

7 hours ago, Cyclone Boom said:

So unfortunately, even with valid intentions (and as much as I'd like to say Yes right now), this is the way things stand in the current climate. Similarly to including an entire model in one's content upload as an external dependency, it would need the author to grant specific approval for a derivative model to be included.

Can you clarify given the above information if this is still your view? Just to help highlight my point, here is a custom S3D LOD:

That LOD is three boxes, a non custom LOD is just (edit) two sorry three, rectangles. I ask because this has always been considered fair use to my knowledge and as I say, whilst I created these three boxes, it was SC4BAT that had to output that to S3D's and set the Vert & U/V mapping data. This is simply not the same as say an automata model, where we're talking about an actual 3D model someone has designed/created. I absolutely did ask about this, as have others and the answer given was always that it was OK. Admittedly I recall that being at SC4D, not here, but absolutely this has never been verboten previously. 

[Cyclone Boom 17,031]

23 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Can you clarify given the above information if this is still your view?

Thanks for your excellent summary detailing the technical aspects, and as such I retract my prior posted statement to avoid confusion. While I suppose it could be argued that even the 2D textures wouldn't exist without the author creating them (as an export using the BAT), I'm very much in favour of allowing fair use wherever justifiable.

Given how the process involves the S3D files being LODs which display textures in game, this seems perfectly reasonable enough to me.

Should this be the case, in these instances, we will allow modified S3D files to be redistributed as per the method @Tyberius06 outlined above.
 

Quote

Can I show this picture in my journal on Simtropolis or not?

Yes, you're welcome to post any in game pictures you've created in a CJ or in the forums. It doesn't matter about the size, quality, composition, or anything really. All such design elements are completely your choice, and it just depends on however you wish to present any given scene. Most of all, we specifically encourage freedom of creativity.
 

  Edited December 15, 2018 by CorinaMarie  
Made one quote anonymous.

[CT14 2,486]

I'll let you in on a dirty little secret... Half these models that people are having fits over were taken from SketchUp Warehouse anyway. A proud tradition that goes all the way back to Pegasus (what, you thought he scratch built all that stuff?)

So it's extra silly for uploaders to be stressing these things when they didn't create half of what is being uploaded.

We are just lucky that the SketchUp Warehouse terms allow reuse and modification for any purpose, or things would really be a mess!

 

[mattb325 28,891]

2 hours ago, rsc204 said:

In fact it's simpler than that, because these LODs are not even 3D, they just encompass the viewing angles you will see for a given zoom/rotation. As such, those S3D files and their related U/V mapping are not something that is considered a creators work. Frankly, they didn't create them either, the SC4BAT tool did, even when custom LODs are used.

The last part of that statement, which I have underlined, is completely incorrect. The creator absolutely must create custom lods from scratch.

The premise of the rest of that statement is dubious, chicken-and-egg stuff. Though true, while an automatic LOD is created by either the BAT4Max plugin or the BAT program, it is only created as a result of a creator having modeled something within the 3d space to begin with. If the batter has not made any object at all, then no LOD is created. The LOD creation is entirely dependent upon the creator first having input something into the program. 

 

3 hours ago, Tyberius06 said:

reorient car props to be in the same direction as other car props so they could be placed into the same prop family etc... - and releasing only the modifies s3d files in a dat as included dependency? Of course with applying the necessary IID modifications too (by changing the 5th digit of the instance IID to avoid conflicts). The original model still would be a mandatory external dependency. 

This becomes a very grey area indeed. While I understand that your example is only about re-orienting a model; where does such a logical extension of manipulating the creator's work finish? With the tools available now that perform the re-orienting in Tibi's example, a bat can be re-scaled, existing textures can be re-coloured, parts of the BAT (such as baked in ground) edited out entirely, or the model re-textured entirely.

This really does start to impinge upon the creator's intention of having released their model to the public in the original condition. If I were to create a building that is brown and 6mx3mx4m, and someone likes the building, but wishes it to be pink and 5mx4x6m, according to this change of heart that I read above, it would suddenly be OK for my creation to be manipulated, altered and re-released, so long as my files are listed as a dependency?

That premise is entirely unacceptable to me and I think you will find consensus amongst a whole slew of other content creators.

 

2 hours ago, CT14 said:

I'll let you in on a dirty little secret... Half these models that people are having fits over were taken from SketchUp Warehouse anyway. A proud tradition that goes all the way back to Pegasus (what, you thought he scratch built all that stuff?)

So it's extra silly for uploaders to be stressing these things when they didn't create half of what is being uploaded.

I'm aware that the current batch of Batters, particularly those who make industrial bats, use downloaded models; it is painfully obvious when they attempt to model something themselves vs something they have downloaded and repurposed, but the actions of a few unfortunately should not dictate a change in policy for the all other content creators.

 

2 hours ago, rsc204 said:

  2 hours ago, Cyclone Boom said:

So unfortunately, even with valid intentions (and as much as I'd like to say Yes right now), this is the way things stand in the current climate. Similarly to including an entire model in one's content upload as an external dependency, it would need the author to grant specific approval for a derivative model to be included.

I know @Cyclone Boom you've since redacted this, based on an incorrect explanation of LODs from rsc204, but I certainly hope that you will change your stance back to the original.

We've seen what can happen when content creators get a bee in their bonnet.....it would be awful for a whole slew of your top notch creators to pull their files

  Edited December 14, 2018 by mattb325  
the last sentence needed fleshing out

[rsc204 21,866]

2 hours ago, mattb325 said:

Though true, while an automatic LOD is created by either the BAT4Max plugin or the BAT program, it is only created as a result of a creator having modeled something within the 3d space to begin with.

Indeed technically correct. However, that LOD is nothing more than a plane covering the overall dimensions for the purposes of UV Mapping a texture to it.

Here we see an auto-generated LOD. The X, Y, Z values are the verts. Whilst the U/V values are the mapping values for the texture to be applied. This is just one Zoom/Rotation, you'll have 20 of these covering each zoom/rotation. Note how that is not a box (left), if you tried to rotate this model (which Reader allows), you'll see it's nothing more than 3 rectangles in this case, so the 2D textures can be applied to it.

Those X,Y,Z values are nothing more than the size of the object. X & Z being length and depth, Y being the height. So this model is (LxDxH) 1.45m x1.45m x 4.8m, we can work this out from the coordinates (verts), which is precisely what SC4BAT does. Long and short, it's nothing more than basic shapes based on the size of an object. Such LODs are in no way complex user-generated 3D models. In fact, with a bit of Math, you can simply take the sizes and create these with ease. SC4BAT just uses algorithms to do this automatically.

2 hours ago, mattb325 said:

The creator absolutely must create custom lods from scratch.

I disagree, yes I created those three boxes, but that's the point, it's just three boxes. Even a custom LOD, excepting very rare cases, is not complex geometry that could be considered akin to making an actual 3D model. Seriously, if taking a few boxes and dragging the edges to cover the bounds of a model is so precious, we should protect it, then this is a very sad day indeed.

You know, I did not decide this was OK, I was told by others, respected members of the community whom I asked to be sure I would not be in breach of any rules. And before you try to claim I'm abusing my powers as staff, long before I had such things bestowed upon me too. I am not the only one to have done this, it's not the most common practise in modding granted, but likewise it has been done plenty of times by others long before I did it.

If you really think you are doing the community good by protecting boxes, then I question your judgement in this matter. Frankly as a proficient batter (you), I'm gob smacked that you think this is a big deal.

[mattb325 28,891]

19 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

I disagree, yes I created those three boxes, but that's the point, it's just three boxes. Even a custom LOD, excepting very rare cases, is not complex geometry that could be considered akin to making an actual 3D model. Seriously, if taking a few boxes and dragging the edges to cover the bounds of a model is so precious, we should protect it, then this is a very sad day indeed.

You know, I did not decide this was OK, I was told by others, respected members of the community whom I asked to be sure I would not be in breach of any rules. And before you try to claim I'm abusing my powers as staff, long before I had such things bestowed upon me too. I am not the only one to have done this, it's not the most common practise in modding granted, but likewise it has been done plenty of times by others long before I did it.

If you really think you are doing the community by protecting boxes, then I question your judgement in this matter. Frankly as a proficient batter (you), I'm gob smacked that you think this is a big deal.

There's old saying from the US that always amuses me: "don't tell your grandma how to suck eggs"

Again, a custom LOD sometimes can be 3 boxes, but most times it is not. This is the LOD for my catalina restaurant:

A little more than 3 boxes, wouldn't you say? Let me tell you that all models which need to be used in water have a similar set up. Also, there are some custom content buildings (JP Schreifer made one) which allow you to place furniture on the terraces. The custom LODs on these are not boxes.

The LODs really are not the point. The whole point is the images pasted on the LOD are the artistic creation of batter.

I strongly suggest, rsc204, that you put to one side for a moment your bitterness towards me.

LOD boxes aside, the points that I have raised are a discussion about maintaining the artistic merit and intention of what a creator has presented to public for this game and a change in policy which could easily impinge upon the artistic intention of a model that the creator specifically released, so yes, I do rather think it is a big deal.

[rsc204 21,866]

2 minutes ago, mattb325 said:

The point is the images pasted on the LOD are the artistic creation of batter.

Which is exactly why altering the LODs doesn't matter if you think about it. They are not the creation, adjusting the rotation of a prop or height of a model, doesn't impart on anyone's artistic vision. You know this as well as I do.

4 minutes ago, mattb325 said:

Again, a custom LOD sometimes can be 3 boxes, but most times it is not. This is the LOD for my catalina restaurant:

Yes, of course it could be more complex. But again, that's not really the point here, which you yourself state. Let's face it, this is not the norm, most batters don't mess with custom LODs and even when they do, these are not complex labour-intensive geometric modelling like an actual 3D model. Just a shape or set of them, that together encompasses the size of it, simply for the purpose of sticking on the textures. Sure the custom LODs allow models to do neat things or just place props in gaps that would otherwise be blocked. But they are not the "art" of the creator.

6 minutes ago, mattb325 said:

I strongly suggest, rsc204, that you put to one side for a moment your bitterness towards me.

This argument is plain sad, I really pity you if you think that. You know full well how you are acting and everyone else can see it too. I'm fighting for the rights of the community to make fair use of content. I couldn't be less bothered about you frankly, only in your mind is this personal, I'm doing my best to be objective. Like some others around here, you just will not allow yourself to see things outside of your own little bubble.

Have you considered the consequences of locking down all re-use of content that modifies it in the slightest way? Is your personal vendetta more important than the larger community? Because it isn't for me, otherwise I wouldn't waste another moment debating with you.

11 minutes ago, mattb325 said:

LOD boxes aside, the points that I have raised are a discussion about maintaining the artistic merit and intention of what a creator has presented to public for this game and a change in policy which could easily impinge upon the artistic intention of a model that the creator specifically released. 

There would be no change in policy, it's never been previously against the rules. Either you think I'm lying or you simply can't accept this. I seriously doubt either way I will be able to convince you to try and see the bigger picture.

[mattb325 28,891]

19 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Which is exactly why altering the LODs doesn't matter if you think about it. They are not the creation, adjusting the rotation of a prop or height of a model, doesn't impart on anyone's artistic vision. You know this as well as I do.

Yes, of course it could be more complex. But again, that's not really the point here, which you yourself state. Let's face it, this is not the norm, most batters don't mess with custom LODs and even when they do, these are not complex labour-intensive geometric modelling like an actual 3D model. Just a shape or set of them, that together encompasses the size of it, simply for the purpose of sticking on the textures. Sure the custom LODs allow models to do neat things or just place props in gaps that would otherwise be blocked. But they are not the "art" of the creator.

This argument is plain sad, I really pity you if you think that. You know full well how you are acting and everyone else can see it too. I'm fighting for the rights of the community to make fair use of content. I couldn't be less bothered about you frankly, only in your mind is this personal, I'm doing my best to be objective. Like some others around here, you just will not allow yourself to see things outside of your own little bubble.

Have you considered the consequences of locking down all re-use of content that modifies it in the slightest way? Is your personal vendetta more important than the larger community? Because it isn't for me, otherwise I wouldn't waste another moment debating with you.

There would be no change in policy, it's never been previously against the rules. Either you think I'm lying or you simply can't accept this. I seriously doubt either way I will be able to convince you to try and see the bigger picture.

Good grief.

Again, you have missed the point entirely.

I am, however, glad you descended to shrill hyperbole and a personal attack. It speaks volumes, really.

Let me repeat the point of my objection, not given that you missed it in its entirety, but for others whose judgement is not clouded.

1 hour ago, mattb325 said:

While I understand that your example is only about re-orienting a model; where does such a logical extension of manipulating the creator's work finish? With the tools available now that perform the re-orienting in Tibi's example, a bat can be re-scaled, existing textures can be re-coloured, parts of the BAT (such as baked in ground) edited out entirely, or the model re-textured entirely.

This really does start to impinge upon the creator's intention of having released their model to the public in the original condition. If I were to create a building that is brown and 6mx3mx4m, and someone likes the building, but wishes it to be pink and 5mx4x6m, according to this change of heart that I read above, it would suddenly be OK for my creation to be manipulated, altered and re-released, so long as my files are listed as a dependency?

The tools that re-orient and rescale a LOD can also be used to recolour, retexture, add or remove elements of the images that the batter made in a 3d, which impinge upon the artistic intention of the creator.

That is the point of my objection, not the LOD, but the manipulation by a 3rd party of the image therein. If you are unable to see that, then I respectfully and kindly ask that you please, for the benefit of the community, refrain from commenting further.

[rsc204 21,866]

1 hour ago, mattb325 said:

The tools that re-orient and rescale a LOD can also be used to recolour, retexture, add or remove elements of the images that the batter made in a 3d, which impinge upon the artistic intention of the creator.

That is the point of my objection, not the LOD, but the manipulation by a 3rd party of the image therein.

Then Matt, you have simply completely misread the entire issue here.

The whole reason people typically do this is to re-scale models for uniformity. Rotate them so they will fit into a Prop Family without huge oddities and similar tasks. No one here has suggested changing the textures is fair use, in fact, the entire discussion about S3D editing is predicated on the principal that no one can edit the actual textures, but must link to them. So if we aren't editing the textures, where is your objection, you've literally just said you don't have one?

[Tyberius06 12,267]

Ok I started it, but @mattb325 the situation is exactly what @rsc204try to explain. Of course we can use the model tweaker for a lot of stuff, but the question was about s3d editing, not about texture editing. You can use a knife for very different purposes. Stabing some one is bad, spreading the butter with knife is good... so yepp we have a tool and we can use it for multiple things. Retexturing is bad... but nobody was talking about this.

[mattb325 28,891]

19 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Then Matt, you have simply completely misread the entire issue here.

Most certainly not: rescaling a LOD alters the image and the intention of the creator. There may well be a reason why a creator has made something X x Y x Z. Take this as the original:

These next versions are scaled along various axes. These manipulated images are not artistically the same as the above image.

 

If 3rd party re-uploading of a rescaled creation is allowed, then my point is where does it stop?  

While the re-scaled images bare some semblance to the original; they are not same. The same tools can be used to effect other changes such as re-colouring, retexturing, removing chimneys, etc:

As I have said, simply making changes to someone else's model and then just linking as a dependency is really not OK. You really need the content creators permission to alter their work. That is the point of my discussion before it was dragged into farcical fallacy.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

I suggest we stop belittling one another for no good reason and start bringing the topic back on track; no one wants to see senseless arguing and no one wants to care about it. It doesn't matter who's more right than the other and mindless pedantry doesn't help at all.

[+Guest 760649]

I do not want to say anything about permission, because that does not help anyway.
Just a note to the three boxes.
These are the three boxes I needed for my railroad scrapping so that Gmax's BAT module could make the 2D views.

219848 entities
1260 groups
600 instances
350089 Faces
6383 Edges
883396 Triangles
166 textures

3 boxes just .... 


And yes, I also use it when it comes free components from the 3D Warehouse. Unfortunately, 
90 percent of the models are working so badly
 there that they often take longer to make them usable than if you prefer to do it yourself.
But if someone thinks it's so easy, then he can do it himself, nobody stops him.

 

[Tyberius06 12,267]

1 hour ago, mattb325 said:

As I have said, simply making changes to someone else's model and then just linking as a dependency is really not OK. You really need the content creators permission to alter their work. That is the point of my discussion before it was dragged into farcical fallacy.

Ok but why we should stop with the models? Recreating a lot using one's model is altering the original creator's intention. That was WolfZe first complain against my proof of concepts. 

If you make a model and lotting as a hospital and I relot as a prison, it is altering your work even if I link the model as a dependency. 

So yepp I know there is a bit of difference, but actually relotting is altering the original creation as well. But the common practice is to let people relot other's models. So what's the problem with reorenting, de-offset the s3d files.

But back to the s3d-s. My Heretic Essentials already contains modified s3d files based on DocRorlach's wmp central station and AD station props and models, because he used many offset people and building props which wouldn't fit onto a smaller lot. Same with Blanco_05's bus and railcars or SCF's rail cars. From 5 railcars from the same type 3 were centered, 1 was shifted on one axis by 4 meters the last one was shifted about 3 meters on an other axis... so they couldn't fit into the same prop family. From 5 buses 4 is oriented NE-SW, and one is oriented NW-SE... of course I had to rotate it by 90 degrees.

I don't think these modifications really against the original creator's will or anything. But for example if I want to ask permission, who has the right to give me such thing in the behalf of DocRorlach, who sadly passed away several years ago... 

Your first statement was right. It's a grey area. But again it is pretty much the same how you use the knife. There always be exceptions, you/anybody will always find something to complain about.

If you make a model and I'm using that on a lot with other models and the end result will be a huge penis-shape thingy on the LOT from the buliding props, that also wouldn't be your intention how others should use your models. But anybody can do that according to the current practice.

So if relotting is OK using other's models and linking back to the original upload as a dependency is OK, why altering the copied and re-IID'd s3d files (moving and reorientate etc... nothing with the fsh textures in the model file) and then linking back to the original model as a dependency is not OK. 

There is no difference. 

[rsc204 21,866]

44 minutes ago, WolfZe said:

3 boxes just ....

What you are showing is the actual 3D model in gMax (SC4 BAT).

The LOD, which you can access from the BAT / Parameters / LOD menu, is much simpler. It's procedurally generated and only covers the outlines of the model, here it's nothing more than one big box.

Check it in iLives reader having exported the file, unless you've made custom LODs, it will be three rectangles every time, only larger. Sure there will also be more Vert and UV mapping coordinates, but the basic principle of every such model is identical to how I described it. Yes, I used a very simple model as an example, precisely so as to keep things as simple as possible for the purposes of explaining it. These LODs are not even 3D, just see what happens when you try to rotate it. A LOD does not equal a model, but again that's really getting off point.

What this really comes down to, practically speaking, is the suggestion of placing a new restriction on modders regarding the release of modifications. More often than not, those modifications are harmless and in no way affect the artistic integrity of the creator. Not to mention, the hundreds, if not thousands, of modders who've moved on, that simply can't be contacted for explicit permission. If we do this, then the losers will be those people who will have less choice and less mods, because less mods can be realised as a result.

Here's a more real world example of how this works in principle:

These props are re-sized variants of Heblem's models found in this pack. The original props were very useful, but only covered large areas, the reduced size variants compliment the originals by giving them more flexibility.

Now, this mod could not exist if we as modders, could not use the techniques being outlined here. That is simply one example off the top of my head, no doubt countless others exist too.

The point being, this is a totally legitimate method of modding as things have always stood within the community. To restrict that would be a negative step backwards for everyone. Does anyone seriously think modders are going to go around ruining models, then re-releasing them? Most of this is done for the greater good, not to upset anyone or mess with artistic integrity. Not everyone will ever agree on everything, so let's face it, the rules are as they are, if creators don't like how the community works, no one is forcing you to take part. If you want to argue for a change in the rules, well that's above my (non-existant) pay grade to decide.

[+Guest 760649]

The question itself is quite simple .... I ask before I change something or I do not ask.
This is already a matter of courtesy.
Since this one does not seem to play the least part .....
This whole discussion makes no sense to me at all.

You can split hair as much as you want, for me it's clear.
There is simply no new content from me and good.
The things of mine that are still online to download, it is only because the administration has convinced me not to delete them.
For the reason that there are players who just want to have some nice things for their game without being around doctors.
Otherwise there is nothing left and good.

And eventually, other people who create content will ask themselves why they do the work and then everyone is allowed to fumble without asking.

Then you can someday re-lot your re-lot's, etc. etc. For all eternity ... and ever.Or you sit down and do it yourself ... too well.

Whether the game is exciting or beautiful is another question.
Thanks for your attention, I'm out of the discussion

[Tyberius06 12,267]

 @WolfZe
I don't understand you, sorry for that. What is your objection against re-lotting. Here is an example:

What do you think? Does any of these stations were intended to be GLR terminuses in the first place? NO. Some of them were originally rail terminus, others were pass through GLR stations. It was my idea (inspirated by other SC4 players) to put them together and relotting them as GLR Terminuses. Why? Because we don't really have too many choice in this field. We don't really have GLR terminuses. To cover more area, I even made some custom base and overlay textures. So what's your problem with it?  I really don't understand...

[mattb325 28,891]

45 minutes ago, Tyberius06 said:

Ok but why we should stop with the models? Recreating a lot using one's model is altering the original creator's intention

Yes indeed it is, but it is accepted community practice because most batters use either Maxis props or Maxis tools or prop packs released by other batters for the purpose of lot decoration. It doesn't mean that you are altering the batters model file.

In one of your examples, if a content creator released a model that is offset rendered, then, in the absence of a contrary opinion of that same content creator you have to take it that the release of the model, as is, was intentional by that content creator. 

It is simply not up to anyone else to determine or opine whether the content creator would have a problem with their work being altered. In your example, http://workingman-productions.co.uk/ is being maintained courtesy of friends of doc rohrlach. You could seek permission that way via the web master. But this is splitting hairs.

Please take a look at these two snippets of what I have said a few times now.

5 hours ago, mattb325 said:

This becomes a very grey area indeed. While I understand that your example is only about re-orienting a model; where does such a logical extension of manipulating the creator's work finish?

 

2 hours ago, mattb325 said:

As I have said, simply making changes to someone else's model and then just linking as a dependency is really not OK. You really need the content creators permission to alter their work

This shouldn't be open to such hostile misinterpretation.

A couple of people in the community are asking for a fundamental change to how things have occurred since day one.

I am asking where does this change logically stop, and that if it is suddenly acceptable to rescale and re-release models and simply link as a dependency (in the case of the heblem files it doesn't even appear that the original files are a necessary dependency after all) what safeguards do content creators have over the artistic integrity of our model files?

[mattb325 28,891]

30 minutes ago, Tyberius06 said:

What is your objection against re-lotting. Here is an example

If someone has asked you not to without prior permission, then it should be fairly simple (whether you agree with them or understand them or not) to comply.

Think of it as this analogy.

In most western countries there is no rule that says when you visit a friend's house, you should take off your shoes at the front door. But one of my friends insists that all guests take off their shoes before entering their house. I can either argue with them and risk never being invited to their house again, or I can take off my shoes at the front door and enjoy their hospitality.

[rsc204 21,866]

59 minutes ago, mattb325 said:

and that if it is suddenly acceptable to rescale and re-release models and simply link as a dependency

And this would be where, for the third time of explaining, you would be wrong. It is not suddenly acceptable, it has been a long-standing accepted practice. You are not trying to enforce the rules, but alter them.

37 minutes ago, mattb325 said:

If someone has asked you not to without prior permission, then it should be fairly simple (whether you agree with them or understand them or not) to comply.

OK, but based on that logic, any of the communities values, rules and long-standing methods of acceptable use can all be usurped, just because one person dislikes them. That would be a terrible precedent to set. Take re-lots and re-use of models out of the equation and then tell me where we would be today, custom content-wise? I seriously doubt there'd be much of a community around these parts.

So yeah, on the one hand, if someone wants permission before using their models, that would be respectful to go along with. But it's also disrespectful to come into an established community and think the way things have always worked, uniquely, don't apply to you. As you've said, if we ask you take your shoes off at the door, it's not polite to tell us you won't and then go on to berate that party for asking you to follow their rules.

That's why when a small minority takes it upon themselves to try and rewrite the rules, people should rightly resist it. Heck, if the rules get changed through some means of consensus, fine, we all have to follow them. But seriously, should we allow individuals to decide if the existing rules apply to them or not? Regardless of which side of that you are on, creator, modder or user, that's just plain wrong.

[Tyberius06 12,267]

39 minutes ago, mattb325 said:

If someone has asked you not to without prior permission

Well that's just one of the problem. This whole thing came out of blue. Nowhere was being mentioned anything about anybody can not release a relot without prior permission. I was criticizing WolfZe's Dam, because he baked in every network texture, than modded the NRD4 network textures as streets, not to mention that the whole model was 3-4 meters higher than the ground so it looked wierd and as a mistake (it doesn't matter what was his intention a 3-4 meters off model, I expressed my oppinion, that it didn't look good). After that he asked me how I would do that lot, and when I made an example lot he felt that I insulted his model and lot by relotting it. It wasn't anything about releasing a relot, the fact that I made a relot without asking his permission (but he asked how I would make that lot, and he was curious about how that lot would look like) to show him what he asked me to show him, pissed him off...  

1 hour ago, mattb325 said:

I am asking where does this change logically stop,

What stops the user of the knife to not stabbing an other person, instead of spread a bread with butter. But again. Relotting without asking permission is OK, but modifying s3d files is not? With both method you alter the original artistic intention. It's not a missinterpretation, it's a fact. And as with the relotting the original model is still intact. And we can continue this.
You have a person (man/woman) prop. That was intended to be a simple RTK-1 model and prop. And than somebody/me makes a RTK-4 timed prop from that man/woman model. That's an alteration again. The model is intact (linked as a dependency), but you made a single static person. And I altered it to be a timed prop, which is appearing in given times. It wasn't your original intention. So I went against your artistic intention by making a new prop which is a timed prop now. So why is it different than changing some part of a model (actually not the model, but a re-IID'd copy of some part of a model) to not being offset, or make it align with other similiar models. 
So actually we can not make timed props without asking permission either. Since we altered the model/prop again. It wasn't intended to be timed... I can't even make my own props from your models and releasing the prop desc files... Because what if your person was called "person 01", and I made a new prop and I want to call "Steve"... I can't do (and relase) that without asking permission... Because I would hurt your artistic integrity of your model, which was called "person 01"... at least the prop. 

These shouldn't even be problems, and here we are... 

This is just a blackhole... 

[mattb325 28,891]

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

And this would be where, for the third time of explaining, you would be wrong. It is not suddenly acceptable, it has been a long-standing accepted practice. You are not trying to enforce the rules, but alter them.

It has not been a common, long standing practice. You have found but one example : for what it is worth, you could find dozens more. That does not make it acceptable or broadly implied that the work of any content creators models can be completely altered by a 3rd party without their permission.

Furthermore, you have been instructed by one of your own team mates to stop trying to prove who is more right or wrong. So I will repeat my previous request that if you cannot discuss the issue at hand without constantly feeling the need to say that I am wrong, then desist from discussing at all.

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

OK, but based on that logic, any of the communities values, rules and long-standing methods of acceptable use can all be usurped, just because one person dislikes them. That would be a terrible precedent to set.

Again, what will assist you in understanding that my comment that you are mis-quoting pertains to a specific individual and my advice was how to deal with that specific individual's requests out of courtesy. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that all content is suddenly covered by that rule. Again, and again, and again, your use of hyperbole to detract from what should be a reasonable discussion is beyond farcical.

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

As you've said, if we ask you take your shoes off at the door, it's not polite to tell us you won't and then go on to berate that party for asking you to follow their rules

No where in the rules or the accepted standards of behaviour is it stated that when I upload my model file that I am assigning all artistic to rights of said file to all  3rd parties to alter and redistribute as they please. IN FACT the rules specifically forbid redistribution. Again, your own team mate on the previous page explained this in great detail to Silur.

So, if that is NOT the case, you can point me to the clause(s) that says that any member may alter my model files and then redistribute without my permission

[+Guest 760649]

57 minutes ago, Tyberius06 said:

Well that's just one of the problem. This whole thing came out of blue. Nowhere was being mentioned anything about anybody can not release a relot without prior permission. I was criticizing WolfZe's Dam, because he baked in every network texture, than modded the NRD4 network textures as streets, not to mention that the whole model was 3-4 meters higher than the ground so it looked wierd and as a mistake (it doesn't matter what was his intention a 3-4 meters off model, I expressed my oppinion, that it didn't look good). After that he asked me how I would do that lot, and when I made an example lot he felt that I insulted his model and lot by relotting it. It wasn't anything about releasing a relot, the fact that I made a relot without asking his permission (but he asked how I would make that lot, and he was curious about how that lot would look like) to show him what he asked me to show him, pissed him off...  

Well, I'm trying to explain it, so that's finally out of the world.
When I uploaded my work, it took exactly three minutes to show me and everyone else, with a red-crinkled image, what I did wrong.

That did not please me, should be clear, but is your right.

When I asked IRONIC how you imagine that, you have answered with more pictures of your re-lots.

I think the sticking point is that I did not make it clear enough that my question was ironic and purely rhetorical.
It was and does not matter to me whether my lot meets the requirements you demand.

I should have said it that way, instead of trying it with irony.
My mistake was simple, believing everyone understands my ironic way of responding.
Sorry for that.

But I was really annoyed that you were constantly talking about YOUR models. I've always only seen my model. Lowered, sometimes with other roads but always my model.

And that is exactly what is being discussed here.

I hope that makes the matter more understandable for you now.
Please see this as an explanation. I will not go into further discussions about the meaning and nonsense of rules or re-lot's.

[RRetail 7,912]

I know I'm jumping on this a little late, but as someone who has done both relots and custom stuff I thought I'd share my two cents.

While I was in my relot phase, I'd be annoyed at the scale of some of the buildings and would find them small. So I went through a period where I made stuff bigger without realizing that I was the only person who actually saw the changes. (I was a lot less experienced to say the least, I just assumed it would work for everyone.) This was one of the reasons why I went to do version 2.0 relots that made use of the existing models without changes. In instances like this where you don't change anything but the lot, I feel changing things around or making use of newer props or textures is for the better. It can really change the look and feel of the building. I was able to update a lot of stuff making use of @kingofsimcity's awesome SHK textures. The original creators such as Simgoober or others didn't have that option I assume, though I could be wrong about that.

Now that I've actually gone through the learning curve of making my own custom stuff, I can tell you that I would not be too happy to learn that the building(s) I worked hard on can suddenly be modified and uploaded by others - without permission. However, when something that can be improved by others such as a technical change or something the original creator lacks the knowledge to do, I see no harm for a second person to come in and fix whatever issue as long as the original creator has given permission to do so.

Another one of my hobbies is photography that I don't do commercially. I've uploaded pics to Flickr with a clause asking for my permission for others to use. I originally didn't use the clause, but after some media or news blog used one of my photos where the photo was basically photo-shopped I was annoyed and upset. It wouldn't of bothered me if a tag line of credit was used, but apparently the person felt because he or she photo-shopped it, it made it theirs? I think that the same idea can be applied here to an extent since technically it all belongs to Maxis. 

Since the issue apparently started between with @WolfZe's dam, I'd just like to offer my opinion on the matter. Personally, I agree with @Tyberius06 that the road and railroad textures should be smoothly connected. I will say though that even through whatever technical work that Tyberius06 did, he should never of claimed the dam to have been his. WolfZe did the work.  I think this all boils down to the situation being misunderstood. Tyberius simply wanted to show what it would look like connected while WolfZe was upset that Tyberius basically claimed the dam as his. 

I can see both sides of the argument, I agree that the original files the BAT creator made should ALWAYS be a dependency AND one should ask permission to change anything to do with the building proper. I'm all for relots. More often than not, each lotter has a unique style that can honestly make the same building look differently.

[rsc204 21,866]

1 minute ago, mattb325 said:

It has not been a common, long standing practice. You have found but one example that doesn't even use the original content as a dependency:

Yes it has, there are plenty more examples, I just gave a common one to illustrate the point. Should I start on an exhaustive list? Because there was a specific point I was trying to make about how such a restriction would prevent the very existence of such works, I didn't think I needed to show as many examples as I could find. 

I can't comment on why this specific file doesn't require the dependency it lists, I simply don't know the answer.

3 minutes ago, mattb325 said:

IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that all content is suddenly covered by that rule. Again, and again, and again, your use of hyperbole to detract from what should be a reasonable discussion is beyond farcical.

I didn't say it would, I said it would be a terrible precedent. Seriously, look at your wording here, you accuse me constantly of being unreasonable, but honestly that's pretty clear isn't it?

4 minutes ago, mattb325 said:

So, if that is NOT the case, you can point me to the clause(s) that says that any member may alter my model files and then redistribute without my permission

Likewise, point me to the one specifically stating it's OK to make a new Prop for one of your models? Or that I can re-use a model on my own lot? The rules are simply not that specific, again we're talking about long-standing community guidelines of what is and isn't acceptable. The best you'll find in black and white is the following:

Quote

6. Personal Member Safety and General Site Conduct
Simtropolis is a PG-13 site. It recommended that members do not give out personally identifiable information to anyone else on the site or the internet.

There is zero tolerance for the following behavior:

a) Any material that is the work of another individual but is being represented as original. Permission must be obtained from the original creator, and due credit must be given, before including any element of that creator's work in custom content upload.

Well, that's why this one sits in a grey area isn't it. If you take the view, that procedurally generated LODs are fair use, since they are not your creation, but a by-product of the SC4 BAT tool's process exporting a working model. Just like creating a LotConfig, Buildings Exemplar or Prop Exemplar is, all of which are considered fair use and absolutely necessary for a model to function. One could side with my view that this rule doesn't prevent such re-use. Of course, one could equally argue the opposite, not just for LODs/S3Ds, but for pretty much any in-game object that wasn't created from scratch.

Frankly as I recall, the reason given for why this was considered acceptable was as simple as because we were linking back to the original model, it wasn't considered infringing on anyone's rights.

I've tried to be clear on why I don't feel LODs fall into this category, by explaining for the benefit of those not familiar with the process, just how simplistic these LODs are. It is little more than a few rectangles of the appropriate size to paste the rendered textures of the 3D modelling application upon. Anyone could re-create then with a simple algorithm, you just need the size of the model to make them. Yes, again it gets a little murkier when custom LODs are brought into the argument, but again this is my opinion, I didn't myself decide on this matter.

I'm simply unable to give you a link or quote that absolutely 100% proves this version of events. However, I would hope my standing in this community might count for something from a trust perspective here. I have a feeling I know who it was I asked about it, but that creates it's own problems, since it's totally possible in the intervening years, I've mixed that person up with someone else. Not to mention, another generally held rule of thumb is not to bring up issues from one community site, onto another. Nor the fact that the SC4D rules are almost certainly not a copy/paste of the wording used here.

So since you won't take my word for it, we've reached an impasse I'm not able to resolve at this moment in time.

[mattb325 28,891]

52 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

I didn't say it would, I said it would be a terrible precedent

You did. This is the entire sentence. The word 'can' has been highlighted for your reference:

2 hours ago, rsc204 said:

OK, but based on that logic, any of the communities values, rules and long-standing methods of acceptable use can all be usurped, just because one person dislikes them.

But I have zero interest in the pedantry of these semantics.

Thankfully, the rest of your post is finally starting to get somewhere........

52 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Just like creating a LotConfig, Buildings Exemplar or Prop Exemplar is, all of which are considered fair use and absolutely necessary for a model to function

Spot on. And I am NOT ARGUING that these are not fair use.

52 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Likewise, point me to the one specifically stating it's OK to make a new Prop for one of your models? Or that I can re-use a model on my own lot?

I am not arguing against re-lotting or making a prop examplar or making making something timed (Tyberius06 that should answer your concerns) or actions that merely change a .lot, or .desc file. These are ingrained in the community. But quite specifically, your questions are covered by the Maxis EULA.

What I am saying and what appears to be completely misunderstood is that it is fundamentally against long-standing accepted community standards to alter the created image pasted within an .sc4model file and then redistribute that file without the content creators consent. Changing the size of the LOD by rescaling, ALWAYS changes the image contained within the LOD and by that action impinges upon the original artistic intention of the batter. Of course, if you have the batters permission, there's no problem.

My post on the previous page shows the changes that occur on one rotation when a model is scaled along different axes. That is altering the artistic integrity of the image contained with the LOD. Just because you say that the LOD is "simple" and mostly "automatically generated", does not mean that is suddenly fair game to be altered and the image therein distorted to the whim of a 3rd party and then redistributed by that 3rd party. Again, if the batter gives their permission, no problem. But that's not what is being said here, hence my opposition.

 

52 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

a) Any material that is the work of another individual but is being represented as original. Permission must be obtained from the original creator, and due credit must be given, before including any element of that creator's work in custom content upload.

That is not a grey area: far from it. I've highlighted what I had said time and time again. Permission is key.

52 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Yes it has, there are plenty more examples, I just gave a common one to illustrate the point. Should I start on an exhaustive list?

You and I both know that there are very few examples of where a 3rd party has taken a batter's .sc4model file and substantially altered the pasted LOD images (which constitute the artistic integrity of the batters creation) therein either by retexturing or rescaling the LODs such that the newly output .sc4model file is considerably different from the original. I'm not talking about offsetting or altering previously offset models or just moving them up or down, but effectively creating completely different .sc4model files by manipulating and using the artistic output of the original file. Furthermore, in this exhaustive list that you will provide me which shows a considerable percentage of altered .sc4model files within the 20+K files uploaded to the STEX and the 3+K files uploaded to the LEX, how many of these obtained the permission of the batter? 

52 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

I'm simply unable to give you a link or quote that absolutely 100% proves this version of events

I don't need or want a link to a 3rd party for this, quite honestly, and I have never asked you for proof of that, I'm not accusing you of lying or falsifying anything and I never did: I am a prolific batter and modder and a very long standing member of this community. I have read the rules of both sites, more than enough to abide by them or not, and I am familiar with the EULA which governs all custom content creation. Without wishing to sound haughty, I sincerely doubt that there is anything any other member of the community could say that would convince me that it is acceptable community standards to alter the artistic image of an uploaded .sc4model file and then redistribute same without the original authors permission.