STEX Rules Clarification and Possible Revisions Discussion

[CorinaMarie 29,922]

I've been following along here and since I'm not technically oriented for this part of modding/batting I won't claim to understand exactly what's being discussed. But, how about proposed re-writes to the rules that take out the gray areas? Y'all will have to do it as it's out of my league. Once we have two or more sets which can be compared maybe we can see where the line needs to be drawn.

[mattb325 28,894]

^^ Thankyou.

A simple line that stops any 3rd-party altered or manipulated .sc4model files from being re-distributed without the original batter's consent should be sufficient. The only acceptable time I can see a use for re-distribution is where the .sc4model file is corrupted during the render process on one or two zooms and the content creator is no longer active. 

It doesn't mean that existing standard modding work will suddenly grind to a halt, nor will it mean that people can't do whatever they like for themselves, it just means altered .sc4model files can't be redistributed.

If, and only if, there is greater opposition from more than the current two members of the community over the artistic rights of the original creator, then perhaps changes of no more than 10% to a model in terms of scale and colour/saturation might be an acceptable concession (but it still isn't one I'm particularly comfortable with).

If you need an alternative view from mine, perhaps ask your moderator batters (MushyMushy, JasonCW, JPSchreifer, etc)  and show them the FrankU/Heblem mash-up file that rsc204 pointed out and ask if they would be happy to see their bats re-coloured, re-scaled, re-textured and then re-released (with or without their consent) as an alternative file to their own original. If nothing else, it would be interesting to see what they say.

[CorinaMarie 29,922]

2 minutes ago, mattb325 said:

If you need an alternative view from mine, perhaps ask your moderator batters (MushyMushy, JasonCW, JPSchreifer, etc)

Let's just beep them along with @rsc204. @MushyMushy, @Jasoncw, @JP Schriefer and hopefully they (and anyone else) will add their input. What I'm looking for is quotes of existing rules followed by the precise re-write anyone wants to propose. Once we get these out on the table then discussion of the merits of each might lead to a fruitful revision or clarification of the rules that make sense. Until we know what each one feels would be acceptable I feel it's too generic to actually make any progress.

There's no particular hurry so please take time to make it understandable to peeps who know a wee bit about lotting/modding/batting or whatever all this affects.

[Simmer2 23,831]

I understand that I'm new at this but after creating 1000's of models and well over 100 lots I think I have earned the right to speak on this matter.

So here it is.

1) .SC4Models and their respective LOD's cannot be modified in any shape, color or form and then be redistributed unless the creator of the original Model/s gives their consent.

2) On the other hand, .SC4Models and their respective LOD's CAN be modified but ONLY for personal usage.

I will also add that it is ok, at least for me, if the ones that do it for personal usage want to show and tell their work in a public forum but only in pictures taken within the game.

Regarding lot creation.

Anyone that creates  lots can then upload THEIR creations (lots) but must link ALL  props and texture packs used, as a dependency. Credit to the author of such props/buildings is OPTIONAL.

In the aforementioned case of my usage of WolfZe's Pullman building to make a train station, I saw it fit to mention him as the MAIN BUILDING creator even though I DID NOT have to because said building was properly listed as a dependency.

Courtesy goes a long way.

I have created 1000's of props and 1000's of texture tiles so that anyone can use them to make new lots or re-lot old ones. My prop packs are out there for that specific reason. Just list them as dependencies if you are going to upload your work for others to use and all is well.

Simmer2

 

 

 

[JP Schriefer 5,591]

Particularly I don't really care if someone uses my models for any purpose, as long as they give the credits of the original work. I say this because someone can use my work to do something better - or worse, but who wants to download it anyway...go ahead. And of course, we are talking about something very specific here, in which all the work available on the internet made by me or by you simply does not belong to us, but to EA, which means all the rules in relation to this subject must start from pure and simply common sense between us and not really legislative characteristics. Obviously in other RL matters the situation changes.

However when dealing with so many people involved I can not say that my opinion is ideal. I believe we need to be reasonable and each one of us give in a little. I tend to agree with Simmer2, he was very conscious. But I also don't feel comfortable taking away people's option to change something substantially and make it available to everyone just giving the credits. People will always have the option to download it or not. So I agree with Simmer2 suggestions but making an addendum - quite odd: something like public domain. After some release time, the model could be modified anyway. I'd suggest 3 to 5 years.

Let's remind ourselves, folks. If we decide to get involved with every detail regarding copyright here, it will be a mess in the SC4 community that every day we all know gets smaller. I'm hoping Simfox doesn't come back here tomorrow to complain about everyone using their scripts, or Autodesk questioning the BAT members of Simtropolis about using models mostly done in free non-profit software on a website with advertisements, the same with SketchUp and graphic artists who make textures that are often used on models.

[T Wrecks 10,210]

To prevent any misenterpretations, let me start by saying that I am explicitly NOT speaking in favour of or against any side, approach, or opinion. At this state, I'm merely wondering how to proceed. So please, everybody, do not take any part of my post out of context and use it to support your argument against anyone else. It is not intended for that.

Now, what made me wonder a bit about the state of things is this part:

6 hours ago, mattb325 said:

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.

Couldn't I, by the same logic, say that "changing the trees or textures on a lot I originally made ALWAYS changes the visual representation of the lot in game and by that action impinges upon the artistic intention of the lotter"?

I mean, it boils down to the same, doesn't it? I made something that I intended to look exactly the way it looks. And then some guy changes that look and re-distributes an altered version. The only difference is the means employed to achieve that change. Now what?

With lots, the altered version will even work on its own. It might have different trees, different icons, different stats, and be totally different from my original artistic intentions. Nobody who downloads the altered lot because it caters exactly for their taste will download or even see my lot. The altered version is a replacement mod, basically.

With BATs, the original .sc4model file will at least always be required as a dependency, the author will be seen, and the author will get a download. The altered version will be an add-on mod on top of the original.

Now, as far as I see it, condeming the distribution of altered content in the case of any add-on modifications to existing models and, at the same time, seeing no problem with the distribution of altered content in the case of any replacement modifications to existing lots is only logical if either of the following premises is applied:

• A practice is considered "good and fair" NOT based on what it entails, but based on for how long it has been applied - stealing bikes has been going on for years and is therefore perfectly fine, but stealing e-scooters is a new phenomenon and therefore condemnable.
• One thing is seen as considerably less valuable than the other - stealing an e-scooter is a no-no, but stealing a bike is just fine.

Which of the two premises do we apply here?

[Tyberius06 12,271]

9 hours ago, WolfZe said:

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.

9 hours ago, RRetail said:

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. 

That's the point. I never ever claimed that the dam model was mine. When I posted the pictures I was refering that the other 2 LOTs were mine, which is true. The model was always @WolfZe's and I did never said anything else. I showed 3 lots and said two of them were my VERSIONs (modding, lotting, props, but still the base model was always yours) and one was WolfZe's original. LOT. I was talking about LOTs every time. One of those lots was a simple possible concept, and when I showed that I even said that I CAN NOT make model, I don't have the knowladge to use gmax neither the skills. That's why I asked if you could split up the model. I said that if I had the knowladge and skills how I would make that model. I gave you examples how you could do that model other way (and never said that it would be a better way), and I even said, if you don't want to remake the model to match with my taste/demand (it was never a demand actually) - I'm talking about here the idea of splitting up the model into two part, one model would've been the DAM, the other model would've been the rail bridge frame, and the rail track and road network would've been texture based from NAM/SM2 NSB overlays or BSC texture packs -, you could use the model tweaker to lower it down to be align with the ground, and I showed you this concept as well. 
But I repeat I never claimed that the DAM was my model. That was clearly a missunderstanding on your end WolfZe. Come on, I'm working on pretty hard to bring back alive lost contents in the behalf of long inactive players/BATters under their account here on STEX (like I did with Paeng's lots, DMScopio's BATs, or Ill Tonkso's one lost station model) and  I never claim that anything would be my work on those uploads apart from the readme, which is totally irrelevant.

And yes, your IRONY didn't come through, because I honestly wanted to help you, if I dare to criticize somebody's work at least I would like to give technical support if they open for it. I honestly thought that you would be open for it, and that's why you asked how I would do that lot or model. And as I said, I wouldn't do the model, because I'm not able to do that. 
So I assume we can close this part of the conversation.

The other thing.

7 hours ago, CorinaMarie said:

But, how about proposed re-writes to the rules that take out the gray areas? Y'all will have to do it as it's out of my league. Once we have two or more sets which can be compared maybe we can see where the line needs to be drawn.

7 hours ago, mattb325 said:

Thankyou.

A simple line that stops any 3rd-party altered or manipulated .sc4model files from being re-distributed without the original batter's consent should be sufficient.

I see your concerns here @mattb325. But with reorenting/moving the s3d files how exactly changing the shape or texture of the original model? As far as I know these modifications only be present when you're lotting. So for example the image of a DocRorlach people prop wouldn't be 2 tiles off-set in game from the tiles where you placed the prop in LE/PIM-X. I understand your concerns about re-texturing or rescalling, but if we are talking about making black and white rules from the grey areas, can't we establish more flexibility on this matter? Since it's a grey area, it is up to us what we allow and what we do NOT. The artistic intention doesn't suffer any harm by the repositioning of those s3d files, because the shape/colour anything about the model stay the same, only the position would change. 
But back to my essentials a bit, which already contains several repositioned s3d files. I have a folder in the Heretic Essentials v1.1:
Modified Model Examplars (which contains the following files):

• heretic-blanco_05_Rignom_bus_white_90-v2.dat
• heretic-MS_AU_SVacanza_green_45_s3d_v2.dat
• heretic-orange_aston_martin_s3d_v2.dat
• heretic-scf_GW_Rils_652_red_open_s3d_v2.dat
• heretic-scf_GW_Rils_652_white_open_s3d_v2.dat
• heretic-wmp various stations models s3d-v2.dat

Blanco_05 - last time he was here "a long, long time ago..." I went to the french SimCity exchange (toutsimcities) to check what was his last activity - 

• Last visit on 13 August 2012 at 01h01 - basicly impossible to reach out...

Orange - I don't even know what nick is his here, but his last activity was around May 2018 on the french site. In this two case at least I have the chance to ask @Girafe what I can do to make contact with them... 
SCF/SimCityFreak666 - he wasn't here since 2012, chance to get any permission from him is 0 basicly.
MS/Motokloss - he was here at the end of October - sure he can be reached to ask his permission
WMP/DocRorlach - sure I can go to the WMP page and ask there, what to do and I will.

But there are many other cases, where the original author no longer active at all what can we do? Nothing? That would be a really bad practice. Since no harm was made at all. And as you see, I even gave credit in the file names above to the original creators. In the readme of the essentials I mentioned everybody whose props has been used. And in the readme I even left a disclaimer what I've done:

Quote

* Modified Model Examplars - In some cases I had to modify some of the models - modifying the s3d files of the original models - to make some of the propfamilies work. 
Disclamer: in all cases in the original first release (v1.0), I modified the INSTANCE IDs of the new s3d files of increasing the fifth digit by 1 - so f.e. a 0x00030100 instance value was changed to 0x00031100. If anybody made similiar custom modifications on these files that may cause conflicts. 
However in the fist update (v1.1) with the heretic-wmp various stations models s3d-v2.dat files I changed the 5th digit to 6, which means f.e. a 0x00030100 instance value was changed to 0x00036100.

So my proposal is to allow some minor model modifications to other custom content creators without asking the original creator's permission (just like you don't need to ask permission to relot something), but one needs to give explicit credit back to the original creator and since in the case what I'm talking about the original model is still required as a dependency, which can not be part of the upload without permission from the original creator.

- Tyberius

[CorinaMarie 29,922]

While we are discussing potential changes/clarifications here's something I've noticed. It's pretty easy to find the site Guidelines. They have their own entry under the Forums tab like this:

 

However, (and unless I'm missing it somewhere else) it seems to locate the STEX Code of Conduct one has to first go to the SC4 - Custom Content forums and then find it buried in a slew of pinned topics like this:

^ Is that our official and only version of it?

If so, wouldn't it make a lot more sense (and be easier to find) if we appended that to the Guidelines as a separate section? @Cyclone Boom could work his magic and create anchor points so a link saying STEX Code of Conduct would jump right to that section.

And do keep the discussion going with regard to the main point(s). CB and I are both open to re-evaluating how the rules are specifically written, whether that's to only clarify long standing tradition, tighten them up a bit, or make them more relaxed. Feel free to state your viewpoint on either side of the fence (or standing on said fence) as we feel topics like this should not be taboo.

I believe the key thing to balance here is the creator's rights with how best to encourage members who are just starting out making custom content. I presume one would begin lotting and/or re-lotting as a first step so those peeps would presumably be our target audience for whatever we decide. And, ofc, it would apply to experienced creators too.

[CorinaMarie 29,922]

Since the following suggestion will affect creator's rights (in a very limited degree), but is with regard to a completely different aspect of content, I'm deliberately making this a separate post.

As many of you know there is a thing called the Mac 1/1000^th bug. One of the creation tools (the original LE perhaps?) that sets some Rep counters to 1 (or is it zero?) and either setting does not affect the lots intended use on Windoze systems, but causes it to be totally borked when Mac peeps install it. This applies to transportation stations like bus stops and passenger stations, etc as well as schools, medical facilities, and others.

It was established long ago that staff members could fix that and re-upload replacing the author's original only with said author's permission. Since this is an unintentional side effect that the creator prolly wasn't even aware was happening, I believe this is a specific situation where we need to definitively say Simtropolis staff reserve the right to correct these files without notice to the author as there would be no visible change to their creation and I really feel it is in line with their intention to create something usable by all.

Ok. Fire away at me on this, but know I feel quite strongly about this particular suggested change.

[CorinaMarie 29,922]

I have parsed out all of the above posts to create this topic. In two cases I've edited out the name of a particular member (but keep the quote to maintain the logical flow) where their message was quoted since they requested the original topic be closed. Each post that I have edited will display such.

So, this is the new thread to follow. Here's beeps for everyone involved so you can re-follow:

@T Wrecks @Cyclone Boom @Tyberius06 @rsc204 @CT14 @mattb325 @Ganaram Inukshuk @WolfZe @RRetail @Simmer2 @JP Schriefer

 

 

[Silur 3,309]

I didn't think it was such a sore subject. I just asked the community.

CAN I SHOW RECYCLED PRODUCTS in MY JOURNAL. NOTHING MORE!  

What's the outcome now?

I realized that WZ and mattm325 are not for me - I heard them.

All my words on the subject removed.

Thanks.

I hope for further cooperation.

Thanks Simmer2 - This is the smartest position!!!

Thanks - 0 warning points for me ...

 

(translated into English by Google).

[RRetail 7,912]

7 hours ago, Tyberius06 said:

That's the point. I never ever claimed that the dam model was mine. When I posted the pictures I was refering that the other 2 LOTs were mine, which is true. The model was always @WolfZe's and I did never said anything else. I showed 3 lots and said two of them were my VERSIONs (modding, lotting, props, but still the base model was always yours) and one was WolfZe's original. LOT. I was talking about LOTs every time. One of those lots was a simple possible concept, and when I showed that I even said that I CAN NOT make model, I don't have the knowladge to use gmax neither the skills. That's why I asked if you could split up the model. I said that if I had the knowladge and skills how I would make that model. I gave you examples how you could do that model other way (and never said that it would be a better way), and I even said, if you don't want to remake the model to match with my taste/demand (it was never a demand actually) - I'm talking about here the idea of splitting up the model into two part, one model would've been the DAM, the other model would've been the rail bridge frame, and the rail track and road network would've been texture based from NAM/SM2 NSB overlays or BSC texture packs -, you could use the model tweaker to lower it down to be align with the ground, and I showed you this concept as well. 
But I repeat I never claimed that the DAM was my model. That was clearly a missunderstanding on your end WolfZe. Come on, I'm working on pretty hard to bring back alive lost contents in the behalf of long inactive players/BATters under their account here on STEX (like I did with Paeng's lots, DMScopio's BATs, or Ill Tonkso's one lost station model) and  I never claim that anything would be my work on those uploads apart from the readme, which is totally irrelevant.

And yes, your IRONY didn't come through, because I honestly wanted to help you, if I dare to criticize somebody's work at least I would like to give technical support if they open for it. I honestly thought that you would be open for it, and that's why you asked how I would do that lot or model. And as I said, I wouldn't do the model, because I'm not able to do that. 
So I assume we can close this part of the conversation.

- Tyberius

Thanks for clearing this up as this make much more sense to me now. I'll be honest in saying I got the impression you were claiming the BAT as yours, but I simply misread it as you were saying the LOTs you did were yours which would be correct.

I would also agree with @Simmer2's suggestions as that works for me. I feel it makes the most sense.

[mattb325 28,894]

6 hours ago, CorinaMarie said:

While we are discussing potential changes/clarifications here's something I've noticed. It's pretty easy to find the site Guidelines. They have their own entry under the Forums tab like this:

 

However, (and unless I'm missing it somewhere else) it seems to locate the STEX Code of Conduct one has to first go to the SC4 - Custom Content forums and then find it buried in a slew of pinned topics like this:

^ Is that our official and only version of it?

If so, wouldn't it make a lot more sense (and be easier to find) if we appended that to the Guidelines as a separate section? @Cyclone Boom could work his magic and create anchor points so a link saying STEX Code of Conduct would jump right to that section.

And do keep the discussion going with regard to the main point(s). CB and I are both open to re-evaluating how the rules are specifically written, whether that's to only clarify long standing tradition, tighten them up a bit, or make them more relaxed. Feel free to state your viewpoint on either side of the fence (or standing on said fence) as we feel topics like this should not be taboo.

I believe the key thing to balance here is the creator's rights with how best to encourage members who are just starting out making custom content. I presume one would begin lotting and/or re-lotting as a first step so those peeps would presumably be our target audience for whatever we decide. And, ofc, it would apply to experienced creators too.

I usually go to it via guidelines -> 2. Other Rules, and click the link.

[mattb325 28,894]

6 hours ago, CorinaMarie said:

Since the following suggestion will affect creator's rights (in a very limited degree), but is with regard to a completely different aspect of content, I'm deliberately making this a separate post.

As many of you know there is a thing called the Mac 1/1000^th bug. One of the creation tools (the original LE perhaps?) that sets some Rep counters to 1 (or is it zero?) and either setting does not affect the lots intended use on Windoze systems, but causes it to be totally borked when Mac peeps install it. This applies to transportation stations like bus stops and passenger stations, etc as well as schools, medical facilities, and others.

It was established long ago that staff members could fix that and re-upload replacing the author's original only with said author's permission. Since this is an unintentional side effect that the creator prolly wasn't even aware was happening, I believe this is a specific situation where we need to definitively say Simtropolis staff reserve the right to correct these files without notice to the author as there would be no visible change to their creation and I really feel it is in line with their intention to create something usable by all.

Ok. Fire away at me on this, but know I feel quite strongly about this particular suggested change.

This makes no change to the .sc4model file (it only ever changes the .desc file) and as such is standard practice.

[Silur 3,309]

If it's that simple, what are we talking about for 2 days?

[mattb325 28,894]

1 hour ago, Silur said:

I didn't think it was such a sore subject. I just asked the community.

CAN I SHOW RECYCLED PRODUCTS in MY JOURNAL. NOTHING MORE!  

What's the outcome now?

I realized that WZ and mattm325 are not for me - I heard them.

All my words on the subject removed.

Thanks.

I hope for further cooperation.

Thanks Simmer2 - This is the smartest position!!!

Thanks - 0 warning points for me ...

 

(translated into English by Google).

That is a shame to read, Silur.

Simmer2s post is a summation of what I have been saying . My stance is, and has always been, no different.

If you re-read what I have written these last two pages, you will see that I have advocated precisely what Simmer2 has summarised: granted it is a little difficult to be a beacon of shining clarity when I am being forced to fend off personal attacks, but my position is unchanged and it isn't radical.

To the others, who wish to take small snippets of what I have said and then run an argument along those lines from those small words in isolation and make it appear that I am somehow advocating a total lockdown; I've already answered your points in these last two pages. 

I am done arguing with the community on behalf of batters past and present: so, let the community decide what it wants.

If it decides that changes to the .sc4Model file are fair game for everyone on this site regardless of permission having been sought, then, sadly, I will review having any of my work in the public domain.

[Silur 3,309]

Once again - this topic is not about the spread of different models.

This is the theme of the paintings in my CJ !

[mattb325 28,894]

40 minutes ago, Silur said:

Once again - this topic is not about the spread of different models.

This is the theme of the paintings in my CJ !

I'm quite aware of that, Silur, and my stance is take as many pictures as you want! That has always been my stance.

However Tyberius06's post sought to clarify how custom content creators work (specifically making changes to the .sc4Model file) could be altered and redistributed, and the topic quickly shifted from that point on, which is when I jumped in.

[Silur 3,309]

Thank you mattb325.

I think we have already come to a common understanding. or no...

I never wanted to distribute other people's models.

There are so many beautiful things in the world of SC4, but sometimes there is a scary white, red and black color... It kills me...

Me closer squalid brown tones:

Thank You.

[CorinaMarie 29,922]

2 hours ago, Silur said:

All my words on the subject removed.

That would be what I did. It was not my intention to silence you. I interpreted your last posted message in that thread as a request for the topic to be closed because it had changed from being a discussion of your specific questions into a more involved discussion of STEX rules and related things.

I sincerely apologize if that was not what you wanted. I did it because I felt that is what you desired. I most certainly am not deliberately trying to keep you from being a part of the discussion.

-Cori

 

[CorinaMarie 29,922]

1 hour ago, Silur said:

Once again - this topic is not about the spread of different models.

This is the theme of the paintings in my CJ !

For this specific part, I will now have to disagree because I carved out the portions that are about .sc4 models and turned it into an open discussion of what really are the rules we at Simtropolis want to have and how will we put those ideas into writing.

It is in the discussion phase right now and I hope to hear everyone's opinion on the matter. From that I hope we can nail down something which satisfies everyone. (Prolly won't be able to get 100% buy-in, but it's a goal.) I intend to remain impartial through the discussion phase. That means I am not ruling out any viewpoint at all. My thanks or like on any given post is simply my way of showing appreciation for contributing.

What I'm looking for is what will be in the best interests of Simtropolis and the SimCity 4 game from the long term perspective. I, myself, don't even know which way this should go so we need to continue open and honest discussion of the possibilities.

[Tyberius06 12,271]

2 hours ago, CorinaMarie said:

What I'm looking for is what will be in the best interests of Simtropolis and the SimCity 4 game from the long term perspective. I, myself, don't even know which way this should go so we need to continue open and honest discussion of the possibilities.

5 hours ago, mattb325 said:

I am done arguing with the community on behalf of batters past and present

@mattb325
First of all, you shouldn't, since it's pretty obvious that you only represent one part of the BATters community. JP Schriefer said, that he doesn't mind if anybody alters his models and redistribute it (until the credits are given to him) it doesn't matter if one make it better or worse. I know Simmer2 agrees with you on this matter, 
I asked something above from you and I didn't get any respond. Since atm there are no rules for this whole issue, just different oppinions, we read pro-contra why this or why that. If the STEX/Simtropolis maybe LEX as well, since there is connection between the two sites, is making a decision how to move further with these issues (which decision is limited only this two plus maybe two other forum, if I count the SC4kurier and toutsimcities) I don't understand why we can not be more flexible? Since we are talking about establishing new rules to avoid grey areas. So I'm asking you what is your main objection against minor modifications, and under minor modifications I mean, moving/reorientate the models s3d files (of course as I described earlier it would mean the a copy with new IIDs to avoid conflicts with the original). As far as I know, with this method the model's shape, dimensions, textures, basicly everything meaningfull is still intact. 
On the very begning of this discussion you've come up with the concern, that if we would let this, that would lead to allow instantly the major model modifications. But it's because there are no rules. If we would establish rules that this can be done and that can not be done without permission, that would draw a streight line. Instead of ruling out everything led by the fear what could happen if we let this or that... I understand your concern, but still there is a huge difference between reorient/reposition/move a model/LOD on one or other axis without changing anything else on the model itself and rescaling/texturing a model which of course would change essentially the model.
And what we are talking about is redistributing these modificiations. Because without releasing these custom modifications, everybody can do anything for themselves...
Just to be crystal clear. Apart from ME, how many other lotter/modder is working on such projects or worked on such projects in the last few years and RELEASED contents on either STEX or LEX? How many lotter is around recently who release contents anyway (LOTters, not BATters or hybrid - sorry for the poor choice of words)? I can tell you. Currently this number is around 10. About 10 lotters depending on activity are releasing anything recently which involves mainly other's work.
The SimCity 4 is an old game. I would be surprised if suddenly dozens and dozens new players would start to release every kind of stuffs which involves this kind of a bit deeper understanding how things are working (heck I have a lot of grey areas what I don't entirely understand, but constantly learning). And even if suddenly we have dozens and dozens of new people with the necessary how to knowladge and the willingness of releasing these stuffs, with a flexible but streight rule which kind of modifications could be released without permissions and which can not - because they would alter the model essentially - that would be sufficinent, I believe. Instead of a total limitation. 
Because at this moment, you would only lock me and maybe rsc204 down, since I'm the only one who makes these model reorentations/deoffsetings/repositionings in some limited cases and releasing these in the same time. (Well it's actually past tense, since all my work on these modified s3d files are out in my essential pack, and the only ones what haven't been released are some of Xannepan's (JENX), Porkissimo's and N1's parisian models - do understand, not the actual sc4model files, just the copied, reIID'd and modified s3d files - , which were brought align to work together for building/prop families or in some speical cases they got a mirrored/reoriented duplication for the same reason.) And the funny thing that for the next bigger model modification project I already have the permission from the original creator. 
So that's why I don't understand this heavy objection against a bit of flexibility. The golden era of SC4 is over. There aren't 100+ custom content creators (LOTters) out there who would alter everything what they can and releasing those stuffs without anykind of permissions. Your fear and concern has no base in reality. 

Anyway...

[CorinaMarie 29,922]

9 minutes ago, Tyberius06 said:

If we would establish rules that this can be done and that can not be done without permission, that would draw a streight line. Instead of ruling out everything led by the fear what could happen if we let this or that... I understand your concern, but still there is a huge difference between reorient/reposition/move a model/LOD on one or other axis without changing anything else on the model itself and rescaling/texturing a model which of course would change essentially the model.

Me looking in without much personal knowledge, I feel this is prolly where we need something written as a potential rule worded accordingly. What would we allow? What goes too far?

I'd like to see variations from as many peeps as possible for what a rewritten (or added) rule could say. Once we have a few of these we can then debate the merits of each of them. Perhaps we could have different original creator's release levels where some opt for more leniency and some wish for more restrictions. I do propose that we can somehow come up with something where nearly all (or even all) are satisfied that their own interests are represented.

[mattb325 28,894]

On 12/15/2018 at 6:40 AM, 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? With the tools available now that perform the re-orienting in Tibi's example

@Tyberius06, that was my answer to your same question on the previous page the very first time...and I've also mentioned it again on the previous page:

23 hours ago, mattb325 said:

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.

Your examples are still very much in the grey area. It can be argued that you are not altering the image within the LOD, but by altering where that model sits within the game space may well impinge upon the artists' initial raison d'être for having made the model in the first place. 

These props are a perfect example, and the one of the most downloaded examples,  of something the creator specifically made as offset:

Is suddenly tweaking them to no longer be offset interfering with the artistic merit of the creator? I don't know. No one can answer that except Porkissimo.

It's a grey area. However, as I have said about 6 times now, it ceases to be a grey area once you obtain permission from the initial creator.

It is simply not a yes/no answer like changing the actual image within the LOD which can give a strong opinion one way or the other.

These batters uploaded their files on the premise that it could not be manipulated and re-uploaded by someone else with goFSH or model tweaker. These tools didn't exist when they uploaded the files and no disclaimer exists/existed to state that they would be assigning the artistic rights to the website and subsequent re-use by the website or the website's users. These batters are no longer active.

Out of courtesy to all the vast amounts of content that has been provided free of charge, someone needs to at least provide a contra- opinion to those hitherto expressed. I have done that, and made my own position clear in the process taking quite a few hits along the way.

I also took the step of suggesting other batters be asked to provide their input here, so this comment of: "you shouldn't, since it's pretty obvious that you only represent one part of the BATters community" is quite unnecessary.

 

As I said, I am done arguing, and it is time for others to have their say, but I did indeed answer your question. 

Edit: Added a picture, I think it is quite pertinent to the discussion, perhaps others do too.

Just like SC4, the original artist couldn't be contacted and just like SC4, the re-touched version was done by someone else for no money. This picture made headlines a few years ago.

[Simmer2 23,831]

@Tyberius06 As I have stated on Discord , you have my permission to modify my SC4Models for offsetting purpose and also to modify my base or overlay textures as you see fit (which you have already done and I don't mind at all) However I stand firm on the notion that if you wish to do the same with other BATs you should then have their creators permission.

If you either get denied or the BAT's creator is unreachable, then move on to other BAT's the owners of which may still be reachable. Simple!

@CorinaMarie It is now obvious that @mattb325 and I stand firm on this matter.

The ball in now on the community's corner.

Simmer2

[rsc204 21,868]

9 hours ago, mattb325 said:

This makes no change to the .sc4model file (it only ever changes the .desc file) and as such is standard practice.

So we can take an existing .sc4desc file and modify it, that's just fine.

Likewise .sc4lot files, no problemo.

The only time you have a problem, is when we do the same thing for an .sc4model file?

We are not asking to modify your rendered object (the 2D textures), that has never been acceptable to re-distribute without explicit permission.

We are not redistributing your textures or even the original S3D files, this technique requires modifying a copy of those S3Ds, then releasing a modified variant. Modding in this way is pretty much how all mods are created, we take a template, and alter it to re-purpose the content.

You want the rights to claim ownership of the S3D files, but you didn't create them, SC4BAT did. Custom LODs aside for a moment, because that's not all that common and only makes things more convoluted. We are in effect looking to claim ownership rights over three rectangles, procedurally generated, based on nothing more than the size of an item. I'm sorry I can't explain that more simply, but I don't see how you can claim that as your work? That's an internal file format, made for you, for the purposes of allowing your 2D rendered textures to be displayed in game, not something you have created.

I get what you are saying, you are worried people might mess with your artistic ideals. But this is the problem, because that's not how modders have been using this ability. Keeping within the realm of non-custom LODs only for the time being, let's look at the two most prominent things we can do with this ability as modders:

• Centring Offset Props or vice-versa
  Regardless of how a creator wanted it, it may not be possible to use it with the same offset when re-purposing an item.
  We can take any model and move it anywhere we like on a lot? But we can't move the S3Ds, which just gives us more control over that placement?
• Rotating Props
  Really only useful for Prop/Building families. All objects must use the same rotation, otherwise used in a prop family, this can be simply unworkable. Imagine a car prop, 90 degrees rotated from another. One of those, if both are in a family, will never park in the lines. The only solutions are ditching them from the prop pack or rotating the source model.
  We can freely rotate any model however we like on a lot. But we shouldn't be able to do this for functionally necessary reasons at the S3D level?

Neither of these scenarios in any way alter or affect anyone's artistic integrity or vision. That one way of doing it should be perfectly acceptable, but another more powerful method of achieving exactly the same thing is not, is a nonsense.

3 hours ago, mattb325 said:

Is suddenly tweaking them to no longer be offset interfering with the artistic merit of the creator? I don't know. No one can answer that except Porkissimo.

Yes they can. Is moving a painting to a different room, affecting it's artistic merit? Of course it is not, you've not altered anything "artistically", only it's position/location. The artist, excepting cases like the sistine chapel, (because you know, the art is not really going anywhere), is unlikely to consider the final location of their art in it's creation. Perhaps the ideal conditions, maybe, but if I want to hang a nice piece of art in front of my toilet seat, it's not for the artist to decide if I can or not.

Yet it seems that some have an objection to these usage scenarios? I'm sorry, but I just can't see this from the other side, in this very specific set of circumstances. At the very least, I sincerely hope that logic and reason will win out, thus whatever potential rules changes being considered here, won't stop us from moving and rotating items as needed. I really don't think it's necessary, nor helpful, but if an exclusion for items with custom LODs is the only way for others to accept this, I would offer that as a concession. Otherwise the re-positioning or re-orienting of S3D models, should not be restricted or require the creators permission in my view.

We are just moving or rotating a thing into a different starting position, it doesn't change the thing!
I should clarify: We can only rotate in 90° increments, i.e. the same views the game supports. Doing this just changes which rotation is shown when an item is first placed. In every other respect, all four views remain otherwise identical to the original.

Now we get to re-scaling, which I get is a more touchy subject. First off, I want to refer to the images Matt posted, showing some rather ridiculous modifications:

I use the world ridiculous, because I can't imagine why anyone would want to ruin a model in any such way? When we consider what is and isn't fair use, we should not only consider how we are changing a thing, but what we are changing. I have no problem with rules that prevent messing with the textures themselves, just like now. I get how that does cross a line into a place where you are directly altering a thing, so permission is needed.

For the most part, someone is going to make an object a little bigger or a littler smaller. That's a more reasonable actual usage scenario. If you take a print of the Mona LIsa, but it's only 50% of the size, have you just insulted the late Leonardo da Vinci, or messed with his artistic vision? It's certainly not the same as the mess made in the Spanish Church. Once again, the argument of what "might" be possible, is being used to try and restrict us, from a much more reasonable reality.

Again, I believe re-scaling a model is perfectly fine, I don't see how making something bigger or smaller messes with artistic integrity. But, if removing this one part of the equation, would allow consensus, so we could retain the free ability to rotate and reposition models, I could make that concession. That said, I would prefer it if we could retain this ability, but how could anyone word this specific thing, such that only acceptable changes are covered?

• Only uniform scaling (where all three axis' have the same alteration) allowed
• Within limits, i.e. no more than 10% variance between re-scaling of axis
• "Don't be stupid", where obviously silly changes are not allowed

Seriously, I can't see how we can realistically decide on all the potential variations here, that discussion would never lead to a consensus.

If, as modders, we have to get explicit permission to do a thing, in practise, that's extremely limiting. Sure, those active members will probably respond and if you are polite about it, usually open to such things. But, most existing content is not from active members, this is a fact. Therefore, you simply won't be able to get permission to do anything, so you get hamstrung constantly, it's very frustrating. So you know what happens, you just don't release these mods, even though people would really love to have the same things, you can't share them.

I know how to mod all this stuff, I can edit the colours of your BAT, mess with the dimensions, within the technical limitations of what's possible, I can pretty much do what I like with someone else's content. I have the changes I want for my game, but this isn't about me, because it doesn't affect what I can and can't have. This is about the ability to make mods that work and can be distributed, so others can make use of them too. It is sometimes absolutely necessary to make changes, in order to make things work. But if those changes are to automatic, procedurally generated items, why should we be restricted from altering them?

I fear we're on the cusp of taking a step backwards, where something that was possible yesterday, will no longer be tomorrow. This thought depresses me, because as a community we're shrinking and I genuinely believe our lack of flexibility in these matters, only shoots ourselves in the foot once more. Making these restrictions will just limit further, the type of mods we're able to provide to others.

Rather than getting all caught up about the possibilities of what people might do, we could simplify to allow the things we (modders) really want to be able to do:

• Re-orienting (rotating) a model
• Moving a model
• Re-scalling a model

If specifying only these options are allowed, is sufficient to gain consensus and prevent such restrictions from being enacted completely (i.e. loosing the ability to modify S3D files in every case), I could support that. As mentioned above, if necessary I could concede not applying this to custom LODs. I could even concede the point on re-scaling.

I don't believe it's necessary, the current system where modders must link to the original textures and never modify them, is in my mind a perfectly fine place to draw the line. But clearly this is a touchy subject, so if those who are so annoyed by it are really willing to be reasonable. Please see just how much I would be willing to offer in return for securing the ability to move or rotate objects. Because if that is not enough to ally your concerns, I seriously doubt there is any room for negotiation here. Yet I do feel it should exemplify, just how big a deal it is to retain that little bit of flexibility.

[mattb325 28,894]

23 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

So we can take an existing .sc4desc file and modify it, that's just fine.

Likewise .sc4lot files, no problemo.

The only time you have a problem, is when we do the same thing for an .sc4model file?

We are not asking to modify your rendered object (the 2D textures), that has never been acceptable to re-distribute without explicit permission.

We are not redistributing your textures or even the original S3D files, this technique requires modifying a copy of those S3Ds, then releasing a modified variant. Modding in this way is pretty much how all mods are created, we take a template, and alter it to re-purpose the content.

You want the rights to claim ownership of the S3D files, but you didn't create them, SC4BAT did. Custom LODs aside for a moment, because that's not all that common and only makes things more convoluted. We are in effect looking to claim ownership rights over three rectangles, procedurally generated, based on nothing more than the size of an item. I'm sorry I can't explain that more simply, but I don't see how you can claim that as your work? That's an internal file format, made for you, for the purposes of allowing your 2D rendered textures to be displayed in game, not something you have created.

I get what you are saying, you are worried people might mess with your artistic ideals. But this is the problem, because that's not how modders have been using this ability. Keeping within the realm of non-custom LODs only for the time being, let's look at the two most prominent things we can do with this ability as modders:

• Centring Offset Props or vice-versa
  Regardless of how a creator wanted it, it may not be possible to use it with the same offset when re-purposing an item.
  We can take any model and move it anywhere we like on a lot? But we can't move the S3Ds, which just gives us more control over that placement?
• Rotating Props
  Really only useful for Prop/Building families. All objects must use the same rotation, otherwise used in a prop family, this can be simply unworkable. Imagine a car prop, 90 degrees rotated from another. One of those, if both are in a family, will never park in the lines. The only solutions are ditching them from the prop pack or rotating the source model.
  We can freely rotate any model however we like on a lot. But we shouldn't be able to do this for functionally necessary reasons at the S3D level?

Neither of these scenarios in any way alter or affect anyone's artistic integrity or vision. That one way of doing it should be perfectly acceptable, but another more powerful method of achieving exactly the same thing is not, is a nonsense.

Yes they can. Is moving a painting to a different room, affecting it's artistic merit? Of course it is not, you've not altered anything "artistically", only it's position/location. The artist, excepting cases like the sistine chapel, (because you know, the art is not really going anywhere), is unlikely to consider the final location of their art in it's creation. Perhaps the ideal conditions, maybe, but if I want to hang a nice piece of art in front of my toilet seat, it's not for the artist to decide if I can or not.

Yet it seems that some have an objection to these usage scenarios? I'm sorry, but I just can't see this from the other side, in this very specific set of circumstances. At the very least, I sincerely hope that logic and reason will win out, thus whatever potential rules changes being considered here, won't stop us from moving and rotating items as needed. I really don't think it's necessary, nor helpful, but if an exclusion for items with custom LODs is the only way for others to accept this, I would offer that as a concession. Otherwise the re-positioning or re-orienting of S3D models, should not be restricted or require the creators permission in my view.

We are just moving or rotating a thing, it doesn't change the thing!

Now we get to re-scaling, which I get is a more touchy subject. First off, I want to refer to the images Matt posted, showing some rather ridiculous modifications:

I use the world ridiculous, because I can't imagine why anyone would want to ruin a model in any such way. When we consider what is and isn't fair use, we should not only consider how we are changing a thing, but what we are changing. I have no problem with rules that prevent messing with the textures themselves, just like now. I get how that does cross a line into a place where you are directly altering a thing, so permission is needed.

For the most part, someone is going to make an object a little bigger or a littler smaller. That's a more reasonable actual usage scenario. If you take a print of the Mona LIsa, but it's only 50% of the size, have you just insulted the late Leonardo da Vinci, or messed with his artistic vision? It's certainly not the same as the mess made in the Spanish Church. Once again, the argument of what "might" be possible, is being used to try and restrict us, from a much more reasonable reality.

Again, I believe re-scaling a model is perfectly fine, I don't see how making something bigger or smaller messes with artistic integrity. But, if removing this one part of the equation, would allow consensus that we could retain the free ability to rotate and reposition models, again I could make that concession. That said, I would prefer it if we could retain this ability, but how could anyone word this specific thing, such that only acceptable changes are covered?

• Only uniform scaling (where all three axis' have the same alteration) allowed
• Within limits, i.e. no more than 10% variance between re-scaling of axis
• "Don't be stupid", where obviously silly changes are not allowed

Seriously, I can't see how we can realistically decide on all the potential variations here, that discussion would never lead to a consensus.

If, as modders, we have to get explicit permission to do a thing, in practise, that's extremely limiting. Sure, those active members will probably respond and if you are polite about it, usually open to such things. But, most existing content is not from active members, this is a fact. Therefore, you simply won't be able to get permission to do anything, so you get hamstrung constantly.

I know how to mod all this stuff, I can edit the colours of your BAT, mess with the dimensions, within the technical limitations of what's possible, I can pretty much do what I like with someone else's content. I have the changes I want for my game, but this isn't about me, because it doesn't affect what I can and can't have. This is about the ability to make mods that work and can be distributed so others can make use of them too. It is sometimes absolutely necessary to make changes, in order to make things work. But if those changes are to automatic, procedurally generated items, why should we be restricted from altering them?

I fear we're on the cusp of taking a step backwards, where something that was possible yesterday, will no longer be tomorrow. This thought depresses me, because as a community we're shrinking and I genuinely believe our lack of flexibility in these matters, only shoots ourselves in the foot once more. Making these restrictions will just limit further, the type of mods we're able to provide to others.

Rather than getting all caught up about the possibilities of what people might do, we could simplify to allow the things we (modders) really want to be able to do:

• Re-orienting (rotating) a model
• Moving a model
• Re-scalling a model

If specifying only these options are allowed, is sufficient to gain consensus and prevent such restrictions from being enacted completely (i.e. loosing the ability to modify S3D files in every case), I could support that. As mentioned above, if necessary I could concede not applying this to custom LODs. I could even concede the point on re-scaling.

I don't believe it's necessary, the current system where modders must link to the original textures and never modify them, is in my mind a perfectly fine place to draw the line. But clearly this is a touchy subject, so if those who are so annoyed by it are really willing to be reasonable. Please see just how I would be willing to offer in return for securing the ability to move or rotate objects. Because if that is not enough to ally your concerns, I seriously doubt there is any room for negotiation here.

 

Again, I will repeat that there is no clause or disclaimer on this or any other website that states the artistic integrity belongs to the website and the artistic integrity can be altered by others and re-uploaded. All the batters uploaded their work in good faith on the premise that it would not be subsequently altered and re-released. This is a fundamental change and you want to make it retrospective, which is a really big call.

Again, there is no issue if permission is obtained; if you say you as a modder feel unnecessarily hamstrung by an absent content creator not able to readily consent, then pick another model from another content creator, or as you are a batter, make another model.

Now, to one of your points: scaling certainly does change the artistic look of a model (apologies Twrecks, I am showing your work here, but it is to illustrate how it is changed).

Original:

Rescaled (and recoloured)

Now I know this has also been re-coloured, and let's set that aside for a minute to simply focus on the effects of rescaling.

The clearest, and most obvious change is to the roof texture. The colour shift of approx RGB 89 84 80 to RGB 122 114 103 does not account for the new, strange moire-like pattern on the roof, the scaling does. There are a number of other similar examples, but the roof of the second scaled image is clearly, artistically not the same as the original and its artistic integrity is therefore altered.

T Wrecks said the result, in his own words, "acceptable". (ie neither good nor bad)

So far, it exists only on Twrecks' computer. So no problem, but if we change the rules and a re-scaled version of that apartment is released, would JBSimio think that change is a good one? Maybe, maybe not. But under your version, we really would not know as permission wouldn't need to be obtained.

Just like the image I posted which you called ridiculous (before you jump down my throat, I know what you are referring to, see how much easier it can be?), the lady who butchered that painting and the priest who let her do it, fronted the media and told the world they thought it was better. I think they may have subsequently changed their tune after ridicule, but the point is, allowing others to change the artistic integrity of the original creators work is fraught with matters of taste and judgement outside the work of the original content creator's wishes.

As for taking a step backwards, there is still plenty of new content being released all the time: the argument of changing the work of other creators for the purpose of utility as though it is somehow abandonedware simply doesn't add up.

 

 

[rsc204 21,868]

Wonderful Matt, even when someone is willing to sacrifice almost everything to find a solution, you have absolutely no intention of negotiating.

19 minutes ago, mattb325 said:

Again, I will repeat that there is no clause or disclaimer on this or any other website that states the artistic integrity belongs to the website and the artistic integrity can be altered by others and re-uploaded. All the batters uploaded their work in good faith on the premise that it would not be subsequently altered and re-released. This is a fundamental change and you want to make it retrospective, which is a really big call.

I've already told you and you've told me you didn't dispute it, that the change is the other way around. It totally was OK to do this. Honestly, you can't even keep a consistent line on this issue.

Seriously, there is no point discussing anything with you, because you have no flexibility. Why do you care if we rotate a model or move it? Seriously, I've conceded every other point in an attempt to find an acceptable solution?

[mattb325 28,894]

2 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Wonderful Matt, even when someone is willing to sacrifice almost everything to find a solution, you have absolutely no intention of negotiating.

I've already told you and you've told me you didn't dispute it, that the change is the other way around. It totally was OK to do this. Honestly, you can't even keep a consistent line on this issue.

Seriously, there is no point discussing anything with you, because you have no flexibility. Why do you care if we rotate a model or move it? Seriously, I've conceded every other point in an attempt to find an acceptable solution?

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough for you.

 

In my post above, with you, I am talking about scaling.

 

I have made thoughts clear with Tyberius06 on rotating/offsetting in three separate posts. I didn't think that I need to spell them all out yet again. So, for the record and now for the fourth time in two pages, rsc204; on the subject of rotating and offsetting it is a grey area. On the subject of scaling, the artistic integrity is likely to be altered as the images above show.

On the subject of asking permission from the original content creator prior to changing their .sc4model files, for approximately the 8th or 9th time, it removes any and all confusion.

I hope that clarifies any misunderstanding, if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask.

[rsc204 21,868]

5 minutes ago, mattb325 said:

I didn't think that I need to spell them all out yet again. So, for the record and now for the fourth time in two pages, rsc204; on the subject of rotating and offsetting it is a grey area.

Saying it's a grey area is neither agreeing nor disagreeing is it? So how can you expect me to clearly understand, if you don't give a clear answer?

6 minutes ago, mattb325 said:

On the subject of asking permission from the original content creator prior to changing their .sc4model files, for approximately the 8th or 9th time, it removes any and all confusion.

??? Again, there is no clear statement there. I'm not stupid, I can read and I get your overall position on the matter. Which is precisely why in context of the whole, my position can be condensed into one simple question:

Would it be acceptable to continue allowing for people to offset and rotate models, without requiring permission. If that meant any other modifications were no longer allowed, without obtaining explicit permission?

You know, you could just get to the main point, rather than seeking to pull apart everything else, which was only intended to give context to my argument.