STEX Rules Clarification and Possible Revisions Discussion

[Spamoidutout 124]

5 minutes ago, Jasoncw said:

I just noticed your thread so I'll respond more there, and maybe my response will be helpful.

I just understood you might not know why I was talking about Simfox and Bat4max here, I was about to PM you or include a link, great! 

[Spamoidutout 124]

2 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Technically, I broke the rules in doing this, I note that no one pulled me up on it, including you Matt. In fact, you very enthusiastically said "Thanks Robin!", when I did this. Now, surely you've sufficient knowledge to know I'd altered the "Artisic Vision" of SimFox or someone else's code, no?

I don't think fixing something (because it was obviously broken) should ever be seen as breaking the rules.

[mattb325 28,891]

2 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Technically, I broke the rules in doing this, I note that no one pulled me up on it, including you Matt. In fact, you very enthusiastically said "Thanks Robin!", when I did this. Now, surely you've sufficient knowledge to know I'd altered the "Artisic Vision" of SimFox or someone else's code, no?

I don't wish to wish to diminish any of your opinions, but you called my name, so I'll answer: just on this quoted point, and as you explain, you are coming at this from a technical, rather than artistic standpoint, but I have sufficient knowledge to know that contrary to what you say, you haven't actually altered Simfoxes' artistic vision.

The reason Bat4Max - all the other stuff aside with Simfox that I have known about since day one  - ceased to work is because of changes to the application by autodesk; you have SimFox's Bat4Max which remained static as at his last update and 3DSMax which is continually evolving; at a certain point (2017) the two diverged sufficiently to became incompatible. So, while I understand why you made the comparison you have made, it isn't analogous with SC4 which has never been patched by Maxis since the early days but rather has new had new community tools made for it which in turn open new possibilities. 

Bats and Model Files don't cease to work because they are not rescaled or rotated or altered; and unlike the fix for 2017, as Spamoidutout said, fixing something that has become broken (because a site went down, or a evolving updates have ceased to make the original work) isn't breaking the rules, nor is it interfering with simfoxes original artistic intention.

Lastly, rsc204, thankyou for posting. Even if I don't agree with everything in it and other posts (my opinion is just that, an opinion), this last post is far more constructive.

[Jasoncw 11,949]

So to me it's unexpected for people to see this issue as an issue of artistic intent. I've always seen it as an issue of ownership, and that's what these types of discussions have always involved in the past. Permission is required because the author is the person who owns the item, and while the author might use artistic intent as a criteria for giving permission, that's not why permission is required in the first place.

If the issue is artistic intent and not ownership, then does that mean that someone with telepathy can modify a work such that it's consistent with the author's artistic intent, and then redistribute it without permission?

If artistic intent is the issue, then what about all of really awful relots that people have made, which are very obviously not in line with the author's artistic intent? The argument was made earlier that while the surrounding lot might be completely different the BAT itself is unchanged and has still maintained its original integrity. But that visual degradation from rescaling violates the artistic integrity. But in that case, when someone does a relot where the BATs LODs intersect incorrectly, causing a bunch of visual problems, wouldn't that also violate the artistic integrity?

If someone had an intensely specific purpose for creating a certain BAT, and can't envision the BAT being anything other than what they they made it for, does that mean that any relots using that BAT are forbidden?

In an earlier post I gave an example of changing a minor detail (the nationality of a flag) in a BAT in photoshop and uploading a replacement .FSH in a new .DAT. If the original artistic intent was for that flag to be of a certain nationality and appearance, and changing it is violating the artistic intent, then wouldn't covering up the flag with a flag prop or some other prop also violate the artistic intent?

If someone made a BAT and gave it a function and a name in honor of a family member, and then someone else did a relot where they changed the function and the name, would that violate the artistic intent? Even though that's still the type of standard relot that's always been allowed without permission.

It's hard for me to see how the things we've been doing all of these years have been done because of control over artistic intent, and not over ownership, which as far as I can tell is what the issue has always been.

 

[mattb325 28,891]

That would be me. I used to speak about just broad authorship/ownership, too. I was waiting for someone to pick it up. 

I chose "artistic integrity/intent" deliberately to hone the discussion. These topics can become unwieldy enough without the added headache of the terms of reference being exceedingly broad to begin with.

Within the commonwealth (which Simtropolis is a part of as it is hosted in Canada), "artistic integrity" is a specific part of "moral rights" in visual art, which itself falls under authorship, and of course the dreaded 'copyright' which I don't want to get bogged down with here, for obvious reasons.

The reason I chose this term specifically is because, yes, EA/Maxis claims rights over our creations and the tools we use to create them, but most crucially, because at many practical levels, this site has either never enforced authorship entirely or, recently, moved away from issues of maintaining authorship in certain instances. 

Specific examples of this are: creating new .desc files, re-lotting, allowing lost files to be re-uploaded and so on. I don't want to re-hash the debate on these points either; if anyone wants to kill a few hours, they can read through the preceding posts themselves. But obviously when talking about the image within the LOD (which is, after all, the sum total of the batter's output and the main part affected with a rescale, etc) it wouldn't have been useful to have examples of "'lost files' being uploaded" under the 'authorship'/'ownership' banner. That would have just further clouded the issue and made the suffering interminable.

That's my reasoning behind choosing the specific sub-section of ownership; artistic integrity.

 

[Tyberius06 12,267]

Well, since asking may not hurt and I had the luck to catch Orange-o (who made a bunch of props and those were collected into his TSC Orange Megapack which is one of the dependencies of my essential and also contains original models at least one of my modified s3d files which was earlier detailed and described) so I sent this message to him via Sc4D PM system. (Pl. forgive me my typos and wrong grammar in the original message).

"Hi!

Sorry for bother you, but I have a request. Since recently a topic came up over at Simtropolis whether taking a model, copying its s3d files into a new DAT, reIID the instance numbers to ensure these s3d files not interfere with the original ones in the sc4model files, than with Cogeo's Model Tweaker making modifications on the "copied s3d files" (scalling, repossition, offseting, de-offseting, rotating) can be uploaded without prior permission from the original creator of the model, or the upload needs the permission. 
Well, I made a rotating modification (90 degree on one direction to match the orientation of your other cars what I planned to use in the same prop family) on your Aston Martin car prop, from your megaprop pack, and since I was told at that time, that I don't need permission from the creator, since the original model with its other components (fsh files, bmp files etc...) still required as a dependency for these modified copies of the s3d files, I uploaded these modified s3d files included with my custom essential pack. Your original model otherwise wasn't changed at all, and it's still a mandatory dependency, as I listed it on the download pages and the readme of my upload. 
Well, since still there is a debate about these tweaked s3d files and their sharing on the exchanges, I would like to ask your post-permission to keep my essential as is. (However so far I haven't used that re-oriented version of your Aston Martin car prop) But if you ask me to remove the modified s3d files based on your model, of course I accept it and remove them from my upload.

Kind Regards,

Tyberius06/Tibi"

I got this message from him.

"Hi Tyberius

It's been a long time since I left SC4. I do not understand your problem.
You have all my permissions to play with my creations, and share it with the community.
With pleasure.

 

David"

Now the first person who I showed this message got a catch on it since Orange/David said I can play with them while I was talking about modifications. The thing is that this message tells me two things. He doesn't really familiar with the techniques what I've described, but he doesn't really care about it either, because he moved from SC4.

The other thing is that I think the PLAY word pretty much covers everything which related with Sc4 and its applications and tools, since is still a game what we are playing with.

Therefore my conclusion about this that he gave his consent to modify his stuffs if I wish and share those with the community.

I've tried to send a message to the wmp team regarding Doc's models, but their email doesn't seem working currently so I sent it to @rivit who might be able to give some info about this matter.

- Tyberius

[Spamoidutout 124]

3 minutes ago, Tyberius06 said:

I think the PLAY word pretty much covers everything which related with Sc4 and its applications and tools, since is still a game what we are playing with.

I think (but hey, I'm not an expert and I'm right now entering very grey seas considering custom content modifications) that this is the word we should go by. This is a game, things made for it are also part of a game, why so many headhaches? 

[CorinaMarie 29,895]

2 hours ago, Tyberius06 said:

Quote

You have all my permissions to play with my creations, and share it with the community.

The other thing is that I think the PLAY word pretty much covers everything which related with Sc4 and its applications and tools, since is still a game what we are playing with.

I would personally rule this does mean you can continue doing any tweaking and have permission from the creator. It might even extend to distributing the original model file(s), but let's stay with the traditional method where they are required as a dependency.

By extension, since the reply indicates they "do not understand your problem", I'd say they were already under the assumption what you are doing is perfectly fine and that would then apply to anyone else doing similar things based on their content.

[jaredh 195]

"play with" is slang in English that usually should not be read literally when used in this type of response.   I'd say its especially important to do that here, since we are talking about a game which can be "played" and the language can be construed in different ways as a result of the subject matter (a game)

The language here probably should be interpreted as him saying you can change/use/modify/do with as you want,  especially considering the sharing phrase that immediately follows the play comment.

I'd categorize this use of "play with" to be interchangeable with "mess with"....another English slang.

[rivit 3,402]

I've watched this discussion for a while and favour both the ownership and artist intent arguments

I do feel that the principle of preserving the artist's production (and hence in effect their copyright) must take precedence.  Anything I make from scratch is mine, anything I derive from others work must recognise its origins (at least attribution, often requiring permission). 

So I believe any change to an author's production must remain private unless permission from the original artist is sought and offered.  This is a safe, if conservative position but consistent with usual copyright interpretation which does allow fair use, but does not allow substitution by derivation.  Our prototypical fair use is the new lot using a prior building and props with attribution and dependency.

We start to get away from this if we reissue modified models (scaled, shifted, offset, retextured) without permission because the original is frequently overridden (and often unused - hence substituted by derivation). The acid test is that both the original (which may still be a dependency) and its derivative must work correctly in-game at the same time. 

Matt's summary some replies back, for me, backs this up by giving a number of concrete interpetations of the same.

There will always be situations that require particular consideration - grey areas requiring use of grey matter to resolve, but keeping the principles clear and simple is to be favoured.

In the software world there are agreed methods for modifying and reusing materials - a licence that the author gives from the outset (or doesn't). This is the basis of freeware. If these permissions don't exist normal copyright holds. Also, since we now have tools that can fiddle with the integrity of creations like never before (a bit like manipulating the DNA of them) - just because we can doesn't imply that we should throw away the principle of artistic ownership.

~~~~

As author of a number of Texture/Reskinning mods I do have a dilemma however. These all work by overriding the original textures thereby breaking the rules of the derivation by substitution argument - they can't coexist with the originals. This probably means I should have had permission from the NAM collective to modify "their" streets/rails etc.  In these cases its impossible to clone and renumber the underlying infrastructure (RULS,models etc) as NAM holds the monopoly (like MAXIS materials). So I did it the only way available to me.

In cases like the catenary fix - I also broke the rule because duplication/reconstruction of the existing implementation was impracticable and it was a corrective fix. Another example is my Nightlighting mods of Mandelsoft's LRM mod. This was not published because it fiddles directly with that LRM content and is not a renumbered replica - it's just too extensive to clone. 

I think it would be useful to discuss/clarify the treatment of these cases - as they will occur again.

[Jasoncw 11,949]

imo, the substitution by derivation issue isn't a problem in situations where the original is required as a dependency (for example, with the modified nitelites, only including the night .FSH and not the day .FSH or .S3D). To me, substitution would mean that someone could download the modified version, instead of the original. But if the original is a dependency, then the modified version wouldn't be superseding the original. A .DAT with some weird .FSH in it is useless by itself.

[Tarkus 6,933]

On 12/21/2018 at 12:53 PM, rivit said:

As author of a number of Texture/Reskinning mods I do have a dilemma however. These all work by overriding the original textures thereby breaking the rules of the derivation by substitution argument - they can't coexist with the originals. This probably means I should have had permission from the NAM collective to modify "their" streets/rails etc.  In these cases its impossible to clone and renumber the underlying infrastructure (RULS,models etc) as NAM holds the monopoly (like MAXIS materials). So I did it the only way available to me.

The NAM Team's general practice over the years has been to allow modified versions of the NAM's non-RUL assets to be freely distributed and modified, without any real question about permissions.  That includes not only using alternate models/textures on IIDs that are part of the NAM, but also actually using the texture and model assets themselves, to generate new and/or modified versions of them.  (Hence the necessity of ensuring the people initially contributing are on board with that approach.)  In general, we find the existence of cosmetic mods of that sort to be beneficial for the mod and community at large, and it's really a necessary step in terms of producing them. 

On top of that, you're technically a NAM Team member, anyway.

The RULs are, of course, a bit of a different case, since one of the NAM Team's core purposes is to ensure that all RUL-bound modifications can peacefully co-exist in some form alongside one another, for the community's benefit.

-Tarkus

[rivit 3,402]

Thanks to @Tarkus for the very clear position on (a large class of) texture mods that reskin Network objects, and also why mods to the core infrastructure absolutely need to be coordinated.  Without such a position we would break the game very quickly. Its also why texture, prop and family ranges are coordinated.

 (Yes I am a NAM member now so my comment was a little forced, but I wasn't when I first made RUM and I held off over a year at the time because I wasn't sure if I could/should)

This position is consistent with the treatment we give other core game objects like terrain, water, rock, and sidewalk paving which also are "free mods" unless you make a derivation of someones prior work and want to distribute. e.g. if I make a color adjustment of a CP terrain, or change some grass textures in it then I need CP's permission to distribute it - I can't just pass it off as mine.

@Jasoncw's response is very reasonable if the Night imagery of a model doesn't already exist. It doesn't, however, close off the case that I make a re-color of say a Day render and then post the mods without permission. While its true I still require the model as a dependency I could then disfigure the original from the artist's perspective and be OK. There might be cases of "technical fix" that could be considered acceptable,  but in general its too sensitive a subject in my view to leave free. I think texture mods on buildings/props probably need permission by default to be republished. This is arguably applicable to reskins of automata too, although the only examples we have that I can think of are Maxis items.

[Spamoidutout 124]

6 hours ago, Jasoncw said:

imo, the substitution by derivation issue isn't a problem in situations where the original is required as a dependency (for example, with the modified nitelites, only including the night .FSH and not the day .FSH or .S3D). To me, substitution would mean that someone could download the modified version, instead of the original. But if the original is a dependency, then the modified version wouldn't be superseding the original. A .DAT with some weird .FSH in it is useless by itself.

Wow wow WOW! It's Christmas one day early for me! 

[Tyberius06 12,267]

And now I got headache again, and definetely and really deeply regret that I've ever come up with this whole topic. So I do appoligeze from everybody who might be affected by my stupid questions in my first post in this thread. 
What I realized that nobody has ever realized or cared about these changes. Nobody was complaining against them until this topic came up. But most of us did enjoy all these stuffs and played with them with great joy, never ever worried about hypotetical harms of artistic visions. Niiiiiceee...
I should not have asked anything, so everybody could have lived and played with the game and shared what they created in a happy ignorance. Including myself...  

[Cyclone Boom 17,031]

4 hours ago, Tyberius06 said:

I should not have asked anything, so everybody could have lived and played with the game and shared what they created in a happy ignorance. Including myself...

Speaking from an admin perspective here, please be assured how we very much encourage people to speak out sharing their concerns about these kinds of sensitive subjects. Such issues are expectedly complex, and that's because policies have been established and become what the community has developed around.

However we're open to changes, and as per my previous post, this discussion will lead to amendments of the current written policy. Many people including yourself are understandably passionate about their views on file distribution and ownership, and some might be afraid to stand strong for what they believe in. You were absolutely right in taking the opportunity to ask what was a perfectly valid question (in the original thread which led to this one). Without yourself and others letting their voice be heard, we wouldn't be in a position here where 137 posts later, the precipice of change is a certainty.

As I'm sure some of you are aware, there's been times in the past where such discussions have had many promising ideas, yet have merely led around in circles without a definitive plan to serve as a suitable compromise. There are often polarised opinions with opposing views and sound justifications on both sides. But this time, as we continue to discuss matters, Cori and I wholeheartedly believe something extremely positive can come from the amendments to be announced in due course.

[Cyclone Boom 17,031]

Update:

A quick note to say this is still very much on the agenda. Our other ongoing commitments in and out of the site have limited progress. There's drafted prospective new policies to be comprised and posted here for the Site Guidelines, involving the clarification and additions to the STEX Rules. However, we've not forgotten about this, and unequivocally understand the importance of amendments. As I said previously, change will happen this time, and it will still happen in due course.

Thanks for your patience, and in the meantime we welcome continued discussion in this very topic.

[Wiimeiser 452]

On 19/12/2018 at 9:57 AM, catty-cb said:

We lost some great models when EA Games shutdown the old exchange ... I've still got at least one in my current plugins folder ... mind you I think that might be in the eye of the beholder as its a giant beehive with equally giant bees (about house size) buzzing around it and it was uploaded as a power station ... its been reLOTTed over the years but I can't ever release it as I'm never going to be able to list the model as a dependency.

Sounds like a real shame, too, as there aren't enough "weird" lots in my opinion. I have road jumps, a battery-based solar panel, and a giant rat, but that's about it... (I think I had a loop at one point, too...)

[catty-cb 4,412]

1 hour ago, Wiimeiser said:

Sounds like a real shame, too, as there aren't enough "weird" lots in my opinion...

This is the original power plant as downloaded from the old maxis exchange

No beehive  just a giant flower 

  Edited January 7, 2019 by catty-cb  
added a bit

[Wiimeiser 452]

That looks cool. I wish there were more unusual lots like that.

 

Here are the "unusual" lots I remember having:

I also remember having a loop-de-loop for road, there's a post for it here, but the picture itself was originally on Imageshack, which doesn't host images anymore...

[catty-cb 4,412]

On 1/8/2019 at 12:14 PM, Wiimeiser said:

That looks cool. I wish there were more unusual lots like that.....

I know there are or at least were some pretty weird LOTs on the STEX I came across a few of them while indexing the STEX, here's one

Maybe we start another topic on weird LOTs

[Wiimeiser 452]

6 minutes ago, catty-cb said:

Maybe we start another topic on weird LOTs

There should probably be one made if there isn't already, it's a fascinating topic. Especially since most of these seem to be really old buildings.

[CorinaMarie 29,895]

On 1/7/2019 at 6:14 PM, Wiimeiser said:

Here are the "unusual" lots I remember having:

While I wasn't actually looking for it, I found that Giant Rat Park.

(I was searching for Castles and found the beautiful Havoc Luxury Castle Suites. It's a ploppable residential so I'll need to set it back to a Landmark, but it's one I'll be using.) Then when checking their other files, the Rat showed up.

 

On 1/10/2019 at 4:54 AM, catty-cb said:

Maybe we start another topic on weird LOTs

On 1/10/2019 at 5:00 AM, Wiimeiser said:

There should probably be one made if there isn't already, it's a fascinating topic.

And yes, we seem to be getting quite off topic here so splitting out these posts into a new topic is a good idea. Prolly put it in SC4 General Discussion as it's more a curiosity thing rather than specifically about custom content and questions thereof. It'll be great if one of the Moderators would be so kind to handle this.