Modding Ethic/Courtesy Rules (Agreed)

[Kpt. Lehmann]

@Webster,

I appreciate your thoughts. I will respond properly in a bit. I have some real life stuff stacking up atm. You've given me some ideas too. (of the positive sort I think.)

[CaptainCox]

I would like to link this discussion to the SH4 section...could a Moderator do that please ?

I also added this to my latest MOD...its a start, any recommendations would be more then welcome.

Captain Midnight's
MORE CBS NEWS! MOD v1.2
Made by
CAPTAIN COX
Added 103 more news events, thats 161 in total!
Added some Captain Midnight radio episodes
and some more commercials
Removed ALL! music as I think people have different
tastes and there is also the copyright issue.
To add your own music to the CBS Radio channel,
simply dump your mp3 files in:
Captain Midnights MORE CBS NEWS! MOD v1,2\Data\Sound\Radio\CBS NEWS

Install:
Simply use with JSGME
If you don't have it get it here:
http://www.users.on.net/~jscones/software/products.html

Enjoy!

DISCLAIMER:
This mod can be included or used with other mods or mod packs
under the condition that CAPTAIN COX is mentioned as the creator
in the readme as well as in any release forum post related to the mod or mod pack
that includes it.

If you still need to contact me as to regards of above disclaimer please contact me at Captain_Cox3@hotmail.de

[JScones]

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

asking permission to use the mod - forget it, your in fantasy land. a free mod for free download to the public carries no such obligation. asking modders to do this will discourage the sharing of new mods that didn't go to all that trouble.

This is rubbish. I release freeware which is used much wider than just the Subsim community. I have certain clauses in my licence agreements that state that contact must be made with me under certain circumstances.

Thus I receive much email, particularly from magazines, seeking permission to use my software. I've never said no, and now I have a nice selection of international computer magazines that have all featured my software on cover cds and the like.

My view is, if people really want what I offer, they will contact me as per *my* wishes. If not, then que sera sera, they don't use my product. Arrogant? Yes, but I stand by the quality of my product and have too much integrity to "sell myself out".

If a modder wants to be contacted each and every time, that's their call. If a modder doesn't want to be contacted each and every time, that's their call.

Just because something is free doesn't mean that you lose all rights as the creator.

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

as for a modder including an email addy for contact - get real, who wants tons of spam and repetative emails every day not to mention the occasional critic.

Never bothered me. My email address is plastered all through my releases. Spam is very minor (maybe two pieces a day).

Criticism comes too. And questions by the tonne-ful. Permission to use requests, regularly.

My point here is that you can not assume the voice of the community. Each modder can make up their own mind how, if at all, they want to be contacted.

And any guidelines must provide this flexibility.

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

as for mods without credits or read me i say anything out there is fair game and free to use without restrictions on how you use it. contrary to some views i have read, it is not my obligation to spend my time and effort searching for a modder who did not include the info i need to credit him when he made his mod download.

Agreed. For mine, no readme/credit file means it's released as PD.

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

i think we are going too far into the minutia of the credit issue where we should look more at helping the modders made their mods better with read me's that explain just what the mod does, any credits given as needed, and what i see lacking in most mods is a date and/or a version number for the mod.

I see the need for a set of mod-use guidelines and a helpful set of modder hints.

The latter being some suggestions for modders on how to compose their readme files. Mainly for the new guys, and not a template per se, moreso a list of points that they should aim to address. For this, a lot has been done in this thread by Ducimus and danlisa. All that's needed to be added is date and version quoting (leaving the *how* up to the modder) and an example of how best to list file changes and record change logs. Fortunately this wouldn't be hard to collate though, as I think *all* of the larger mods do this well.

This aspect will help address future mod releases by empowering the *modder* to decide use-instructions.

This part can be done in about 10 minutes. Just needs to state what should be included, such as:

-mod name
-mod version
-mod release date
-author's name
-mod description

-installation and other related use information (such as preferred settings and so on)

-changelog for each version, ie:
v1.1 (date)
- Added something... (list files changed)
- Removed something... (list files changed)
- Updated something... (list files changed)
- Increased something... (list files changed)
v1.0 (date)
etc

-use conditions and contact information. The stuff that Ducimus and danlisa has quoted in this thread.

(feel free to add/remove items)

That will then get the tips for modders out of the way and if adopted will alleviate a lot of the angst in subsequent crediting.

Perhaps if people find it easier to chunk the issue this way, this aspect can be finalised first and put into place whilst the crediting guidelines continue to be developed? At least the fostering of new modders can be separated from the crediting issue, which tbh I don't see as affecting new modders anyway.

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

don't get me wrong here kpt. i feel you are the injured party in the past drama that occured but as it seems now you are sounding like you want to go overboard and instead of guidlines to follow you want rules and punishments for not following these rules. the punishments and enforcing the rules part is where i disagree with you. that i fear will spell the deathnel here as it will turn off members new and old.

Yes. I must admit, I am uncomfortable with some of the "punishment" and "rules" talk.

Calling them rules, seeking punishment and all that kind of talk will do nothing other than turn people off quick smart. These are not rules. They are not enforecable. And nor is it up to the administrators of this board to determine guilt (outside of the forum rules that we all must abide by).

They are guidelines. Their adoption should be fostered by the community. The aim here is to avoid ambiguity, confusion and misunderstanding within the community, not provide a piece of paper that can be used to hang someone. People that see the positive result that the guidelines provide will adopt them.

Now people that choose to ignore the guidelines can do so, free from whipping, however, they must realise what doing so does to their credibility and social standing within the submarine simulator community. We've seen one guy kicked out of almost every forum. Another guy has now upset two of the major "supermods" and ends up with closed threads wherever he goes. At least with guidelines in place it provides some kind of moral high ground for the allegers to take over the perpetrators, thus making the allegers less of a target for abuse when raising their concerns.

Conversely, the guidelines will also provide protection for modders that do attempt to do the right thing, but still get "pinged" by a disgruntled modder at some point (ie if an original mod included no readme files or whatever).

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Very well... I can see how the term "rules" does imply organized and enforced punishments for violations.

I will stop using "rules" and "guidelines" interchangeably to prevent confusion.

However, I will not step back from the idea that modding guidelines need to be put in place in the modding workshops here at subsim... and as JScones states, these guidelines should be fostered by the community.

Further ideas later on how to proceed.

Another clarification: What I refer to above as "Finally, dealing with it is where a little guts are required" is in reference to this entire matter. It is a non-specific statement.

[Von Manteuffel]

The "credit" and "plagiarism" issue doesn't concern me directly. I couldn't mod my way out of a paper sack; but I am concerned that the issue could severely damage and/or fragment the Subsim modding community which, I believe, should be prevented at all costs.

Someone earlier mentioned that people might need lawyers if this thread follows a certain path. I've consulted several friends who are lawyers, some of them copyright specialists and the message is plain and simple. Essentially, in most jurisdictions, modders own the copyright of their mods ( if in no other form than owning the intellectual copyright to their work ) The fact that mods are made available for download and use, free of charge is an irrrelevance. A modder can give away, rent, or sell his mods, with, or without conditions, but the means of distribution and terms of use do not remove, or diminish the modder's ownership of his, or her own work.

So, the GWX team own the GWX mod. They released it for free use by players,
( God bless 'em) but just because no money has changed hands doesn't mean that their work, or that of any other modder, is "up for grabs." No-one has the right to use the property ( intellectual, or otherwise ) of another person, or persons without the permission of that person, or persons. In making GWX and other mods available free of charge, the modders are giving us, the users, permission to downlaod and use their work as presented. It is legally, ethically and morally wrong for anyone to use someone else's propertry as a basis for his, or her own work without seeking the permission of the original owner - whether the original owner states that this is a requirement, or not.

For example, believe it, or not, I own this post to this thread. The fact that I have chosen to post it so that people can read it freely does not diminish the intellectual copyright I hold over it. So, if anyone were to use my words in a form which was identifiable as being taken from this post, or seek to publish it anywhere else in the world in other forums, or in print etc. they should ask my permission to do so. ( an extreme and ridiculous example, used purely for effect, but legally accurate.)

So, the situation re. mods based on other mods is, essentially, very simple. Anyone wishing to use a previous mod as a basis for a new one should request the permission of the original modder - preferably before starting work on their new mod. Every mod to every computer game has, in law, an owner. Their rights are inviolable, whether stated, or not. In short, just because you can get something for free doean't mean you can mess about with it, change it, or use it as the basis for something else. The unwritten contract users have with modders is a permission from them to incorporate their mods into our individual gaming experience- nothing more.

True, there are grey areas, but not nearly as many as some people seem to believe.
For example, TedHealey graciously credits me with kick-starting an idea for a radio mod for SHIV in his mind. Before embarking on a mod very similar to his work, I asked his permission - even though he says the idea was partially mine in the first place. Why?
a) because it's the reasonable, open, courteous and honest way to go about things
and b) because it was TedHealey, not I who discovered and posted the way of editing the files necessary to make the mod ( the idea I kick-started) work.

The problem, of course, lies in policing and redress should someone decide, in effect, to break the law. But that's where reasonableness, co-operation, honesty, courtesy and decency come into play - qualities which abound in Subsim.

If those who feel that their work has been misappropriated wish to sue, they can do and they'd probably win - but the only ones who would benefit would be the lawyers. So, in the absence of any form of redress ( and I share Jaeson's worries about "punishments" - as well as doubting that any could be devised which would be effective, or enforceable. He is also correct when he points out that it is not the role of the Subsim Moderators to decide guilt and innocenc) we have to rely on people

a) understanding the law and b) doing the right thing.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Well said von Manteuffel.

Bless you for taking the time to post that.

[heartc]

Originally Posted by Von Manteuffel

Someone earlier mentioned that people might need lawyers if this thread follows a certain path. I've consulted several friends who are lawyers, some of them copyright specialists and the message is plain and simple. Essentially, in most jurisdictions, modders own the copyright of their mods ( if in no other form than owning the intellectual copyright to their work ) The fact that mods are made available for download and use, free of charge is an irrrelevance. A modder can give away, rent, or sell his mods, with, or without conditions, but the means of distribution and terms of use do not remove, or diminish the modder's ownership of his, or her own work.

So, the GWX team own the GWX mod.

I think this is incorrect. Do those lawyers know what an EULA is? Original game files which were modified are still owned by UBISOFT, as the originals are the property of UBISOFT and when we come really down to it, were "illegally" modified in the first place. Now, most companies have no problems with people creating mods - as it might well increase popularity of the game - but if GWX or any Modder / Mod Team would go and decide charging money for their mod or claim any rights to it without first reaching an agreement with UBISOFT - which in all probability would include paying them money for the licence to modify and sell UBISOFTS / the Dev teams IP - they would get severely ***-raped by UBISOFT.

I quote:

1- The Licence

Ubisoft grants the User a non-exclusive and non-transferable Licence to use the Multimedia Product, but remains the owner of all the rights relating thereto.
Any rights not specifically transferred by this Licence remain the property of Ubisoft.
The Multimedia Product is licensed and not sold to the User, for private use.
The Licence does not confer any right or title to the Multimedia Product and cannot be understood as a transfer of intellectual property rights to the Multimedia Product.

2- Ownership of the Multimedia Product

The User recognises that all of the rights associated with the Multimedia Product and its components (in particular the titles, computer codes, themes, characters, character names, plots, stories, dialogues, places, concepts, images, photographs, animation, videos, music and text contained in the Multimedia Product), as well as the rights relating to the trademark, royalties and copyrights, are the property of Ubisoft and are protected by French regulations or other Laws, Treaties and international agreements concerning intellectual property.

3- Use of the Multimedia Product

The User is authorised to use the Multimedia Product in accordance with the instructions provided in the manual or on the packaging of the Multimedia Product.
The Licence is granted solely for private use.

It is not permitted:
- To make copies of the Multimedia Product,
- To operate the Multimedia Product commercially,
- To use it contrary to morality or the laws in force,
- To modify the Multimedia Product or create any derived work,
- To transmit the Multimedia Product via a telephone network or any other electronic means, except during multi-player games on authorised networks,
- To create or distribute unauthorised levels and/or scenarios,
- To decompile, reverse engineer or disassemble the Multimedia Product.

Originally Posted by Von Manteuffel

No-one has the right to use the property ( intellectual, or otherwise ) of another person, or persons without the permission of that person, or persons.

... or company - UBISOFT.

In making GWX and other mods available free of charge, the modders are giving us, the users, permission to downlaod and use their work as presented.

They cannot bind us to any rights or obligations legally about property which is still UBISOFT's.

It is legally, ethically and morally wrong for anyone to use someone else's propertry as a basis for his, or her own work without seeking the permission of the original owner - whether the original owner states that this is a requirement, or not.

Read that quote of yours again. Notice something? Who is the original owner of SHIII and the IP thereto?

So, the situation re. mods based on other mods is, essentially, very simple.

Correct. It is a completely mood point from a legal perspective, since either modder doesn't own any IP over the original or modified files unless he has reached an agreement with the IP holder - UBISOFT - beforehand, which would supersede the original EULA, and has actually broken the License agreement unless he does so when we come down to it.

He is also correct when he points out that it is not the role of the Subsim Moderators to decide guilt and innocenc) we have to rely on people

a) understanding the law and b) doing the right thing.

About point a) - I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure the lawyer friends you consulted have finished their degrees yet either...

From a legal standpoint alone, this whole debate is mood.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by heartc

From a legal standpoint alone, this whole debate is mood.

No. That's your opinion.

[heartc]

Originally Posted by Kpt. Lehmann

No. That's your opinion.

Care to elaborate on that? Did you reach a new agreement with UBISOFT that supersedes the original EULA, cause otherwise I cannot see how this is an opinion as opposed to a fact.

[danlisa]

@ Manteuffel

A well thought out and presented post, thank you.

@ All

We are in danger of revisiting the age old issue of legality. It has been hashed out & discussed so many times before. I believe we have reached conclusions on this matter to an adequate point.

In short, UBI own the commercial & intellectual rights to the game and as heartc states even if a modder changes/edits files, they still legally belong to UBI but we are not in a court of law, we are in a community where most people wish to do the right thing while making the game we all love better.

Please, lets not go down this path of legality again.

What we are trying to establish here are guidelines which the community can respect and work to. Not only for the sake & ease of any modder but for the benefit of the entire community. This will help with future releases and also, hopefully, lead to a correct proceedure when wanting to use older mods. That's all.

We are not trying to set presidence here, in fact many of the ideas put forward in this thread have been 'unwritten' guides for a long time however, now is the time to get these guidelines agreed upon and 'put out there' for all to see and work too, if they so wish. They will not be forced upon anyone but it is a recourse to fall back on if an issue should arise in the future.

[Von Manteuffel]

Absolutely. The assumption is that Ubisoft, or any other company which licences a game for use tolerate mods because, as you point out, mods cannot be used without purchasing the original game and could well serve to add to a game's longevity.

Since Ubisoft's lawyers have never come a-knocking on the doors of the modders ( I understand that there's even constructive dialogue between the Dev Team and some modders ) the other assumption is that Ubisoft are happy to have their games modded and are content to turn a blind-eye to those parts of the license which deal with modifying, transmitting etc.

That said, if we set aside the essential "illegality" of modding a game, as the developers seem content to do, the basics of intellectual copyright apply to mods and additions not created by Ubisoft. I don't think it's ever been tested in court, but the question as to who owns the intellectual property involved in a mod could be hard fought by both the madders and the original developers. Since modding is not done for personal profit and the developers seem content to allow it to happen, there's a good chance a court would find that the modders own the intelelctual copyright of their own work.

As you say, it's moot, but I do believe we all ought to behave within the spirit of the law and acknowledge the "ownership" modders have over their work.

[heartc]

Originally Posted by danlisa

@ Manteuffel

A well thought out and presented post, thank you.

@ All

We are in danger of revisiting the age old issue of legality. It has been hashed out & discussed so many times before. I believe we have reached conclusions on this matter to an adequate point.

In short, UBI own the commercial & intellectual rights to the game and as heartc states even if a modder changes/edits files, they still legally belong to UBI but we are not in a court of law, we are in a community where most people wish to do the right thing while making the game we all love better.

Please, lets not go down this path of legality again.

I agree, but this is exactly what Von Manteuffel has done and presented the legal situation completely incorrect. So how can members of the GWX team - which are already familiar with the legal situation I assume - confirm his post?
He would of course be completely correct though if the EULA would include the transfer of the IP to the customer, or if GWX would be a standalone product completely build up from the ground.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by heartc

Care to elaborate on that? Did you reach a new agreement with UBISOFT that supersedes the original EULA, cause otherwise I cannot see how this is an opinion as opposed to a fact.

Yes, I do care to elaborate.

It is your opinion that the whole debate is "moot."

[heartc]

Originally Posted by Von Manteuffel

That said, if we set aside the essential "illegality" of modding a game, as the developers seem content to do, the basics of intellectual copyright apply to mods and additions not created by Ubisoft. I don't think it's ever been tested in court, but the question as to who owns the intellectual property involved in a mod could be hard fought by both the madders and the original developers. Since modding is not done for personal profit and the developers seem content to allow it to happen, there's a good chance a court would find that the modders own the intelelctual copyright of their own work.

As you say, it's moot, but I do believe we all ought to behave within the spirit of the law and acknowledge the "ownership" modders have over their work.

I really mean no offense, but it's just a fact that from a legal perspective - which you took in your initial post - the situation you described does simply not apply and is incorrect in the case at hand, regardless whether UBISOFT's lawyers would act on it or not. The deal was done and legalities settled the moment you "I Agree" to the EULA on installation of the game.

As to your last point, I agree with you, as this is then not about legality but about "Modding Ethics/Courtesy Rules" which this thread is meant to be about and the original poster knew why he called it ethics as opposed to legality.
It's just pointless though to then derail his own thread from there by confirming a legal description of the situation which does not apply / is incorrect.

Really, I myself would never have a problem with crediting other people for their work and seek their permission if I want to use it or build uppon it, but this really is about courtesy, and as soon as you start trying to formulate a binding ruleset that should even be enforced by the moderators here, you might well end up talking about legality which would make it mood again. And this is what happened here.

[danlisa]

@ heartc

Would you mind if we discussed this via PM? I don't feel this issue of legality etc is required in this thread.

Infact, I suspect a moderator will eventually remove those posts, if only to keep the thread on topic.

EDIT - PLEASE DISREGARD AS CROSS POSTED.