Ding, ding. Ding. Well done, you understood what I was saying it's not about, rather than reading "paid" and and just having your brain explode. lol
Everything you are mentioning would also be removed when asked. See my first post in this thread, the one you didn't reply to.
Intellectual Property is names and logos and very seldom a design. If I were to make a red 1960's car with a little yellow rectangular logo of a goat silhouetted standing on it's hind legs, it wouldn't have any Ferrari IP. If I put a horse, perhaps. Regardless, I own the model I made of it.
You would think it was fairly simple to understand, right? Regardless of what examples used in discussions that people agree or disagree with, you would think simple instruction would be simple instruction.
Actually I left RSC in May, 2005 when I started to work for iRacing. Please try not to lie too much when posting about me, I might not take it very well.
Which was why I mentioned paid mods. Ding, ding, and ding again. You'll respect a paid (commercial) mod then? That seems a little silly to define respect based on whether you pay for it. We gave you Silverstone for free, by the way. There was nothing when people purchased in 2012 to indicate they'd get it. Any respect for it, or no? I'm just confused by anyone using free as an excuse.
Yep thats right Think I got it (for me more or less ) Under certain circumstances a complicated topic.
One big issue is finding the person to ask. For our rF1 league mod we borrowed an asset or 2 from another mod, but we kept the mod private. When recruiting came up in discussions one of the things we wanted to do was release the mod publically, but the person who did the work on our mod didnt feel comfy in doing so because we didnt have permission to use a couple of pieces. We searched for the modder but he was nowhere to be found. I believe the modder is carrera(of carrera88 fame), but don't qoute me on that.
I think you can. Or at least this is something to discuss on the table. Do the modders have the copyrights of what they mod/create/implement? I am not defining "respect" based on whether we pay it or not. Being commercial is not about money. I am defining it based on whether you have the copyrights. What I'd like to discuss is why would you have the copyright of X mod while you dont have the copyrights of what you have put in the mod? I dont say you shouldnt have, but I'd like to see your views about it because it really doesnt make any sense to me at the moment. That is said, if "having copyright" is the only or best way to pay respect what modders do or to prevent "some other brilliant guys" steal their work, I dont have anything to say about that. Theory and practise dont have to comply always. I think I'll go with the Swedish Pirate Party
Give way to weight. You give respect (don't mess with the work of) to the first person you have contact with, and that's the person who made it. The modder, if he is making something where he is using someone's IP (which doesn't have to be the case a lot of times, free licenses are something I manage a lot), has to give way to them.
What it all boils down to is this: If you don't own the property or can't get the permission to use it, then don't. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter if you think you can tweak it or not to make it better, you don't own the right to do so if you didn't create it in the first place. The only exception to this is if someone takes their work and puts it into the public domain under a public domain license. If you can't find where they gave permission to everyone to use as they wanted, then you still don't have the right.
What is "giving weight" then? Would I be "giving weight" to the modder if I give credit to him? if not, why is it not enough? What I mean, if it is not about free licence, why should someone have the right to put "copyright" on his/her ( yeah I know ) work, while he doesnt have the right to mod it? if he is not giving any sh*t about the real copyright, how come does he have the right copyright his work?
Regarding the permission discussion, to be honest, I think modders should be clear from the start what is possible with a mod when it's released. As a developer myself I feel like it should be like how all opensource software is licensed. My simresults.net project (not mod related) on this forum clearly mentions the license. It's not much work and makes everybody lifes much easier. No need to contact me. If mods would be more 'professional' on this matter, more private mods would probably become public, because there is no need to contact a mod owner (if the license allows). It's just plain stupid to release work without any license info.
It's enough if a modder releases his model and says it can be used, then name credit is probably welcome. If he doesn't say anything, ask him (how hard is that?) If he specifically says no, then no, nothing is enough except not using it. This really has to be common sense stuff. I'm AMAZED this is so hard. One thing that I think should become standard, is a modder specifying whether they allow/don't allow their work to be re-released and/or altered when they first release it. Then the question wouldn't need to be asked.
That's a good point. As I said in my track example, if you make your red car with a goat emblem, you can legitimately claim ownership, with all the rights that go with that. Now if you create a model that is an exact replica of a 1960 Ferrari (with or without the horse) it might be different. If you make ownership claims without knowing, you may very well be treading on a company's copyright. It gets even more complex when the model or design is similar, as Samsung found out after being successfully sued by Apple. That's why I suggest the best course is to simply release mods without any unsubstantiated copyright. You can still ask that anyone using it keep your brag banner or whatever you like intact, and provide credit if they develop something based on it (or tell others not to modify it at all). The result is the same, without all the potential headache that copyright claims can bring.
Regardless of the legalities, reusing, editing, or ripping, someones work, who does not want it to be reused or edited, without their consent is only going to piss them off. They will think twice before they make something again. Do we really want to give the people who have the ability to make a complete mod or track any reason not to do so? If you give into this mentality of it being OK to rip someones work, that's all you are left with. If you want quality mods, respect the modders work and the time it took them to do it the right way. And ts it really so hard to ask permission? Seriously?
For me, the difference here is creation... I can convert anything... Can I create this stuff... At this point no... If I could create it (knowing the time and effort involved), would I be okay with someone doing whatever they want with it. Yes and no, if I was okay with it and credit was given... fine. If I didnt want something to happen and it did, then I would think twice about releasing it publicly... Which really hurts everyone involved... I would say that if everyone was respectful of mods and the creative process than we would likely have more freedom for the mods... Since there is always that 10 percent that refuses to do anything but what they want... there will always be issues. If it were me, and I had permission to release a conversion I had done, the credits would look like this MADE BY - SO AND SO TEXTURES BY - SO AND SO ORIGINALLY RELEASED FOR - XXXXXX converted by - me but thats just me.... to me converting is different from creating...
I think what you say is quite selfish. Would it be ok, if no modders left even if their mod is converted/redistrubuted without their permission? we dont discuss this to make modders stay in the community and continue to contribute. thats the very good outcome of it, thats right, but I dont think its the point. we are not trying to find a way not to piss them off..
