Webmasters posting "Stolen" mods

[Manx]

There has been an implication in a couple of recent threads, that webmasters are somehow to "blame" for a couple of unauthorised mod releases -- i am not at all happy about this.

COMBAT MISSIONS & CMHQ (i wasn't involved with CMHQ at the time) were both sent a particular compilation of mods that it turned out contained a couple mods that the original author hadn't given permission to be released in this pack.

Now, both Matt and myself were totally unaware that there was anything "wrong" with this mod -- it contained a readme file which listed FULL credits for everyone's work included, and was submitted by a very well known and respected member of the CM Modding Community, although the actual mod was compiled into it's released form by someone else.

A few days ago i was asked to take this mod off CMHQ and COMBAT MISSIONS by the author in question - this was done promptly. The fact that this particular modder then decides he wants the rest of his mods taken off as well is another matter.

A webmaster HAS to take it that a mod is being released with the full co-operation of all those concerned in either it's production and/or the decision as to where it is to be posted. Should a webmaster have to check and investigate every single bloody mod/scenario/article that is sent to him just in case there is some copyright infringement somewhere? - i don't think so!

I do hope this isn't the road we're going down, otherwise you can count me out of it.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Manx ]</p>

[Gordon]

Manx,

I agree whole-heartedly that none of the web-masters are in any way responsible for the current mess we're in. I believe you have acted promptly and appropriately in all aspects of this unfortunate incident.

I do, however, hope that we can agree to a reasonable "due diligence" procedure to protect both the web-masters, modders and user community from similar occurrances in the future. When I state that the web-masters need to act as "gate-keepers", it's simply regarding verification that certain materials relating to provenance and permissions for mods are present and displayed when a mod is posted for download. The onus to ensure that the information is correct and accurate still lies with the mod maker.

I hope this clears up any confusion I might have caused. I know we don't need more confusion at this point. And I agree, this IS taking all the fun out of this, but unfortunately that's what usually happens when "lawyers" get involved.

Gordon

[Juju]

Can somebody explain what's going on, cos I'm in the dark ('s what you get if you refrain from coming to the board for two days).

[OGSF]

I am not a modder, but do possess a modicum of common sense. Reading Manx's post, I was impressed with the courtesy implied in removing the mod at the authors request.

However....

...if a modder makes a mod and uses it on their own PC for their own enjoyment, that is entirely their affair. But, once the mod is released to the community it becomes public domain. The only licensing issue should be that it is not altered without the authors permission, claimed by someone else as their own or "sold, lent or otherwise rehired" for profit, again without the authors permission.

To release a mod for the communities use and then complain about the various distribution models it appears in is quite simply naive.

If a modder is going to be that anal about it, I would prefer to be spared their mod in the first place. There are plenty of excellent modders who are a little more relaxed in a practical sense and understand that the whole point of releasing a mod is to make it available to people. The wider the distribution the better this aim is acheived.

I do appreciate the amount of work, time and effort poured into most of the mods we see in this community. And credit goes where it is due. But when releasing the mod for general availability, it is time to "let go". If a modder is not prepared to do that (subject to the copyright caveats mentioned above), then don't release the mod.

Simple, eh?

OGSF

[Slapdragon]

What the mod community needs is a good open source agreement that protects the rights of the modders, BTS, and the web site operators. Any mod recieved would be posted under this agreement.

The mod community is some of the best and brightest of the CM family, and although the occasional modder uses their mods like toys in a playground (threatening to take them back if they are displeased, etc.), most modders are truly performing a community service.

How about it lawyers, anyone want to take a stab at an open use agreement on mods?

[aka_tom_w]

"

...if a modder makes a mod and uses it on their own PC for their own enjoyment, that is entirely their

affair. But, once the mod is released to the community it becomes public domain. "

This is an interesting issue

"becomes public domain"

Perhaps we should discuss the concept of "public domain" and the other concept of copyright protection of art work in the "public domain"??

-tom w

[OGSF]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

"

...if a modder makes a mod and uses it on their own PC for their own enjoyment, that is entirely their

affair. But, once the mod is released to the community it becomes public domain. "

This is an interesting issue

"becomes public domain"

Perhaps we should discuss the concept of "public domain" and the other concept of copyright protection of art work in the "public domain"??

-tom w<hr></blockquote>

And that, Tom, was my point. If you want to take the mod that seriously, (beyond the "no stealing, no changing, no selling" rights), maybe it is better not to bother releasing it. I'm not interested in getting into a "Bill Clinton" about defining the meaning of "is". It's common sense. If you want to make the mod available then do so. If you don't, then don't. But don't hand it over and then follow it around like a truculent two-year old, saying who can distribute it and who can have it. The other children won't want to play.

Once again, I say this with complete respect for modders and their work. But trying to baby sit the mod regarding it's distribution an attitude that discourages web masters from hosting mods in the first place (refer Manx's initial post in this thread).

Many of the mods are simply excellent, and we are priveleged to be able to use them. In another context some of them would be considered "art". But if the modder treats the mod as art once it's "out there" for the purposes of keeping lawyers employed, then he / she should have sent it to an art publisher, not a CM related web site for use in the community.

If someone wants to discuss the meaning of "public domain", go right ahead. I will stay out of it. I'm along to enjoy CM, not engage in lawyer-grog.

It pains me to say this, but I think Slappy's suggestion is a good one.

OGSF

[Maastrictian]

It seems there are two positions to take, maybe there should be multiple "licenses".

License 1 would say that anyone can do whatever they want with the mod. Modify it, republish etc etc etc. Just include any previous author's name and contact info. This is the completely open license.

License 2 would say the same thing as License 1. Additionally though, it would say that no one can create a mod based on this License that is not also released as a type 2 License. This is the GPL-like license. (GPL = GNU Public License, open source software thing)

License 3 would say that no one can do anything without the previous author's permission. You can't modify it, you can't publish it, you can't change its license with out the author's say so. Distribution would still be unlimited though. Anyone can download it and use it, they just can't put it back up again. This license gives the author the most control.

A mod with no license should be assumed to be licensed as restrictively as possible, and preferably should not be published by a web master.

Such a system would allow everyone to publish their mods with the restrictions they want, while keeping things relatively simple.

It cannot and should not be the web site maitainers job to enforce these licenses. They should be (and are I'm sure) alert to the obvious things: being mailed a mod from someone who is not the author in the text file with the mod or taking the mod down if someone points out a violation. It is ultimately the job of the community to act as police men. It is up to the individual webmasters, but I think it would be reasonable to refuse to publish any mods by someone who is known to have violated multiple licenses in the past.

We don't need to be lawyerly about this. This is fundamentally common sense. If you want your mod protected you should have a right to. If not, not. I hope what I've written is understandible and that it will be looked at in the spirit I've written it in, don't try to poke legal holes in it.

--Chris

[Scipio]

Manx, it's is not possible and expected from webmasters to confirm the authorization of every single piece that has been transmitted. But if the original authors notice that something was posted against their explizit wish, then the webmasters should react. This has been done, so no problem. Well, what if someone want to draw back his material from public access for any other reason? If you just say no, then this would implicate that the material has become ownership of the website. This is a policy I do not agree to - speaking as webmaster with my own site.

OGSF - if something becomes public domain only because it has been released is questionable. Does it mean that the whole CM game is public domain, too, only because it has been released? And what makes you believe that people have a right to keep something available? Anyway, the whole issue is: if someone revised and want to publish a mod or whatever else, he can drop a line to the author. Where is the problem here?

Slap, this is already in progress.

[Treeburst155]

The fact this issue has come up is unfathomable to my blue collar, uneducated way of thinking. If you don't want your "art" spread around, DON'T release it! Once your work hits any hard disk other than your own you have lost control of it. What, now BTS, webmasters, and modders need to sign agreements and such?! What about scenario designers? Are they next? I don't get it. There's no MONEY involved here!

Hey, why don't we all start sueing each other over CM? Wouldn't that be great fun. Geez!! This issue disgusts me thoroughly. Whoever pulled this crap on Manx is a petty little BABY. I hope I don't have any of his mods on my drive.

I almost can't bare the thought that I may be staring at this clown's doodles every day.

He needs to take his marbles and go home. We should all boycott anything he produced or produces. It's not like we don't have other choices. Who is it anyway? Geez, I don't really want to know. End rant.

Treeburst155 out.

[aka_tom_w]

Public Domain

OK once you give something away or freely distribute it, it becomes in the public domain.

Of course CMBO is not in the public domain, its licensed and BTS holds the copyright, they SELL the damn game don't they?

But FREE mods, that are given away for free public distribution, ARE in the public domain and if you don't like that someone Stole/edited/manipulted your FREE mods which were given FREE to the public domain then you have a problem bigger then anyone of us here can deal with.

end rant

-tom w

[Scipio]

Do someone remember the issue with a company that will publish a CD with mods and is suspected to use mods from the web?

If so, where is the problem? The authors has no rights on their work anyway...

[Treeburst155]

Scipio,

I'm not too familiar with the "mods on CD" issue, but I do remember seeing the thread. Unless there was money involved in some way, I don't see the problem there either. I will admit I'm ignorant of all this copyright type stuff, but I see no need to protect anybody's rights to work they GAVE AWAY. It's all just petty grade school crap unless there is money changing hands IMO.

Treeburst155 out.

[aka_tom_w]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scipio:

Do someone remember the issue with a company that will publish a CD with mods and is suspected to use mods from the web?

If so, where is the problem? The authors has no rights on their work anyway...<hr></blockquote>

I would suspect that in the case mentioned above BTS claimed a copywrite infringement of some of their art work which they had protected under their own copywrite. The other free mods maybe not have been such an issue, but I thought BTS said that they may have had a case if there was copywrite infringement of their game or their own art work in their game, which the company above was proposing to SELL , (ie. a disk full of the work of others that they had downloaded for free from the internet) had not officially licensed or paid for.

comments?

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=022155

Steve Said:

Big Time Software

Administrator

Member # 42

posted 11-03-2001 05:31 PM                

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi all,

Just wanted to let you know that a German based Mod CD is now kaput. We contacted them and expressed some objections about how they were presenting the materials and that we were concerned that they were in violation of various individual's copyrights.

Note that we did not threaten or otherwise bully them, as it is not our intention to squash legitimate free enterprise. All we wanted to do was make sure that the artwork was in fact their own, which the two screenshots clearly made us question. However, the publisher sent us a message and said the (unfinished) product was now officially cancelled. Read into that what you will

Which we are thankfull for because we would have done whatever it took to get the CD off the market if indeed there were violations of copyrights contained on it. And that could have proved to be a major distraction.

Thanks for pointing us to this problem, all is fine now. And Modders... know that we will stand up for your rights. It is the least we can do for you

Steve

[Gordon]

Gentlemen,

Copyright is copyright, whether a work is freely distributed or paid for. Registration of such copyright is not even required, it is assumed to exist.

Gordon

[Maastrictian]

The following explains publishing things and when the go into the public domain:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Under copyright laws, copyright protection is automatic as soon as the work is "fixed" or "published" in some format outside the creators mind, whether or not the work is actually registered with the copyright office. However, to truly protect the work, a copyright notice should be affixed somewhere visible on or within the work.

When a work is put forth (considered to be "published)" publicly without such a notice, or after the legal time period specified for end of copyright by the laws, a piece is considered to have entered the public domain, and is freely usable by anybody at any time, in any way. This is why people add copyright notices to works of art and articles that are published in magazines and books, and to song lyrics included with music on disk, so their copyright is protected and they can retain control of how the material is used.

<hr></blockquote>

That is from this page:

http://www.mindymac.com/copyright.html

The period of time it takes a copyrighted work to enter the public domain is detailed here:

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

So any work in a "fixed form" is *not* in the public domain unless the author omits a notice of copyright. It doesn't matter how much the work costs, even if it costs nothing. I don't know if mod authors currently put copyright notices on their work, but if they do not, and they care, they should start.

As an analogy, CNN posts articles for people to freely read. They are avalible, easy to download and easy to republish. But if you try to do so, you should have no doubt that CNN will sue you and win.

--Chris

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Maastrictian ]</p>

[aka_tom_w]

"So any work in a "fixed form" is *not* in the public domain unless the author omits a notice of copyright. It doesn't matter how much the work costs, even if it costs nothing. I don't know if mod authors currently put copyright notices on their work, but if they do not, and they care, they should start.

--Chris "

PERFECT

Unless the © copyright sign appears on the art work WHEN it Is posted it is considered in the public domain.

I have not seen very many mods with that magical little © copywrite symbol on them.

and this means you need to use your real name or the name of company you have incorporated like this ©2001 Big Time Software

once this is written on the art work then the owner or author (the author could have sold the artwork and the copywrite of the artwork to the owner) of the work has copywrite protection, and will have the option to protect his copywrite at his own expense through litigation if necesary. In Canada copywrite infringement is not a crimminal act , meaning it is up to the owner of the copywrite to protect and enforce non-licenced use of the work or copywrite infringement of the work.

without the name of the copywrite holder and the year of the copywrite NO copywrite protection can be "assumed" or legally granted.

.... and NO, I am not a lawyer but I work very closely with graphic designers and I know how this stuff works, at least in Canada anyway.

-tom w

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]</p>

[Olle Petersson]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Maastrictian:

License 1 ... Just include any previous author's name and contact info.<hr></blockquote>Even this might be a little complicated, given that several of the current mods are based on mods based on mods based on ..., mixed with details from mods based on mods based on...

A complete list of everybody that put any work in from original to present version might easily reach ten or more names, with very little of the original art shining through.

If adding changes to an existing mod, it should be sufficient to accnowledge the final author of that mod, and if possible point to where that can be downloaded.

It's also fine to discribe the changes done.

Those interested can then trace everything back to some original work, and those not interested probably don't read the info file anyway.

Cheers

Olle

[OGSF]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scipio:

OGSF - if something becomes public domain only because it has been released is questionable. Does it mean that the whole CM game is public domain, too, only because it has been released? And what makes you believe that people have a right to keep something available? Anyway, the whole issue is: if someone revised and want to publish a mod or whatever else, he can drop a line to the author. Where is the problem here?

<hr></blockquote>

Scipio, as I mentioned in both my posts above, I agree that stealing, changing or selling someone else's mod without the authors permission is a bad thing. If it happens, as apparently has happened to you, then the issue is between the author and the perpetrator. Without money being involved, it is practically unenforcable, except for perhaps peer pressure or a voluntary blackbanning by the community of the result of the perpetrator's efforts.

That issue does not impact the other - namely that once a mod is released to the community, the distribution of it is out of the modder's control, both practically and any other way.

This doesn't deny that you've been wronged by the clown who modified your work without your agreement and tried to pass it off as his own. Only that the distribution of your original mod is out of your hands once you released it. If that "fact of life" is too big a hurdle to jump, don't release the mod. Just don't make it the web master's problem.

OGSF

[Maastrictian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Even this might be a little complicated, given that several of the current mods are based on mods based on mods based on ..., mixed with details from mods based on mods based on...

<hr></blockquote>

For pre-existing mods you are very correct. Authors could just write "... and other authors before 1/1/02" or something. Once this process catches on though it will be easy to keep track of things, because each mod author will just add one name to an ever growing list of authors.

--Chris

[Treeburst155]

The only copyright notice I have ever seen is on the MDMP mods. Thanks for the education.

Treeburst155 out. © copyright

[AndrewTF]

Geez guys, this mod "disagreement" is getting out of hand

I tried to make a point, somewhat incoherently I think, in another thread. Now that my brain is back firing on all cylinders again I'm going to address this issue again.

As a mod artist myself, I make mods and distribute them for a few different reasons:

1. It's fun

2. It's a way to learn new Photoshop tricks and techniques that I can apply in my "real life".

3. I want a specific mod that may not be available, so I make it myself.

4. I want to make a contribution to the CM community.

5. What's the point of keeping them all to myself when they can make other people happy.

The way I see it, the CM community and the people involved in it are 2 of the things that make it The Best Game Ever™. New mods, scenarios, maps, historical information and opinions--these are the things that make CM better and better and keep us all coming back for more.

Like it are not, the mods become part of the community, once released. We're not doing this for money, after all, so what's the issue? I haven't seen anyone blatantly plagiarising a mod and then trying to pass it off as their own work. Can anyone cite an instance of this? Every mod of my mods does give me credit, to my knowledge.

Yeah, of course I want to control who alters my mods and how. I'm an egomaniac control-freak at heart. It's my work, after all. But I've put it out there for public consumption, and I'm realistic enough to realize that once it's out there I can't have absolute control over it.

If I have a problem with someone doing something, I'll deal directly with that individual. Barring that I will register my displeasure here on the forum, and count on the community to do the right thing by not downloading the mod. I will not punish the community as a whole by running home with my mods and keeping them to myself. See points 4 and 5 above.

I trust the people here enough to know that in the end I'm going to get the credit I deserve.

BTW, the German company offering the CD with mods stolen from the web was doing so FOR PROFIT. I think most people were outraged because this company was trying to make profit by using and not acknowledging the hard work of people here in the CM community. It's a totally different issue, as far as I'm concerned.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

The only copyright notice I have ever seen is on the MDMP mods. Thanks for the education.

Treeburst155 out. © copyright<hr></blockquote>

Crap! I think I just violated your copyright by quoting your post in full in my post. I'm broke, please don't sue.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>AndrewTF:

BTW, the German company offering the CD with mods stolen from the web was doing so FOR PROFIT. I think most people were outraged because this company was trying to make profit by using and not acknowledging the hard work of people here in the CM community. It's a totally different issue, as far as I'm concerned.<hr></blockquote>

Yes. The fact that they were distributing it without the authors' permission isn't why BTS got involved. They got involved because they were selling it for money.

[Hoopenfaust2]

Here's an example. A lot of people were complaining about some mods not looking "dirty" enough, now if I went into that mod and changed something would this upset the modders. Gordon, I think I use all your mods and nobody can do a better job than you. But I've gone in and added mudd and dirt onto your bmps. Would this upset anybody that I've done this. I would never release these to anybody, its just for my personal enjoyment because I have the skills to do these modifications

Any comments?