Which issue are you referring to?Sounds very reasonable. Any update on copyright issues from rule #4?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- 1
The relinquishing of copyright/licensing which could be at odds with international law. And especially the fact that enforcing that rule for original music/graphics/etc. is probably illegal - but that's only if someone is foolish enough to actually mod those things with the rule in effect.
I realize that sounds harsher than I meant it to; I just wanted to quickly summarize the narrative as it reads to us modders.
I realize that sounds harsher than I meant it to; I just wanted to quickly summarize the narrative as it reads to us modders.
That the question was about rule 4 was clear from the question, my response was to elicit what ASPECT of that rule was still not clarified.
That is your opinion of the rules of law and how they are applied in this case. It differs from ours. These are the rules that will be applied on this site and Steam Workshop. This has always been our position and pretty sure I stated it before, which is why I was confused about an "outstanding issue"
One point I did clarify for a couple of people who asked questions by PM was that you can still have Credits. Example one member was making all new music for a Mod. He can still say in the credits for the Mods that he wrote, composed, performed, whatever the original songs and their names. Credit where credit is due, You just cannot include any kind of formal copyright notice in your mod.
You arent concerned that your opinion is contrary to the Berne Convention?
Despite the first sentence of the OP I cannot see how these rules encourage or benefit modders. No amount of marketing spin, doublespeak or PI fan sychophancy can conceal that these rules overwhelmingly limit modders. To PI’s credit in the past they have sold an open and easily accessible game engine which was very modder friendly. However I find their recent attitude and the rules restricting modders in the OP concerning, the main examples being:
-Protecting the DLC cashcow meant that it was not in PI’s best interests to continue to allow army sprites or map items to be moddable.
-Mods must be PI forum or Steam Workshop only
-Mod authors cannot claim any IP protection
Moreover these rules are not even been enforced in a consistent manner. Why have these onerous rules then not enforce for example Rule 6)?
It seems contradictory that although mods cannot claim any kind of license or copyright PI will delete a mod if it contains elements from another mod. As has happened in a few recent cases this fosters petty possessivness and a community that turns on itself and destroys mods rather than working together (e.g. permission granted then retracted, permission refused).
Places like the Nexus or even Total War forums have large and very successful modding communities and despite some quirky rules are no where near as draconian as PI’s.
Its understandable that Paradox what to cover themselves and protect their IPs but these modder unfriendly rules will end up driving modders away. Personally, along with many others I wont release anything here. PI's Rule 4) is also going to strongly discourage professional or semi-professional artists/coders releasing their mods. For example I cant see the excellent artist Danevang who was hired by PI to do the CK2 vanilla portraits http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?689357-Danevang-s-Saecula-Nova&highlight=Danevang being inspired to complete the unbelivebly brilliant work he had started under such conditions.
There is little enough incentive for modders but when a modder has no rights to anything they create (except against other modders) as PI illegally asserts its a cause for concern.
The games and players will suffer for the lack of good mods.
- 2
I simply can't understand why it can't be as simple as a basic rule between us modders that whatever is published on this forum can be used by other modders? (I mean, if you want to keep your mod creation to yourself, why post it here in the first place?)
Normal and decent courtesy then simply dictates that:
1. Permission to use some one else's work is always asked for anyway.
2. Permission is never unreasonably withheld.
3. Permission is never retracted.
4. Credit is always given.
This approach and attitude would encourage more and better mods, and enable a vast and widespread pool of modding knowledge, for the benefit of all EU4 modders. Right?
Normal and decent courtesy then simply dictates that:
1. Permission to use some one else's work is always asked for anyway.
2. Permission is never unreasonably withheld.
3. Permission is never retracted.
4. Credit is always given.
This approach and attitude would encourage more and better mods, and enable a vast and widespread pool of modding knowledge, for the benefit of all EU4 modders. Right?
Yes, Paradox has its set of rules that apply, but my suggestion would not violate those rules and would be between modders, as a general "Code of Conduct" and a Ladies&Gentlemen's Agreement among and between modders.
Because just like you have, I have too noticed (just during the very few years that I've been around here) that the atmosphere has hardened, not generally, but in some instances, in the correspondence and use of language between modders. People are simply more protectionists and prestigious now, don't know why.
But I don't think it's because of Paradox's rules (on the contrary, I believe Paradox is trying to counter the problems with its rules) but because of higher rivalry and also more commercialism among modders. That's why I suggest the above as a general way of behaviour on the forum.
Wel, AKronbald, where do you put the limit to point two ? I mean, what you call "permission unreasonably withheld", i might call "respect of a modder's work". This has nothing to do with prestige or anything...
Let me make my point clear : as MEIOU and Taxes is quite new, let me state my experience with 6 years of modding of MEIOU. I think, i hope many or even most EUIII modders will tell you i tried to help as much as i could, and have remained rather available when "borrowing" was concerned. Several MEIOU features have made there way to other mods, and i've never refused people taking data like history files or country files, including flags (especially when those were done by me and not a third party). All i asked was your point one, asking first, and your point four, credits.
Two things i kept as core parts of MEIOU : map and user interface, as those were the result of long and hard work from respectively me and Solo_Adhémar. When people asked to use it, i said that, to use my map, they were to make an add-on or a mod for MEIOU, based in the MEIOU sub-forum. This was always accepted without any complaints from modders (or at least they didn't say anything like so in their response to my conditions).
When dealing with EUIV, modding is even simpler, joining mods is easier. Would my asking that no one puts my map in their download, but rather make a mod that would require M&T to be installed, breach your point two ?
If so, where is the point of your item one, if, when asked, i got no right to refuse ?
Again, this has nothing to do with prestige : i'm protectionist towards my baby, the map. Ask Aldaron : even within the team, i ask to remain in control, after working on it since January 2007. Anything else, i'm more open to share.
Let me make my point clear : as MEIOU and Taxes is quite new, let me state my experience with 6 years of modding of MEIOU. I think, i hope many or even most EUIII modders will tell you i tried to help as much as i could, and have remained rather available when "borrowing" was concerned. Several MEIOU features have made there way to other mods, and i've never refused people taking data like history files or country files, including flags (especially when those were done by me and not a third party). All i asked was your point one, asking first, and your point four, credits.
Two things i kept as core parts of MEIOU : map and user interface, as those were the result of long and hard work from respectively me and Solo_Adhémar. When people asked to use it, i said that, to use my map, they were to make an add-on or a mod for MEIOU, based in the MEIOU sub-forum. This was always accepted without any complaints from modders (or at least they didn't say anything like so in their response to my conditions).
When dealing with EUIV, modding is even simpler, joining mods is easier. Would my asking that no one puts my map in their download, but rather make a mod that would require M&T to be installed, breach your point two ?
If so, where is the point of your item one, if, when asked, i got no right to refuse ?
Again, this has nothing to do with prestige : i'm protectionist towards my baby, the map. Ask Aldaron : even within the team, i ask to remain in control, after working on it since January 2007. Anything else, i'm more open to share.
I can confirm this.
Anyway, I'm happy to say that Gigau has always been open to discussion and has accepted many of my suggestions, for what I'm really happy and thankful. But always from the point of view that the map is his map. I think that we have reached to a good point of understanding.
And I can confirm this as well. I hope I didn't come across wrong regarding my thoughts here.
That was not aimed at you at all, gigau. On the contrary, you've always been extremely helpful and attentive to my questions and problems. So don't want you to think that I think anything else.
Neither do I want anyone to think that I've been rejected permission, and that's why I write in this thread. People are in general very generous and helpful on this forum, but the tone has hardened, I think, between EU3 and EU4, and my posts above just aimed at giving a suggestion that could deal with the situation. Nothing more.
If I had been rejected, I'd had respected that decision always. And will in the future too.
And I actually think that the "courtesy" part more involves the asking for permission and giving of credit. But hoping at the same time that the default attitude of granting permission is "yes, of course, use it! Glad you like it, maybe you can improve it even further" (that's what I mean by "not unreasonably withheld"), even though everyone of course decides for themselves whether to give permission or not.
So in general, I genuinely believe that this will promote a friendly tone in the forum. As Castellon says, we're here for the fun of modding.
That was not aimed at you at all, gigau. On the contrary, you've always been extremely helpful and attentive to my questions and problems. So don't want you to think that I think anything else.
Neither do I want anyone to think that I've been rejected permission, and that's why I write in this thread. People are in general very generous and helpful on this forum, but the tone has hardened, I think, between EU3 and EU4, and my posts above just aimed at giving a suggestion that could deal with the situation. Nothing more.
If I had been rejected, I'd had respected that decision always. And will in the future too.
And I actually think that the "courtesy" part more involves the asking for permission and giving of credit. But hoping at the same time that the default attitude of granting permission is "yes, of course, use it! Glad you like it, maybe you can improve it even further" (that's what I mean by "not unreasonably withheld"), even though everyone of course decides for themselves whether to give permission or not.
So in general, I genuinely believe that this will promote a friendly tone in the forum. As Castellon says, we're here for the fun of modding.
I know, my friend. And i didn't take it personally. But i needed an example to make my point, and which do i know better that my own mod
You have indeed always been fair, and it's a pleasure collaborating and helping you.
Well, again, i can't talk really for others, but i did indeed feel a change in the wind in the last year or so (so prior to EUIV). Some new modders (and again, i'm not talking about you) have arrived that don't always respect the work of others and borrow without permission. It has made some of us more cautious. I deeply regret it, believe me.
You have indeed always been fair, and it's a pleasure collaborating and helping you.
Well, again, i can't talk really for others, but i did indeed feel a change in the wind in the last year or so (so prior to EUIV). Some new modders (and again, i'm not talking about you) have arrived that don't always respect the work of others and borrow without permission. It has made some of us more cautious. I deeply regret it, believe me.
Essentially that is how it should work (In a perfect world), these rules are put forth for when it does not.
Again that is your opinion, it is not shared by us.
I would also take exception to some of your other characterizations.
And as for the nexus you mention they are not corporate run sites. Obviously a Fan-site is going to operate under very different set of rules than a Developer site, their legal issues are also totally different.
You cant really dismiss PI rules which contravene international law as just a difference of "opinion"
What about addressing some of my other points? How come there is a ruling 6) "No 3rd party copyright in a mod" yet there are many mods clearly breaking this rule (I dont raise this because I want the those mods deleted, I raise it because I want consistent and clear rules that arent arbitrarily enforced).
Also how does PI reconcile the Rule 4) Mod cannot claim ANY IP protection [unless its against another modder in which case PI will delete / enforce IP protection against the other modder].
Again, I am not raising this point because I am favouring a free for all mod pinching bonanza, just highlighting that these rules are not consistent and do NOT overall make for a better modding community or help modders. They overwhelmingly restrict modders ... let me guess "difference of opinion"?
That is a fair point and I had considered that this might have been PI's intention (in making these onerous and unreasonable rulings) to drive/encourage fans to create an unaffiliated Nexus/ CivFanatics or totalwar type modding forum.
The difference of opinion is whether they contravene the law.
Rule 6 is in place and clear. If we get a complaint from an IP holder that a Mod on our site is using their IP without permission it will be removed Period no exceptions no arbitrary enforcement. Please advise me immediately of your source of information for any such outstanding complaint, as you seam to have sources for your claims that are not apparent to me, or mentioned by you.
Rule 4: Just because you do not claim it does not mean it does not exist, or that we cannot act on ours.
I see where you are coming from. I am not posting here to try and "score points" against PI. It just that there are some, perhaps unforeseen consequences these rules have. Consequences which run contrary to the stated intention of "encouraging and benefitting modders".
The rules in the OP are very broad and preserve much "power" for PI.
As you say Rule 6 is clear (I wasnt disputing this) merely its application and your moving of the goal posts. PI allow several mods to be in clear breach of this rule yet will only enforce this rule when there is a complaint (from the IP holder or another moddder). Does this mean I can break the other rules until there is a complaint and its only at this point PI will enforce their rules?
Since PI will only enforce rule 6) when other modders complain this has fostered a petty, uncooperative and unpleasant modding community. As recent examples have shown with modders refusing permission, or granting permission then retracting and complaining to PI at which point PI will and has deleted mods.
And this is PI enforcing its ownership of one modders work against another mod maker.
You seam to be intentionally trying to misrepresent what I say.
Which EUIV Mod is in "clear breach" of rule 6, you just claimed that there are several, Name one please. I mentioned you are making claims with some kind of source unknown to me, and all you did was repeat those claims with no source to back them up, Which company has served us notice, I am currently not aware of any, and our legal department I am pretty sure would have notified me to remove it if we had, apparently you are better informed about it then me.
Also enforcing rule 6 has nothing to do with Modders complaining. I said IP owner complaints, All major sites will have this rule EG. Youtube (If you use 3rd party IP in your video it is subject to immediate removal) does this mean youtube is fostering "a petty, uncooperative an unpleasant community"