UPDATED 14/06/18 - *** Rules for User Made Mods and Edits of PDS games ***

[EOOQE]

Sorry to butt-in for my own interests, but I have a question with regarding to copyrighted material. I made a lot of music in my time and all of it is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA. I granted VeF my permission to use my music under the terms of the said license, however the rights to my music are legally mine, at least for those countries that respect the Creative Commons system. Does this breach the quoted rule or only the User Mod is under the quoted rule and not its other components like original graphics, original music and so on?

That is an excellent example for the "copyright" Rule i have also a problem with !!

In my Mod its GFX assets like handmade GUI Items and Textures.
I dont see the problem why we cant include a readme with the CC BY-NC-SA for our work. It would protect us and also Paradox , as it made clear who is the Copyright Owner in any terms.

 

[Jolt]

I think entering a one time code that does not personally identify you and only unlocks additional features and access on the site and is readily accessible from the steam console is not that much of additional effort. Not for the vast majority at any rate.

And Answered in the post above this one.

You could do as a couple other forum have done.

You have the main forum URL "http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/"

Adding the "http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/forum.php" leads you to these forum. You could code "http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/downloads.php" to lead to something akin to this:

Pressing on the links for the User Modification would then show a list of User Modifications, with name of mod, mod version, game version needed, required DLCs, upload date and how many times it has been downloaded.

Pressing on one of those mods, would open up another page just like a mod page in the workshop, where mods could introduce the mod, put pictures, changelogs and whatnot, and at the end of that window there would be a large download button, which needs to be coded to recognize if the person is logged in and has the required game registered. If it passes those checks, the button is clickable and allows for the download. If it doesn't, the button is greyed out.

But again the problem is bandwidth.

 

[shierholzer]

That is an excellent example for the "copyright" Rule i have also a problem with !!

In my Mod its GFX assets like handmade GUI Items and Textures.
I dont see the problem why we cant include a readme with the CC BY-NC-SA for our work. It would protect us and also Paradox , as it made clear who is the Copyright Owner in any terms.

You're not allowed to post a license file, so your content is licensed under the narrowest possible scope - in most jurisdictions just as part of this mod. And no, PI/PDS is not allowed to reuse your content without asking, simply because copyleft and PD concepts require a specific statement - not just a missing license (unless your content is 110+ years old once they use it).

@Castellon
Please consider erasing 'copyright' from that rule. What you try to enforce has nothing to do with copyright at all - and imho creates unnecessary confusion. Every couple of pages someone thinks he'd have to drop copyright on his content to post his mod here (such a clause would be invalid virtually everywere outside the US (since PD and copyright transfers are pretty much Yankee-only concepts) anyways) which is simply not true and not your intent.

 

[Wagonlitz]

And no, PI/PDS is not allowed to reuse your content without asking, simply because copyleft and PD concepts require a specific statement - not just a missing license (unless your content is 110+ years old once they use it).

It is 70 years after the death of the inventor/artist/et.c here in Denmark, so considering EU harmonisations I would be very surpriced if it wouldn't be the same in Sweden.

 

[shierholzer]

It is 70 years after the death of the inventor/artist/et.c here in Denmark, so considering EU harmonisations I would be very surpriced if it wouldn't be the same in Sweden.

PI usually sells globally, and 110+ years is a pretty good catch all phrase - even within the EU there are some nasty exceptions. There are jurisdictions calling a specific period after the authors death, others call a specific period after the work got created/published, some are mixing - all with varying years. Creating copyright related expertises valid worldwide is a job even lawyers have to specialize in.

 

[Castellon]

Remember that we simply will not debate legal merits of the rules here, I know that may upset some but it is the way it is. Sorry truly.

In the 12 + years I have been here I have never seen a copyright issue arise from any User mod or AAR (which is another major area where people are concerned over the copyright rules) not even tangentially. The rules are there to protect us no doubt, but neither do we or have we hampered in the least someone that wants to say publish their AAR, in fact we may even assist with that.

 

[Castellon]

You could do as a couple other forum have done.

You have the main forum URL "http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/"

Adding the "http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/forum.php" leads you to these forum. You could code "http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/downloads.php" to lead to something akin to this:

Pressing on the links for the User Modification would then show a list of User Modifications, with name of mod, mod version, game version needed, required DLCs, upload date and how many times it has been downloaded.

Pressing on one of those mods, would open up another page just like a mod page in the workshop, where mods could introduce the mod, put pictures, changelogs and whatnot, and at the end of that window there would be a large download button, which needs to be coded to recognize if the person is logged in and has the required game registered. If it passes those checks, the button is clickable and allows for the download. If it doesn't, the button is greyed out.

But again the problem is bandwidth.

This is kind of what I have pictured, but the new forum software would allow it from within the games own forum. As it is not on the design doc now, I would not expect to see it on launch, but it is definitely something I am interested in pursuing.

 

[Castellon]

Sorry to butt-in for my own interests, but I have a question with regarding to copyrighted material. I made a lot of music in my time and all of it is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA. I granted VeF my permission to use my music under the terms of the said license, however the rights to my music are legally mine, at least for those countries that respect the Creative Commons system. Does this breach the quoted rule or only the User Mod is under the quoted rule and not its other components like original graphics, original music and so on?

We do not own your music simple because it was used in a User mod, by that logic we would own the rights to GoT because someone used it in a USer mod. You just cannot post a licence or CR notice.
You could have a credits list that says "Additional music by XXX" so that it is attributed. Careful about claiming "music by" though if the mod also includes music by other artists or Paradox licensed songs. You may be safer to name the actual song you wrote in those cases. But I am sure you get that.
We have just had problems in the past with people posting licences on user mods that lets say did not have a full understand of how they worked. These included claiming CR for assets that were ours and definitely not CC. Since we do not have the resources to review each mods claims in every aspect, we have a blank not allowed to include rule. Might be considered unfair, but it is what we currently need to have. These things get reviewed periodically, maybe we can make some boiler plates up.

 

[Weijun]

We do not own your music simple because it was used in a User mod, by that logic we would own the rights to GoT because someone used it in a USer mod. You just cannot post a licence or CR notice.
You could have a credits list that says "Additional music by XXX" so that it is attributed. Careful about claiming "music by" though if the mod also includes music by other artists or Paradox licensed songs. You may be safer to name the actual song you wrote in those cases. But I am sure you get that.
We have just had problems in the past with people posting licences on user mods that lets say did not have a full understand of how they worked. These included claiming CR for assets that were ours and definitely not CC. Since we do not have the resources to review each mods claims in every aspect, we have a blank not allowed to include rule. Might be considered unfair, but it is what we currently need to have. These things get reviewed periodically, maybe we can make some boiler plates up.

It sounds like boilerplate would be a very good thing. My understanding is that the modders who create music and graphics would like explicit copyright protection for their work. It seems that this is only an issue for a small handful of mods/modders. Would it be possible for those who do to submit their work and have your staff/legal team generate appropriate text that does not claim anything that is Paradox's? Perhaps you could create a form for the modders to fill out to streamline the process.

 

[myzael]

It sounds like boilerplate would be a very good thing. My understanding is that the modders who create music and graphics would like explicit copyright protection for their work. It seems that this is only an issue for a small handful of mods/modders. Would it be possible for those who do to submit their work and have your staff/legal team generate appropriate text that does not claim anything that is Paradox's? Perhaps you could create a form for the modders to fill out to streamline the process.

That would be a very good solution, indeed. I think it would solve the vast majority of quarrels.

 

[Castellon]

BTW I Now very much want to play B!B the game.

 

[satyrlord]

BTW I Now very much want to play B!B the game.

phpBB the game - sounds like something Paradox would fund, along with Spreadsheet Simulator 2015 o

 

[MiltonS]

My understanding is that the modders who create music and graphics would like explicit copyright protection for their work.

Let's just cut to the chase: the simple fact of the matter is that regardless of copyright notices, forum rules, creative licenses, etc.; if it ever went to court the PI IP would be upheld as PI/PDS's, and the modders' music & graphics would be upheld as theirs. The reason it's not really worth debating on the forums is that at the end of the day, the courts will rule correctly, because international copyright law is international copyright law (full disclaimer: I have formally studied copyright law. It's horribly complicated.)

I think the main issue is the perceived heavy-handedness of the rule; modders need to realize that PI can't claim ownership of your work without your consent, nor can modders claim ownership of PI's property, and such claims actually mean anything. Because the laws so heavily protect the perceived intellectual property owner (see: US patent law), while the forum rule addresses the latter half of my previous statement - and seems to bleed into the former half - the law keeps the division clean.

I think the forum rule should be modified to something like: "Any license or copyright notice must explicitly list and attribute all assets belonging to the modder(s). Any license or copyright notice must include this statement before any such listing: "All assets not listed and attributed here are assumed the property of Paradox Development Studios or its parent company Paradox Interactive, subject to applicable laws."
That would cover bases, and the latter part "subject to applicable laws" is vague enough for everyone to feel warm and fuzzy inside :happy:

TL;DR: at the end of the day, the rule is to protect Paradox, modders, and would only legally apply in a way that is...well... legal. So it's really not worth worrying about.

Ok - so we're interested in these forums actually hosting the mods; tied into Workshop. Is there any formal investigation into this on Paradox's part (not asking for date/timeline/absolutes)

 

[EOOQE]

Let's just cut to the chase: the simple fact of the matter is that regardless of copyright notices, forum rules, creative licenses, etc.; if it ever went to court the PI IP would be upheld as PI/PDS's, and the modders' music & graphics would be upheld as theirs. The reason it's not really worth debating on the forums is that at the end of the day, the courts will rule correctly, because international copyright law is international copyright law (full disclaimer: I have formally studied copyright law. It's horribly complicated.)

I think the main issue is the perceived heavy-handedness of the rule; modders need to realize that PI can't claim ownership of your work without your consent, nor can modders claim ownership of PI's property, and such claims actually mean anything. Because the laws so heavily protect the perceived intellectual property owner (see: US patent law), while the forum rule addresses the latter half of my previous statement - and seems to bleed into the former half - the law keeps the division clean.

I think the forum rule should be modified to something like: "Any license or copyright notice must explicitly list and attribute all assets belonging to the modder(s). Any license or copyright notice must include this statement before any such listing: "All assets not listed and attributed here are assumed the property of Paradox Development Studios or its parent company Paradox Interactive, subject to applicable laws."
That would cover bases, and the latter part "subject to applicable laws" is vague enough for everyone to feel warm and fuzzy inside :happy:

TL;DR: at the end of the day, the rule is to protect Paradox, modders, and would only legally apply in a way that is...well... legal. So it's really not worth worrying about.

Ok - so we're interested in these forums actually hosting the mods; tied into Workshop. Is there any formal investigation into this on Paradox's part (not asking for date/timeline/absolutes)

Thanks for that Info !
That clear a lot of questions for me and i think also for all modders here !

 

[ascii]

I think the inverted i would be most helpful to this conversation

 

[Meneth]

I consider it a shame that Paradox continues to shoot itself, and its community, in the foot by having such a restrictive policy on the promotion and availability of mods outside this community.
I cannot think of any other indie developer/publisher with a similar policy, which is makes sense since the policy is so counter-productive.
Paradox' policy ensures that there won't be any external news coverage of any mod with the exception of those specifically given permission to break the rules.
That especially is shameful. That the rules not apply to certain mods purely because they were already breaking them when they were instituted is nonsensical. No legal system functions this way, and for good reason. It is not a fair way to enforce any rule, and it is even more grating when the rule is something that can make such a big difference to the size of a mod's audience.

I consider myself a supporter of most of Paradox' practices (which I'm sure I've amply demonstrated by my significant participation in the community), but rule #10, and the interpretation of rule #1 banning ModDB, is something I'm against both as a modder and as a member of the Paradox community.

 

[zijistark]

I consider myself a supporter of most of Paradox' practices (which I'm sure I've amply demonstrated by my significant participation in the community), but rule #10, and the interpretation of rule #1 banning ModDB, is something I'm against both as a modder and as a member of the Paradox community.

Seconded. This discussion really needs to be had (internally, within Paradox, as well).

Imposing arbitrarily-applied bans upon advertisement / coverage / hosting of popular mods, all of which only drive more revenue to Paradox, outside of Paradox's private, access-denied-for-all-that-don't-already-own-the-game forums:

• is counterproductive marketing policy
• is prohibitive of mods' growth
• punishes major modders (customers and contributors)
• punishes major mod users or potential users (customers)

Enforcing this arbitrarily only makes all four problems worse.

 

[Jolt]

Seconded. This discussion really needs to be had (internally, within Paradox, as well).

Imposing arbitrarily-applied bans upon advertisement / coverage / hosting of popular mods, all of which only drive more revenue to Paradox, outside of Paradox's private, access-denied-for-all-that-don't-already-own-the-game forums:

• is counterproductive marketing policy
• is prohibitive of mods' growth
• punishes major modders (customers and contributors)
• punishes major mod users or potential users (customers)

Enforcing this arbitrarily only makes all four problems worse.

As I've said in my first post in this thread, if you look over the thread I linked, all those factors were mentioned 2 years ago and Paradox has since not changed its position. Paradox's opinion is that it either does that to discourage piracy, or introduces some other kind of DRM.

Knowing they won't budge, mod makers need to see which side is more beneficial in terms of publicity, popularity, downloads and overall mod growth towards the success of their mod, they either:

a) Keep the mod inside Paradox forum and subject themselves to its modification rules.
b) Develop and advertise it entirely outside Paradox's reach (The only way to do this and maintain any semblance of popularity comparable with advertising inside the Paradox forum would be to create some paralel independent Paradox User Mods forum, where mods that don't wish to subscribe to the Paradox's rules for mods, can be congregated. But it would require a concerted effort by several high profile User Mods to leave the Paradox Forum to develop somewhere else).
c) Stop/Don't begin developing the mod at all.

 

[Castellon]

Seconded. This discussion really needs to be had (internally, within Paradox, as well).

Imposing arbitrarily-applied bans upon advertisement / coverage / hosting of popular mods, all of which only drive more revenue to Paradox, outside of Paradox's private, access-denied-for-all-that-don't-already-own-the-game forums:

• is counterproductive marketing policy
• is prohibitive of mods' growth
• punishes major modders (customers and contributors)
• punishes major mod users or potential users (customers)

Enforcing this arbitrarily only makes all four problems worse.

Arbitrary? just because you do not like the rules, it does not make them arbitrary. So lets look at what you say are the issues.
No One said you cannot advertise your user mod.
No one imposed a ban on coverage.
And a "ban on hosting popular mods" don't understand that accusation at all, There is only one mod that has opted out of the rules that I know of, and It has a very low play rate, I would not see how it would be considered a popular mod, but in either case the choice was his.

So I cannot see that any of the issues you raise are valid in this context, perhaps I am missing something here.
Now as for Grandfathering, I think I have explained my reasoning for that, again you may not agree with that reasoning and why we felt it was a fairer way to go, but that does not make it arbitrary either.

People in this thread have pointed out issues to me, the one I find most compelling is regarding concerns about how to host larger user mods, and I have definitely heard this concern and will try and work on a better solution to assist them, but there are no plans to change the existing strategies regarding access to user mods as they relate to the PD Studio games.

 

[myzael]

While I have been vocal about the rules before, recent explanations regarding copyringth issues have made me much more amicable towards them. I still disagree about the hosting rule, but I mostly understand that position from PDS's PoV. If a PDS approved hosting on this forum (or in other form) would be established basically all of my complaints would go away.

And indeed, I don't see anything in the rules forbidding you from promoting a mod outside these forums. You are just required not to post download links outside them.