So just to triple check, it doesn't have to be some fancy pants license? Just a written statement saying we own it and whatnot? If so, I'm completely fine with that.
Ok, yet again the issues are not being addressed. I appreciate that we are finally getting feedback and in the spirit of cooperation I am going to clearly list the concerns of the community with the new policy.
1) the REQUIREMENT of a licence statement concerns many of us. Many people have no idea what this sort of thing entails and are worried that they will do something wrong with the licencing and get their posts removed. It seems that a deletion of said threads is a bit extreme. Especially in the case of people like Glimmar who is not around right now to see the new announcement. Will his thread be deleted because he missed the announcement?
2) The second concern seems to stem out of a misunderstand of what the mods on this forum do. I, and many others, had been under the impressions the the moderators actually spend time perusing through the forum in which they have been placed. If that were the case then it would seem that the announcement implies that, whilst perusing said forums, if a mod were to come across a thread with BLATANT theft he will wait until he hears from the creator of the original content before acting. If that were the case then we have a problem. What is the point in them perusing the forums if they are not their to enforce the rules
One the other hand, if the moderators job is to sit there doing nothing until he/she is informed of a violation then there is no real problem with the new rules, just with the way the moderators moderate the forum.
3) This new ruling will NOT cut down on the high amount of reports that you guys get false or otherwise. It is highly apparent that many people do not read and this a licence statement would have no effect. Therefore this entire thing is just creating a lot of work with little reward.
Indeed. I know that back in the day when I first began creation of my pack, the good man Scuttles let me use his as a base. However, I have learned since that he didn't create all the textures in that pack. So I have no idea whose textures I'm using for some of them, such as the mobs. So, without having to delete the entire post, how would I even know whose textures they are? Most of the pack is now mine, but I feel very strongly that peoples' packs would suffer if they had to wait until they create every single thing in a texture pack before they can release it without worrying about copyright nonsense. Imagine playing in a 512x pack that the mobs are the default 16bit graphics. It would look like a three year old's art in the same room of a DaVinci museum. Like Justin Bieber being inducted into the rock'n'roll hall of fame to hang beside such legends as Metallica and Ozzy.
I think what still sucks is only the original artist being able to fight theft. I dunno about other artists, but I respect people who put effort and time into their art around here and if I see someone trying to take advantage of that and steal their hard work, I want to be able to help. We can't be here 24/7, sometimes things happen. Even a week around here can snowball into something large when the original artist can't be around to handle it.
Although could you please inform people that you are about to shut there posts. Some people will not no what's going on and may not read the new licensing issue and therefore have there threads closed.
posts can and will remain open untill a report is lodged stating that their content is illegal, or someone stated that their art work was used in someone elses work and that their art work is being ripped off and no one can get in contact with the author. without being able to contact the original author we can't get proof that they didn't allow its use without a licence on their pack.
Okay, from what I've been able to glean from the information being passed back and forth is this:
1) The problem, at its most basic, is that your guys (that admins) are putting red tape where no one is used to having red tape. You are trying to make us spell out and obey the letter of the law, whereas we are used to cooperating to enforce the spirit of the law. In essence-- we as a community typically go by common sense ('don't steal dude, it's not cool'), and these new rules are attempting to put down concrete, inflexible boundaries where we are not used to having them. Boundaries which are composed almost entirely of legal jargon that most people do not understand and can't easily navigate.
2)The best solution for all parties involved would be to bolster how we already enforce the spirit of the law. This could be something as simple as locking person B's thread if they say they have permission from person A, but person A's thread does not also confirm permission. This has been suggested numerous times, and it makes a great deal of sense. Not only does it allow the admins to have a more definite, concrete basis for declaring theft, it keeps us from getting tangled in red tape. It also will allow good samaritans to continue helping artists who have to be away for extended periods, since no active input is needed from the artist in order to assume theft.
I, for one, am relieved to see the clarification. I have no problem with adding a blurb (I do...cause I don't have the brainpower right now) about a license or whatnot. The official post kinda screws with your mind and overwhelms you at face value. To have to go to one of those sites and make a triple layered thingamadoo was too much for me.
Would be nice to have a few examples to use on that post though. For those of use who could use a copy/paste version.
:tongue.gif:
@drfrozenfire - If you are creating a pack, and are only doing the terrain, then you'd still need permission from the creators of the rest to use their work anyway. Seems to me, nothing changes except now you have to post proper license to use them on your pack. Unless I'm missing something...as usual
Making textures isn't fun anymore, thanks to this incident. Thanks. :dry.gif:
Honestly, I don't give a rats behind, if someone takes my texture pack, changes the saturation .5% and claims the pack as there own. It is a video game, we make textures for non-commercial purposes and it should be for fun. Lately I cannot say that is true. Candycraft is not something I have to get stressed out over because thieves lack talent. My texture pack is a pastime, not a job and NOT my life. I needed to get that off my chest.Say what ever you want, but I know there is a least one person out there that agrees. Thanks for reading.
~TheMarsh
I think the WTFPL honestly should fit your mentality just fine. All you'll need to do is slap a link to the wikipedia page I linked or another link containing the full text of the WTFPL and you'll be good. If you really feel this way, it's a quick way out.
So, were do I get the licencing for the original minecraft textures. I need to re post them on my thread because I am using them as place holders and I don't want my thread locked.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Look, I don't care if your 8 or 20. If you can't take criticism or opinions, then get off the internet." -Stronghold257
Okay, from what I've been able to glean from the information being passed back and forth is this:
1) The problem, at its most basic, is that your guys (that admins) are putting red tape where no one is used to having red tape. You are trying to make us spell out and obey the letter of the law, whereas we are used to cooperating to enforce the spirit of the law. In essence-- we as a community typically go by common sense ('don't steal dude, it's not cool'), and these new rules are attempting to put down concrete, inflexible boundaries where we are not used to having them. Boundaries which are composed almost entirely of legal jargon that most people do not understand and can't easily navigate.
On the money with this... Generally, it's not difficult to recognize
those who are telling the truth and those with whom are lying. At the end of
the day, all you need to do is ask the original author if permission has been
granted.
Legal boundaries, are not necessary, if we simply go by the general consensuses.
I think the WTFPL honestly should fit your mentality just fine. All you'll need to do is slap a link to the wikipedia page I linked or another link containing the full text of the WTFPL and you'll be good. If you really feel this way, it's a quick way out.
So, were do I get the licencing for the original minecraft textures. I need to re post them on my thread because I am using them as place holders and I don't want my thread locked.
LOL
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The name's Hyp, and I am trying to become a better artist!.
First of all, I want to thank you for taking the time to speak to us directly for the purpose of addressing our concerns. I'm sure it wasn't fun for you to wake up, log on, and discover a shitstorm happened while you were asleep.
I would like to get your feelings on an idea several of us, myself included, have independently arrived at: Requiring proof of permission from those who share their textures. John Doe posts his texture pack, and in the same post as his download link he says "Jane Smith, Bob Jones, and Amy Johnson all have permission to use my textures for their packs BlahCraft, SomeCraft, and CraftCraft--here are links to those texture packs." That way unless the pack/person using John Doe's textures is one of those three, you know they're stolen. Consent is always determined easily and accurately when permission is clearly and blatantly given. "But they didn't say I couldn't!" is not consent, and the policy currently in place says "If and only if not no then yes" instead of "If and only if yes then yes." This has the advantages of making mods lives' much easier, making it possible to address reports from third parties with fewer headaches, and protecting texture makers who are away. Incidentally it has the community-supported aspect of "Here are some links to packs I approve of, check them out."
Your point of texture re-use makes it a lot more complicated, though. The only idea I can come up with is to make texture pack makers specify which textures are their own (a good thing anyway) and make it so that Jim Brown can only give permission for content created by Jim Brown, and Jim Brown's AnotherCraft will be required to say "The boat in AnotherCraft is from Dave White's ThatCraft, if you wish to use it you will need to contact Dave White, here's a link to his pack." Which also means the links go both ways--Dave White links to Jim Brown (Here are the people using my textures) and Jim Brown links to Dave White (Here are the people whose textures I'm using.)
It's fairly common sense, and codifies what's already good practice.
So...this is fine and no extra steps needed from me?
License: all the artwork in this pack is my own work. Listed below are all license and permissions for me to use any other artwork used in this pack. No one may re-use any of my original artwork, or any artwork used with the original artist's permission, in any other texture pack without proper approval.
Minecart and kz.png files by Glimmar - Proper permission soon (he is on leave)
GUI by Demonette - Permission and submission granted throughout this thread
Some tools and/or weapons by Tlos - Permission and submission granted throughout this thread
*Any other edits submitted in this thread or pack are done so by the original artists for sole purpose of using them in this pack.
This is actually how I'm putting it on my thread...pics and links of other artist's work follow the disclaimer.
I also don't believe for a second that if a mod spots someone blatantly ripping off well-known content, they're going to sit on their hands. Look what happened with the Aether thing earlier in this thread--If someone posts a pack made almost entirely out of Misa's and blatantly claims Misa's content as their own, a mod's going to think "My common sense is tingling" and take action.
EDIT: Gestankfaust, that is exactly the kind of detailed credit I was talking about and would see become a requirement.
I, for one, am relieved to see the clarification. I have no problem with adding a blurb (I do...cause I don't have the brainpower right now) about a license or whatnot. The official post kinda screws with your mind and overwhelms you at face value. To have to go to one of those sites and make a triple layered thingamadoo was too much for me.
Would be nice to have a few examples to use on that post though. For those of use who could use a copy/paste version.
:tongue.gif:
@drfrozenfire - If you are creating a pack, and are only doing the terrain, then you'd still need permission from the creators of the rest to use their work anyway. Seems to me, nothing changes except now you have to post proper license to use them on your pack. Unless I'm missing something...as usual
Well the thing is I've had my pack for like 8 months...and there are some things I still haven't made my own yet but I don't know where they are. I put on my OP when I made the thread that everything that isn't mine is from Scuttles' pack
Well the thing is I've had my pack for like 8 months...and there are some things I still haven't made my own yet but I don't know where they are. I put on my OP when I made the thread that everything that isn't mine is from Scuttles' pack
I don't think it will be a problem as I understand it so far. If the original artist hasn't challenged you yet, and doesn't after the new rules go into effect, then nothing will change. (again...as I see it)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to...."
I have been stating theoretical cases in my example to protect those concerned, all these things have happened and are becoming more prevalent, eg: single images eg: a boat , a texture block , that they haven't gotten around to editing yet .. and its been through say 3 texturepacks , they state they have permission and credit the last authors pack. they don't know that it's actually the original artwork of someone else in a totally different pack. because the pack they are working from didn't state it in their thread.
this is why the licences have to be placed in every pack that has any images from other packs , so that new content providers know who to go to, to ask if they can use the texture from item/block/monster/weapon from the original artist , and not just as is now where they state in all good faith that they have permission to use the textures from a pack they decided to work from and got permission to use by its lack of inclusion of an earlier licenced pack
then we spendone time up to 5 hours tracking it all down and contact the original author , who states yes its his artwork, then we delete the offending texture pack, then the new guy writes back and sais that they've sortede it out that he now has permission , so then we go back and check with the orifinal author trhen we restore that pack. thats a total of say 6 hours (if not more) on on report. which would easil.y be solved if they follow the new system.
all it takes is 5 min tops to copy / paste or link to a licence and other licences to things you've used. that's not asking too much. everything else should already be being done.
the same thing applies to the 3d art sites they require you to list and provide licence extracts that allow you to make derivative works from others content , models , textures , poses , scenery , etc. also you have to state your licence on there as to what you allow others to do with your work
people aren't liking it because they now have to do it, when it should have been done all the time. and now we are telling them to do it because things are getting out of hand and if nothing is done it'll only get worse as it has been
I'm going to let my sarcastic nature seep through for a moment and say the funniest thing is we've all been through this whole mess but it still isn't going to make people read the rules...
...and the ones that don't read are the problem causers in the first place.
all it takes is 5 min tops to copy / paste or link to a licence and other licences to things you've used. that's not asking too much. everything else should already be being done.
the same thing applies to the 3d art sites they require you to list and provide licence extracts that allow you to make derivative works from others content , models , textures , poses , scenery , etc. also you have to state your licence on there as to what you allow others to do with your work
people aren't liking it because they now have to do it, when it should have been done all the time. and now we are telling them to do it because things are getting out of hand and if nothing is done it'll only get worse as it has been
It's not the act of putting up a license on my packs that's really getting to me. What really bothers me is that no one will protect me from theft when I go on vacation for two weeks.
It's really as simple as that. Morally, there should be a way to say 'that's stealing-- it isn't right and it needs to be stopped. Now.'
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumIndeed. I know that back in the day when I first began creation of my pack, the good man Scuttles let me use his as a base. However, I have learned since that he didn't create all the textures in that pack. So I have no idea whose textures I'm using for some of them, such as the mobs. So, without having to delete the entire post, how would I even know whose textures they are? Most of the pack is now mine, but I feel very strongly that peoples' packs would suffer if they had to wait until they create every single thing in a texture pack before they can release it without worrying about copyright nonsense. Imagine playing in a 512x pack that the mobs are the default 16bit graphics. It would look like a three year old's art in the same room of a DaVinci museum. Like Justin Bieber being inducted into the rock'n'roll hall of fame to hang beside such legends as Metallica and Ozzy.
It ain't right.
That's my two cents.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired Staffposts can and will remain open untill a report is lodged stating that their content is illegal, or someone stated that their art work was used in someone elses work and that their art work is being ripped off and no one can get in contact with the author. without being able to contact the original author we can't get proof that they didn't allow its use without a licence on their pack.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired Staff1) The problem, at its most basic, is that your guys (that admins) are putting red tape where no one is used to having red tape. You are trying to make us spell out and obey the letter of the law, whereas we are used to cooperating to enforce the spirit of the law. In essence-- we as a community typically go by common sense ('don't steal dude, it's not cool'), and these new rules are attempting to put down concrete, inflexible boundaries where we are not used to having them. Boundaries which are composed almost entirely of legal jargon that most people do not understand and can't easily navigate.
2)The best solution for all parties involved would be to bolster how we already enforce the spirit of the law. This could be something as simple as locking person B's thread if they say they have permission from person A, but person A's thread does not also confirm permission. This has been suggested numerous times, and it makes a great deal of sense. Not only does it allow the admins to have a more definite, concrete basis for declaring theft, it keeps us from getting tangled in red tape. It also will allow good samaritans to continue helping artists who have to be away for extended periods, since no active input is needed from the artist in order to assume theft.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffWould be nice to have a few examples to use on that post though. For those of use who could use a copy/paste version.
:tongue.gif:
@drfrozenfire - If you are creating a pack, and are only doing the terrain, then you'd still need permission from the creators of the rest to use their work anyway. Seems to me, nothing changes except now you have to post proper license to use them on your pack. Unless I'm missing something...as usual
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to...."
"sometimes, wizards are so awesome, it hurts"
On the money with this... Generally, it's not difficult to recognize
those who are telling the truth and those with whom are lying. At the end of
the day, all you need to do is ask the original author if permission has been
granted.
Legal boundaries, are not necessary, if we simply go by the general consensuses.
Thanks! I was looking for something like that.
LOL
First of all, I want to thank you for taking the time to speak to us directly for the purpose of addressing our concerns. I'm sure it wasn't fun for you to wake up, log on, and discover a shitstorm happened while you were asleep.
I would like to get your feelings on an idea several of us, myself included, have independently arrived at: Requiring proof of permission from those who share their textures. John Doe posts his texture pack, and in the same post as his download link he says "Jane Smith, Bob Jones, and Amy Johnson all have permission to use my textures for their packs BlahCraft, SomeCraft, and CraftCraft--here are links to those texture packs." That way unless the pack/person using John Doe's textures is one of those three, you know they're stolen. Consent is always determined easily and accurately when permission is clearly and blatantly given. "But they didn't say I couldn't!" is not consent, and the policy currently in place says "If and only if not no then yes" instead of "If and only if yes then yes." This has the advantages of making mods lives' much easier, making it possible to address reports from third parties with fewer headaches, and protecting texture makers who are away. Incidentally it has the community-supported aspect of "Here are some links to packs I approve of, check them out."
Your point of texture re-use makes it a lot more complicated, though. The only idea I can come up with is to make texture pack makers specify which textures are their own (a good thing anyway) and make it so that Jim Brown can only give permission for content created by Jim Brown, and Jim Brown's AnotherCraft will be required to say "The boat in AnotherCraft is from Dave White's ThatCraft, if you wish to use it you will need to contact Dave White, here's a link to his pack." Which also means the links go both ways--Dave White links to Jim Brown (Here are the people using my textures) and Jim Brown links to Dave White (Here are the people whose textures I'm using.)
It's fairly common sense, and codifies what's already good practice.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffThis is actually how I'm putting it on my thread...pics and links of other artist's work follow the disclaimer.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to...."
EDIT: Gestankfaust, that is exactly the kind of detailed credit I was talking about and would see become a requirement.
Well the thing is I've had my pack for like 8 months...and there are some things I still haven't made my own yet but I don't know where they are. I put on my OP when I made the thread that everything that isn't mine is from Scuttles' pack
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffWell...that's a relief for me cause it wasn't hard to do.
:biggrin.gif:
I don't think it will be a problem as I understand it so far. If the original artist hasn't challenged you yet, and doesn't after the new rules go into effect, then nothing will change. (again...as I see it)
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to...."
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired Staffthis is why the licences have to be placed in every pack that has any images from other packs , so that new content providers know who to go to, to ask if they can use the texture from item/block/monster/weapon from the original artist , and not just as is now where they state in all good faith that they have permission to use the textures from a pack they decided to work from and got permission to use by its lack of inclusion of an earlier licenced pack
then we spendone time up to 5 hours tracking it all down and contact the original author , who states yes its his artwork, then we delete the offending texture pack, then the new guy writes back and sais that they've sortede it out that he now has permission , so then we go back and check with the orifinal author trhen we restore that pack. thats a total of say 6 hours (if not more) on on report. which would easil.y be solved if they follow the new system.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired Staffthe same thing applies to the 3d art sites they require you to list and provide licence extracts that allow you to make derivative works from others content , models , textures , poses , scenery , etc. also you have to state your licence on there as to what you allow others to do with your work
people aren't liking it because they now have to do it, when it should have been done all the time. and now we are telling them to do it because things are getting out of hand and if nothing is done it'll only get worse as it has been
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium...and the ones that don't read are the problem causers in the first place.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffIt's not the act of putting up a license on my packs that's really getting to me. What really bothers me is that no one will protect me from theft when I go on vacation for two weeks.
It's really as simple as that. Morally, there should be a way to say 'that's stealing-- it isn't right and it needs to be stopped. Now.'