Minecraft Forums

Quote from Theevilpplz

So will my pack be under the WTFPL license if I put a sentence on my thread saying so?
And if it is under the WTFPL license, what would happen if someone copied my texture pack, put it under a different license, and then claimed mind as a copy?

then they would be in breach of your licence unless that WTFPL licence allows them to do it because yours would have been posted first. these licences don't supersede the all rights reserved that add to it with exception that allow usage as per your licence , so if your packs thread was posted first ANYWHERE and you can prove that , then theirs would be invalid unless as i said the WTFPL licence grants it.

on reading the WTFPL licence it appears that your giving them free reign so they can

0. You just DO WHAT THE **** YOU WANT TO.

as that licence states (copied of their wiki page)

I'm not sure what that entails so you'd better find out from them.

Quote from Proloe

Am I right in assuming that we don't actually need to go so far as to provide solid licensing like this? I have placed a custom distribution license on my content, but I have edit dates on files, source code, unreleased content and such that can be displayed upon request. Is that satisfactory?

I can't see that page you linked

Please enter the relevant password to view the certificate for OW # 19808

so i duno

Let me rephrase:
Since the WTFPL License allows them to 'do the **** they want' with it, would my texture pack be removed by moderators if someone who copied it (as they have every right to do so under WTFPL), put a different license on their replica and claimed mine was a ripoff? In other words, doing to me what Texture Artists do to ripoffs of their own, original content.

I'm not concerned with what they do with it, that's why I am using WTFPL, I want to know if what they do with it has the potential to make my work get removed.

I'm not sure. you'd need to ask someone in the legal industry or someone who knows.

like I said none of us here are from legal background, which is why we are suggesting pre-made licences that have already been vetted as legal in the USA ..

I think though that all you need are the original files. but the posting on the forums is more public and harder to refute when you did them as it's on a third parties site (ours or where ever you posted your content to first)

Quote from Theevilpplz

Let me rephrase:
Since the WTFPL License allows them to 'do the **** they want' with it, would my texture pack be removed by moderators if someone who copied it (as they have every right to do so under WTFPL), put a different license on their replica and claimed mine was a ripoff? In other words, doing to me what Texture Artists do to ripoffs of their own, original content.

I'm not concerned with what they do with it, that's why I am using WTFPL, I want to know if what they do with it has the potential to make my work get removed.

no it would not be removed if yours was posted anywhere first, you'd just have to prove that yours was first. (unless they went to court about it, then it would be up to you to prove to the court that yours was indeed first ..) if they won the court case and told us to remove it and proved it with legal documents then of course we would have to remove yours. but that's very highly unlikely

Quote from aageon

He quoted it from me:

I have this in my Bumpmaft thread: Good enough? (Can show all my 128 certificates if needed :smile.gif: )


TERMS OF USE:

This texture pack is protected under intellectual property and creative commons. Reproduction of content or Distribution in any other way isn't allowed. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
Copyrighted form circ40 under U.S. law and Licensed with Myows® for international coverage. These terms and conditions are in regulation with the international copyright act. All content fall under INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS. If these terms are violated legal action may apply.
© 2011 Modcon GFX solution/Dennis Eskens. All rights reserved.
So basicly: No redistributing, No editing/manipulating or using it as a base.
Certificate + Proof of ownership of included content: https://myows.com/ows/certificate/19808
Password: 362e60l93e4gbph125i1
Permission Granted: Scuttles

I agree that's a bit extreme but up to you, so NO you don't have to go to that extreme. but I dare say that would help if you ever went to court

Quote from BlueSteelAU

no it would not be removed if yours was posted anywhere first, you'd just have to prove that yours was first. (unless they went to court about it, then it would be up to you to prove to the court that yours was indeed first ..) if they won the court case and told us to remove it and proved it with legal documents then of course we would have to remove yours. but that's very highly unlikely

Ok, thank you very much for your time, that's all I wanted to know :smile.gif:

I hope you people appreciate all the time I'm spending with you , I haven't had time to do a single report today.. ( about 10 hours now )

they don't say unsatisfactory licence ,

...
MUST PROVIDE SOME FORM OF LICENCING FOR USE, DISTRIBUTION, RE-USE, ETC.
...
Any content that doesn't have one of these licences attached can and will be removed and not accepted
...

that's what it states

so update your content packs so that they contain some sort of licence or they can be deleted (especially repacks or those using others content)

Any new content received after 2 weeks implementation time (EG: 2 weeks from the posting of the rules) will not be accepted and will be deleted

(but will be restored when they have come up with a licence, and stating where the content was from along with their licences ot links to them)

Posted Today, 07:36 PM

View PostProloe, on 12 August 2011 - 06:52 PM, said:
If a texture pack is reported by a third party to the moderation team, they will attempt to contact the creator of the texture pack. If they can get into contact, and the creator confirms stolen content, then the content will be removed. If they cannot get into contact with the creator, I'm unclear as to what will happen. May this be cleared up, since this appears to be everyone's biggest issue with the new rules? Also, if anything else I said was wrong, please correct me.

I would also like this cleared up, since there was no response to this

I know what you want me to say ... that it will be deleted no matter what.. just because someone has reported it as stolen... well it can't be without any solid proof.. and we don't have the time to go in and prove it without a shadow of doubt. so if we delete it and it turns out that it was a false accusation then we could be taken to court. If it turns out to be a true accusation and we did nothing then we could go to court.

its up to professional investigators then to sort things out. which we are not.

so what do you want me to say...

dam the consequences... lets just delete it. .. it's not going to happen.

We need absolute proof that it's not their work or that they don't have the permission or we can't do anything.

so the investigation by us non professionals who know absolutely nothing will continue to twiddle our thumbs... because we've explored all avenues open to us. so we have to let it stay until we have the proof that we need to delete it

If we get a legal letter from the courts or solicitor then it will be dealt with as to how they demand

if it was that easy to work everything out then we wouldn't need courts or lawyers or solicitors

Like the rules and USA LAW state innocent until proven guilty

Quote from Dirty_Christ

Yes, but is it necessary to retrieve a license from something like creativecommons for example? A simple written policy (like what I have already) on the re-distribution of my work in my thread's original post should be enough, right? I believe someone said that earlier in this thread.
I have no issue with people re-distributing my work, as long as I'm properly credited.

EDIT: After post, realized I was echoing Proloe. Sorry.

 like its stated the licence can be something that you word yourself or a pre-drawn up kit licence or a paid for licence. so long as its states how your content can be used , distributed etc... stating what licences you acquired to use others content etc... and links to those other authors content pages , be it offsite or on site..