Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The FRED Workshop => Topic started by: Droid803 on November 29, 2012, 09:43:50 pm
-
Okay, this scenario has been playing around in my head for some time. Then I figured it would be interesting to see what you people would do. I would like to assert that this is a fictional thought exercise. Any similarity to real/current events is purely coincidental.
Say you have a campaign nearing completion that has a specific mission designed around a certain asset. However, said asset happens to be a leaked, and supposedly super-secret, exclusive asset to an unreleased mod. You were not aware of circumstances the moment the mission was designed and built as you stumbled upon it. Re-designing the mission is out of the question at this point, it would take too much time and effort and re-writing of the plot and core gameplay design. From all you know, the mod is dead, or basically dead, just holding onto assets in case someone picks it back up. You have no idea who's the leader of it anymore, or if anyone even is, thus contacting them is pretty much impossible.
Thus, there are the following options:
1) Give no ****s and release anyway when it's ready (worry about the lawsuit later, if it ever comes)
2) Replace the model with a custom designed asset made to fit the requirements (delay the release by weeks to months reinventing the wheel, possibly with lesser quality)
3) Wait for the mod to release (delay the release by years possibly or even never)
4) ??? (any other ideas?)
What would you do?
-
Contact the asset holder and figure out if you can get permission to use it.
-
I think ethically option 2 is the best of a bad set of choices. Option 1 isn't ethical IMHO, and option 3 is probably doomed to waiting forever. I don't know what other options there would be, maybe re-purpose a different existing asset, but that might take as long as option 2 anyway. Try your hardest to contact the original author anyway?
-
This is a really ****ty situation to be in, but in this case, I think you should reach out to
Tantalus
-
This wasn't triggered by a certain leaked Shivan Destroyer fiasco, was it? :( I guess I personally would be extremely miffed I'd someone released one of my assetts without my permission, but if I'd departed the community forever without releasing something, I'd probably want it out there. It's a tough situation. Perhaps a public post enquiring about the status of the asset? Someone may know something that you don't.
-
Yeah I know the stuff you don't since I have internal access
-
You know, I worded it that way to keep things contained, didn't want to drag it into the public light.
Thanks though. :)
-
Sorry :(
-
I think anyone who is paying the slightest attention to the wiki and IRC knows about it. Cat's out of the bag now.
Also, I have to point out that a mod that doesn't release its ships, is a mod that believes it needs ships to make its mod interesting, and hence is a sad mod indeeed.
-
That's what happening with mod, when the team is against the mod leader. It's still a big shame for me, that I can't regret. Too bad...
Anyway, most of the assets from this mod are released. Only music, cutscenes, and other special things aren't and I'm not sure if they will ever be. Nobody cares.
-
That depends entirely on the active status of who made it (not the mod leader, the model-maker, this is important). If they're all-the-way-gone, I'd say damn the torpedoes and release, if they're still about, try and get permission and if permission isn't forthcoming make something yourself.
-
Would this be related to something being leaked by any chance...judging by the people talking I'm guessing its also inferno related. But imho, I'd try to get permission to use it first, if not then I'll have to wait for the mod to be released or try to find (or make) a replacement asset.
-
it's not inferno related
-
Personally I'd contact those involved with the mod and offer services of equal or great time value to those involved in making the mod I need.
That's basically a win-win solution when dealing with someone of your calibre. Either the mod is dead, in which case the mod gets used and you don't have to do anything, or the mod gets an injection of new life.
-
Well, since you said "ethics" instead of "typical code of conduct amongst modders", of course there's no problem with 1). As for what I'd actually do would likely depend on several factors.
-
if you are talking about an asset that has not been created to be used in commercial software, the only damage you do when using it while not havin permission is damage to the creator's pride
so the question is: what do you value more? a persons pride, or to release a free piece of art for everyone (which basically every mod is)
personally, i think every piece of software that no legal owner earns money with should be free by definition
-
He's talking about an asset that was specifically made for a mod, and which release was purposefully delayed for long (years maybe ?), because the aforementioned mod team believe it is so important to the mod, that releasing it before releasing the mod would make for a less impressive mod release. Which is sad. Especially given that the mod in question has shown no sign to release anytime soon.
Droid is not trying to release it commercially or anything, he's just trying to see whether he should use that leaked asset or not.
Yay for long sentences.
-
1) **** the haters, release anyway YOLO. Once it's available/"leaked" it's fair game. You'll make more people happy (including yourself) by releasing a decent mod than you will by pandering to the whims of the makers of a mod that will probably never get released.
-
1) **** the haters, release anyway YOLO. Once it's available/"leaked" it's fair game. You'll make more people happy (including yourself) by releasing a decent mod than you will by pandering to the whims of the makers of a mod that will probably never get released.
That can't be the attitude we take in a community built on volunteer effort. :( If we effectively remove those volunteers' right to decide how their work is , well, we might not be killing the golden goose, but we're certainly beating it with a pretty sizable stick. I know that if any of my curently unreleased assets were used against my wishes, I'd certainly have to reevaluate the effort I put into them, especially if it was done with community support behind the leaker. It's important that we always remember that there are people behind these models, and while you might not agree with the creators' decisions regarding exclusivity, they have to remain their decisions.
-
I agree with BW. Even if I believe everything and their kitchen sink should be free to use as soon as it is in a releasable state, I think it is more important that the asset creator has the last word about how his creations are used.
-
1) **** the haters, release anyway YOLO. Once it's available/"leaked" it's fair game. You'll make more people happy (including yourself) by releasing a decent mod than you will by pandering to the whims of the makers of a mod that will probably never get released.
That can't be the attitude we take in a community built on volunteer effort. :( If we effectively remove those volunteers' right to decide how their work is , well, we might not be killing the golden goose, but we're certainly beating it with a pretty sizable stick. I know that if any of my curently unreleased assets were used against my wishes, I'd certainly have to reevaluate the effort I put into them, especially if it was done with community support behind the leaker. It's important that we always remember that there are people behind these models, and while you might not agree with the creators' decisions regarding exclusivity, they have to remain their decisions.
Why would it make you re-evaluate the effort you put into them? Because people are actually using them rather than having them sitting in unused files on someone's Hard Drive? I'd have thought that, along with seeing one's name in the credits, seeing them actually being used would be the main reason behind actually bothering to create them in the first place. I can't really see where you're coming from with this, if you were going to make some money out of the models then I get it, absolutely, but when it's derivative works that you can't get anything else out of other than pride why would you withhold it?
More specifically to this case - as a creator would you not be more annoyed if you departed the forum, came back in five years time and found out that your models have been locked up in a project that was never released and someone else either A) never released his campaign or B) had to waste hours or days his time recreating it after replacing the model than if you heard someone had used it? Admittedly my MODing experience is minimal, but if I'd created something I'd far rather see it used than not used.
-
But the creator is active, made the model specifically so it would be a big surprise, was really excited for this big surprise, and was absolutely crushed when it was released without his permission.
You'd just go ahead and spit in his face, rather than let him use it how he intended it?
-
Just my lurker's two cents, but I find the "I'd rather have it used if it were mine and got leaked" argument I keep reading unconvincing, because it seems to me (again, take my opinion with some salt, as I've never released anything worth a damn) that the people that actually create the majority of these assets - and admittedly keep a minority of them exclusive - don't buy it. Simply having the capability to download a file, plunk it in the right folder, and change a few lines in a modular table for it doesn't entitle you to make decisions about the asset's use and it certainly doesn't change the fact that people outside a particular mod's team are completely unqualified to make decisions about the status of that mod's release. Getting stuff (models, etc) for free is just an awesome perk of visiting the same websites as people who actually know how to do cool things I don't have the time or motivation to learn how to do.
TL:D(care or)R - I second Blackwolf and Battuta...
-
I'm with Matth in that I oppose exclusive assets in general but support the rights of creators to determine under what terms they release their assets. Our community is built essentially only on trust and mutual respect.
-
Personally I'd contact those involved with the mod and offer services of equal or great time value to those involved in making the mod I need.
That's basically a win-win solution when dealing with someone of your calibre. Either the mod is dead, in which case the mod gets used and you don't have to do anything, or the mod gets an injection of new life.
Agreed.
-
But the creator is active, made the model specifically so it would be a big surprise, was really excited for this big surprise, and was absolutely crushed when it was released without his permission.
You'd just go ahead and spit in his face, rather than let him use it how he intended it?
If he's active send him a PM and discuss it with him, that's not the scenario here though. I'm not advocating using it explicitly against the will of the person who made the model, but if he's not around any more and there's no chance of an imminent release from the mod in question then release the mod that's actually complete.
If he comes back and is disappointed that it's already been released, well that's very sad. It's a scenario that might well not come to pass though, the campaign maker having to cancel his campaign if he doesn't go ahead with the model is a definite scenario though. It comes down to a choice between one person having the potential release of their model being slightly diminished or another having their work (the campaign) completely cancelled, the first is obviously preferable.
-
Personally I'd contact those involved with the mod and offer services of equal or great time value to those involved in making the mod I need.
That's basically a win-win solution when dealing with someone of your calibre. Either the mod is dead, in which case the mod gets used and you don't have to do anything, or the mod gets an injection of new life.
Agreed.
Sounds great, but what if time is the only limiting factor. Then it becomes kind of zero sum.
For example, if you were to offer equal or greater time (assuming that you even have the physical option of offering that), you might as well just re-make the asset myself (ie. Option 2), as in the long run there is absolutely no difference. In fact if you go with option 2 the entire community gets a new asset to play with at the end of everything instead of just one person getting access to something that for the rest of the community has no access to, for the equal time allotment!
Doesn't sound so win-win anymore does it? I mean, you could sure pay the lip service and say that you'll do something in return *later* in which case they have to trust you to actually do it - in which case there isn't really a gain for them, or to deny permission until the job is done - in which case there's no gain in it for you.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily have to be this way, but I still don't see it as the catch-all solution.
-
Remember Droid did remake the Tethys at his own fashion. He doesn't seem adverse to remaking existing assets in a way that better fits his stuff. I do agree that in the end it makes one more ship for everyone to use. Problem being time to make that new ship.
-
Well you are in a dilemma indeed.
Assuming you were not aware of the exclusivity of the asset (kind of hard to believe, the asset is something that really stands out... I would be at lease suspicious about it turning up with no release thread) and that your mission is already complete and depends on it:
I think the only thing to do is to ask the owner of the asset if it would be possible to release it, or contact the mod leader to verify if there's no possibility of coming to an arrangement.
Either of those would be logical and acceptable to me.
-
Assuming you were not aware of the exclusivity of the asset (kind of hard to believe, the asset is something that really stands out... I would be at lease suspicious about it turning up with no release thread)
You'd be surprised at the stuff you can find on FSmods without any other mention elsewhere. I did some significant digging and went to put some on the wiki, but there are more. The presence of this ship wasn't really suspicious, the quality of it a bit unusual but not unheard of.
-
Mmm, then if it's possible to find this kind of things on fsmods I shall remove that statement. I had the vague idea of that being practically impossible.
As far as how to deal with it, the options I gave are still the ones I'd go with.
-
That depends entirely on the active status of who made it (not the mod leader, the model-maker, this is important). If they're all-the-way-gone, I'd say damn the torpedoes and release, if they're still about, try and get permission and if permission isn't forthcoming make something yourself.
This is pretty much exactly how I feel. I'd say the person who made the specific asset is of far more consequence than the mod team, especially if said mod is dead and its showrunners are essentially unreachable. I don't know the specifics of the situation in question, but have you tried to get in touch with the modeler, Droid? If they're still reachable in some way, then let them know about the situation, and then respect whatever call they make about your usage of the model, even if it means having to create your own custom model for the mission. If the asset creator isn't reachable either...well, in that case, I kind of feel like you might as well just go ahead and use the asset, with proper credit given. If the digital cat's already out of the bag, it can't exactly be put back in, and if the model's floating around out there unused, it'd seem extremely foolish to let it continue to do so.
-
Why would it make you re-evaluate the effort you put into them? Because people are actually using them rather than having them sitting in unused files on someone's Hard Drive? I'd have thought that, along with seeing one's name in the credits, seeing them actually being used would be the main reason behind actually bothering to create them in the first place. I can't really see where you're coming from with this, if you were going to make some money out of the models then I get it, absolutely, but when it's derivative works that you can't get anything else out of other than pride why would you withhold it?
I would reevaluate because, if my stuff was regularly leaked with tacit community support, what does that suggest about the degree of respect for my wishes and effort? I and many other modders put a hell of a lot of time and effort into these things, and most of what gets made is freely available as soon as it's ready. The rest gets made available eventually as well, but in a manner and time of our choosing. That's our right as the people who've made the effort and put in the hours. Our motives for keeping them exclusive vary from modder to modder and project to project, but they're legitimate motives and, frankly, it's our decision to make. In this aspect, nobody else's opinion matters worth a damn.You're right about one thing though - it's definitely a buzz to see your stuff getting used in screenshots and campaigns - that's the main reason why I release so much if what I make, and probably the same goes for most people who regularly make stuff. But that's in situations where it's being used with permission - I'd feel very, very differently about stuff used without my consent.
-
But the creator is active, made the model specifically so it would be a big surprise, was really excited for this big surprise, and was absolutely crushed when it was released without his permission.
You'd just go ahead and spit in his face, rather than let him use it how he intended it?
If he's active send him a PM and discuss it with him, that's not the scenario here though.
Yes, it is. He's active.
-
D. Join the mod team, kick people to life (that's probably all it needs) and get the mod to release. For all you know it's nearly complete already :P
-
Some people just can't be bothered to get on the sinking boat just to watch it die.
-
I would reevaluate because, if my stuff was regularly leaked with tacit community support, what does that suggest about the degree of respect for my wishes and effort? I and many other modders put a hell of a lot of time and effort into these things, and most of what gets made is freely available as soon as it's ready. The rest gets made available eventually as well, but in a manner and time of our choosing. That's our right as the people who've made the effort and put in the hours. Our motives for keeping them exclusive vary from modder to modder and project to project, but they're legitimate motives and, frankly, it's our decision to make. In this aspect, nobody else's opinion matters worth a damn.You're right about one thing though - it's definitely a buzz to see your stuff getting used in screenshots and campaigns - that's the main reason why I release so much if what I make, and probably the same goes for most people who regularly make stuff. But that's in situations where it's being used with permission - I'd feel very, very differently about stuff used without my consent.
Hold up, who's talking about regularly leaking your stuff? This is one instance where a campaign was inadvertently designed around a particular asset. Legally it's your decision to make, but again, I ask you, if you had been out of the loop for a few years and had made some assets that were tied up in a project that will probably never get released, would you really have a problem if someone got hold of that asset and used it? If I'd made something I'd be more annoyed if it never got used because I couldn't be contacted and it was tied up in a dead mod than if it got used without my permission.
If you're about and someone uses it without consent or against your will then fair enough, you've a right to be pissed, but if you're not then more power to the content creators, especially in a scenario where they've invested a lot of time into a project that's reliant on this particular mod.
But the creator is active, made the model specifically so it would be a big surprise, was really excited for this big surprise, and was absolutely crushed when it was released without his permission.
You'd just go ahead and spit in his face, rather than let him use it how he intended it?
If he's active send him a PM and discuss it with him, that's not the scenario here though.
Yes, it is. He's active.
Maybe I've missed something here - is this something that's actually happening in real life or are we talking about the fictional scenario outlined in the OP? Here's what the OP says about contact
From all you know, the mod is dead, or basically dead, just holding onto assets in case someone picks it back up. You have no idea who's the leader of it anymore, or if anyone even is, thus contacting them is pretty much impossible.
If he's active and available to contact there's no dilemma.
-
There was a real asset leaked a month or two ago which seems to have bee the nucleus of the problem - it's since been pulled from FSMods. My comments were more about the hypothetical side, and how to deal with such situations in the future. WRT your post, Kie, you're welcometo feel the way you do, but I'm heartened to see that your opinion seems to be in the extreme minority. Makes me feel even better about the FS community. :nod:
-
Some people just can't be bothered to get on the sinking boat just to watch it die.
I don't wish to be rude, but judging by our badge lists I think I have a better view on the situation than you do, TYVM.
-
There was a real asset leaked a month or two ago which seems to have bee the nucleus of the problem - it's since been pulled from FSMods. My comments were more about the hypothetical side, and how to deal with such situations in the future. WRT your post, Kie, you're welcometo feel the way you do, but I'm heartened to see that your opinion seems to be in the extreme minority. Makes me feel even better about the FS community. :nod:
FWIW I'm talking about the fictional scenario outlined in the OP, not any real situation. To be clear, if the creator of the piece of work is uncontactable, and the team which holds the asset with permission is also uncontactable, with the mod it "legitimately" belongs to dead or completely stagnant, I say go with it, give the people the campaign. If the creator is around then speak to him about it and don't release without his blessing.
Some people just can't be bothered to get on the sinking boat just to watch it die.
I don't wish to be rude, but judging by our badge lists I think I have a better view on the situation than you do, TYVM.
I'd say being a member of a project that's still a WIP despite being older than some members of this forum puts you at the fairly extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to judging whether a ship is sinking or not.
-
How about we try to prevent these hypothetical dilemmas in the future by always including license information in the PINF chunk of the file (or somewhere else if we're not talking about a model) so it's not ambiguous? e.g. Feel free to use, do not use, Creative Commons, Uncreative Commons, etc.
In this case, try to get permission from the original creator, respect his/her wishes if permission is denied, but use it anyway if you don't get an answer after a month or so (in which case it's easier to ask forgiveness than continue waiting for permission). As for waiting for the mod to be released, **** that. They should take more care not to leak stuff that shouldn't be leaked. Once they abandon it, anything that's been released, intentionally or not, is fair game. Not using an asset and not allowing anyone else to use it is like holding a patent you never use except to sue someone who does use it--it stifles creativity rather than protecting it.
I am a non-attorney spokesperson. The above is the opinion of the poster and should not be construed as the opinion of Hard Light Productions, forum staff, or legal advice. Use at your own risk.
Also, sorry for reviving the thread just to give my two cents. Didn't notice the date on the last post.
-
How about we try to prevent these hypothetical dilemmas in the future by always including license information in the PINF chunk of the file (or somewhere else if we're not talking about a model) so it's not ambiguous? e.g. Feel free to use, do not use, Creative Commons, Uncreative Commons, etc.
But that, of course could be messed with... (and likely would in the current scenario, as it appears to have been a deliberately malicious leak). Which is why it really is better to contact the original author(s).
-
How about we try to prevent these hypothetical dilemmas in the future by always including license information in the PINF chunk of the file (or somewhere else if we're not talking about a model) so it's not ambiguous? e.g. Feel free to use, do not use, Creative Commons, Uncreative Commons, etc.
But that, of course could be messed with... (and likely would in the current scenario, as it appears to have been a deliberately malicious leak). Which is why it really is better to contact the original author(s).
It's still wouldn't hurt, though. Better than nothing. The copyright page of a book can be torn out, but people still put one in when they publish. I would like to see putting copyright/usage information in the PINF chunk of model files become standard practice (if it's not already--I don't actually do any modding, so I wouldn't know).
In any case, general business practice regarding intellectual property in the US is use it or lose it. If you care about protecting your intellectual property, it's your own responsibility to protect it. That is, if you're apathetic enough about it to not pay attention to people using it without permission or even answer someone's question as to whether or not they can use it, your claim won't hold up very well in court.
Whether or not that is "ethical" is another story.
-
I think you're mistaking copy right for trademarks actually. I don't believe that there is a requirement to defend the use of copyright material.
-
It's still wouldn't hurt, though. Better than nothing. The copyright page of a book can be torn out, but people still put one in when they publish. I would like to see putting copyright/usage information in the PINF chunk of model files become standard practice (if it's not already--I don't actually do any modding, so I wouldn't know).
Sure, it could be torn out - but that should ring an alarm bell with anyone who is looking for it. But digital data formats like POF can be edited without leaving any traces. In your comparison, that would be akin to (somehow) blanking the original page and reprinting it with your own information, in such a way that no one will see it's not the original copyright. See the potential for abuse there?
-
I think you're mistaking copy right for trademarks actually. I don't believe that there is a requirement to defend the use of copyright material.
I think you're right. My mistake.
It's still wouldn't hurt, though. Better than nothing. The copyright page of a book can be torn out, but people still put one in when they publish. I would like to see putting copyright/usage information in the PINF chunk of model files become standard practice (if it's not already--I don't actually do any modding, so I wouldn't know).
Sure, it could be torn out - but that should ring an alarm bell with anyone who is looking for it. But digital data formats like POF can be edited without leaving any traces. In your comparison, that would be akin to (somehow) blanking the original page and reprinting it with your own information, in such a way that no one will see it's not the original copyright. See the potential for abuse there?
So? Because it could be changed, it's not worth the effort of typing "Copyright 2013 FreeSpaceFreak. Do not use without my express permission."? It would certainly help in legitimate cases, i.e. You're not around any more to ask permission from, and someone wants to know if they can use your model.
C'mon--try to be a little more optimistic.
-
In this case, try to get permission from the original creator, respect his/her wishes if permission is denied, but use it anyway if you don't get an answer after a month or so (in which case it's easier to ask forgiveness than continue waiting for permission). As for waiting for the mod to be released, **** that. They should take more care not to leak stuff that shouldn't be leaked. Once they abandon it, anything that's been released, intentionally or not, is fair game. Not using an asset and not allowing anyone else to use it is like holding a patent you never use except to sue someone who does use it--it stifles creativity rather than protecting it.
The mod is active and the asset was leaked without the team's consent. I am not a big fan of exclusive assets period, but in this case, it seems like a moral black and white to me.
-
In this case, try to get permission from the original creator, respect his/her wishes if permission is denied, but use it anyway if you don't get an answer after a month or so (in which case it's easier to ask forgiveness than continue waiting for permission). As for waiting for the mod to be released, **** that. They should take more care not to leak stuff that shouldn't be leaked. Once they abandon it, anything that's been released, intentionally or not, is fair game. Not using an asset and not allowing anyone else to use it is like holding a patent you never use except to sue someone who does use it--it stifles creativity rather than protecting it.
The mod is active and the asset was leaked without the team's consent. I am not a big fan of exclusive assets period, but in this case, it seems like a moral black and white to me.
I think the main point we disagree on (and probably will never agree on) is whether or not the team has any right to control the asset. In my opinion, unless the creator explicitly grants the team control of the asset, they have no right to control it beyond the creator's wishes. If the creator becomes inactive, they're SOL.
I'm also fuzzy on the specifics of this case, since I haven't kept up with the news. I've gathered that an asset was leaked before it was supposed to be released and it was supposed to be exclusive to the mod. You say the mod is still active, but others have implied that the creator of the asset in question isn't. Who leaked the asset? Can you provide any more details?
-
No details will be provided. The asset in question was leaked against both the teams' stated wishes and those of the creator of the asset in question. If the original modeller had come forward and said "Right, I think this project isn't going anywhere, so I'm releasing the work I did for it to the public", we wouldn't be having this discussion. That wasn't the case however.
I think the main point we disagree on (and probably will never agree on) is whether or not the team has any right to control the asset. In my opinion, unless the creator explicitly grants the team control of the asset, they have no right to control it beyond the creator's wishes. If the creator becomes inactive, they're SOL.
There is no disagreement here, just an incomplete knowledge of the facts of the case on your part.
-
I think the main point we disagree on (and probably will never agree on) is whether or not the team has any right to control the asset. In my opinion, unless the creator explicitly grants the team control of the asset, they have no right to control it beyond the creator's wishes. If the creator becomes inactive, they're SOL.
I'm also fuzzy on the specifics of this case, since I haven't kept up with the news. I've gathered that an asset was leaked before it was supposed to be released and it was supposed to be exclusive to the mod. You say the mod is still active, but others have implied that the creator of the asset in question isn't. Who leaked the asset? Can you provide any more details?
The creator is an active team member, and he was the one who set the terms of use and exclusivity. You say the team has no right to control the asset beyond the creator's wishes, but the creator is present and his wishes are pretty clear.
-
I think the main point we disagree on (and probably will never agree on) is whether or not the team has any right to control the asset. In my opinion, unless the creator explicitly grants the team control of the asset, they have no right to control it beyond the creator's wishes. If the creator becomes inactive, they're SOL.
I'm also fuzzy on the specifics of this case, since I haven't kept up with the news. I've gathered that an asset was leaked before it was supposed to be released and it was supposed to be exclusive to the mod. You say the mod is still active, but others have implied that the creator of the asset in question isn't. Who leaked the asset? Can you provide any more details?
The creator is an active team member, and he was the one who set the terms of use and exclusivity. You say the team has no right to control the asset beyond the creator's wishes, but the creator is present and his wishes are pretty clear.
Well, okay then.
-
I would make every attempt to contact the mod leader, and those involved in the making of the asset(s). If they reply that they do not wish for their assets to be used, then I will respect their decision and go work on something else for a while. It is, after all, the creator's intellectual property.
However, if no reply is given within months or years, and the asset is completely abandoned, I do not believe it would be unethical to use it. In fact, I believe the opposite is true: It would be unethical to not put the asset to use. The creators' legacy lives on through their work, and I would be intensely proud to preserve that in a mission or mod.
The credits would reflect upon their legacy and their work living on through my mission/mod, since the creators would deserve far more than just credit where credit is due.
-
However, if no reply is given within months or years, and the asset is completely abandoned, I do not believe it would be unethical to use it. In fact, I believe the opposite is true: It would be unethical to not put the asset to use. The creators' legacy lives on through their work, and I would be intensely proud to preserve that in a mission or mod.
I agree that it would be unethical not to use it, but I disagree with the rationale in a hypothetical case if the mod team and the modeler disappeared.
It would be unethical not to release it because it would force someone to "reinvent the wheel" for this particular asset. That cannot be good for the community because it diverts time and effort for something that should not have needed it. You may argue that had the asset not be leaked, nobody would know about creating a mimic of the asset in the first place. However in the hypothetical situation separate from Droid's, the model is leaked, so not releasing it would be on your conscience.
My disagreement is when you said that the creator would be intensely proud to have an asset used in a mod. There is no guarantee that the creator of the asset would be proud if the asset was exclusive to begin with. Some assets go down with the ship. HLP has been doing great work in recent years when it comes to dumping assets after a mod has been declared dead; but we cannot ignore the cases when such an event does not occur because of the exclusivity of a particular asset, no matter how unlikely the case may be.
In Droid's "hypothetical" situation, if the team is active and the modeler doesn't want it to be released (supposing that you already asked the modeler or team for permission), then you are not in a position to release it. Your only choices of the choices given are 2 and 3, and the decision for either is dependent on how well you and the aforementioned team can gauge the release date of the team's mod, and how long you can put your mod on hold. Choice 2 puts you back to recreating the asset, but unlike the previous hypothetical situation, you are not in the ethical position to release the model. 3... does nothing for the community and only hinders your progress. It must be disappointing to be facing this dilemma.
If the team with exclusivity of the leaked asset is active, they believe that they are (in relative terms compared to recreating the asset) nearing completion, and you believe that they are almost ready to release their mod; then you should try negotiating like karajorma said. It doesn't hurt to ask as long as the benefits of time, pride, and effort outweighs the cost.
I don't know much about the situation aside from what's posted in this thread. I mustn't have been on IRC when it was mentioned.
-
I decided on option 4 cancel the project. (after speaking to people that I thought had dissapeared but people helped me find)
Because I lost motivation from all the waiting and downtime, and I just don't care anymore. You'll never hear of it again. Even if the asset does become available I have no desire to polish off and finish the damn campaign anymore so it can go rot.
I have more important things to do like getting my act together for my last semester of undergrad university...
-
I think this thread is a good case study for what we should prepare for next time something like this happens. It's a pity that you decided to scrap everything, but it's a great idea to put real life first.
-
Maybe you can dump it when the asset in question is released. Or heck, even before, just not include the controversial ship in the download. It'd be unusable as-is, but somebody could either make/find a suitable replacement or simply wait and put the actual thing in.
-
I suspect that Droid killing off the project permanently is the only way he knows to protest the bad situation and/or the idea of exclusive assets. For better or worse.
-
Exactly what I was thinking. It serves as a case example of the (unintended?) consequences of model exclusivity.
-
I suspect that Droid killing off the project permanently is the only way he knows to protest the bad situation and/or the idea of exclusive assets. For better or worse.
I hope not. The reasons he gave in his post seem valid in and of themselves, and frankly, this would seem to me to be a very poor way to get your point across. Not to mention extremely unlikely to change anyone's opinion regarding asset exclusivity.
That said, I honestly doubt that this was Droid's intent here. RL issues end way, way more projects than asset exclusivity or availability ever has or ever will.
-
Exactly what I was thinking. It serves as a case example of the (unintended?) consequences of model exclusivity.
Of course unintended. :rolleyes: None of us who keep our assets are doing it for the purpose of ending or inconveniencing other mods. This has been a bad situation, granted, but it was caused by asset leaking, not asset exclusivity.
Apologies for the double post - I'd already written it before I realized I couldn't copy and paste into an edit properly from my phone.
-
Of course unintended. :rolleyes: None of us who keep our assets are doing it for the purpose of ending or inconveniencing other mods. This has been a bad situation, granted, but it was caused by asset leaking, not asset exclusivity.
What BW said. If anyone is to blame here, it's the one who leaked the asset.
-
I should have said leakage since that is the reason this whole issue of ethics is discussed. My bad.
I'm pretty sure it's unintended too, but just in case there's a genius out there who leaked the model to screw with HLP's modding community, I added a question mark. :shaking:
-
It's more of that all the waiting has given me more opportunity to reflect on and re-evaluate the quality and direction of the current project, and that along with RL has led me to believe it's no longer worth pursuing. It had very very little in terms of substance especially in absence of the one mission that used said asset. That, and the prospect of either having to wait for an undisclosed amount of time or to remake it has left me with little motivation to actually continue working on it accounting for the aforementioned points.
I assure you not much was lost.