[Kopachris]

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.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

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).

[Kopachris]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

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?

[Kopachris]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Kopachris]

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?

[The E]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Kopachris]

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.

[StargateSpankyHam]

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.

[SypheDMar]

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.

[Droid803]

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...

[SypheDMar]

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.

[Dragon]

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.

[mjn.mixael]

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.

[SypheDMar]

Exactly what I was thinking. It serves as a case example of the (unintended?) consequences of model exclusivity.

[Black Wolf]

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.

[Black Wolf]

Exactly what I was thinking. It serves as a case example of the (unintended?) consequences of model exclusivity.

Of course unintended. 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.