I dread asking but, stolen/unlicensed assets in TDM?

[RJFerret]

So I don't want to rain on the parade of any specific mission, since the authors are already aware of the issue, expressed their views elsewhere and made their choice. However I saw a stolen image used as a texture--worse, it had been modified to remove attribution, apparently in flagrant violation of the source's attribution-required license. I stopped playing and checked the text files included, and although there was a list of TDM members acknowledged, as well as other textures "thanked", no credits for others' work or that image.

 

In a previous forum thread discussing a bit of this issue (made more complicated by additional issues), it seemed said image was to be included with TDM assets in the future. That last part is obviously the scary part. My question becomes, is there a way to determine which included assets might have been stolen from their creators, or are in violation of their license versus those legally/ethically included?

 

I do know two sound files are listed in the authors.txt included with TDM 2.02, some shaders and three fonts. However it seems there's a dearth of information of which assets might have been legitimately created/obtained versus those that are breaking a license or stolen.

 

Projects I've previously been involved with kept a strict record of source with license, which I'm failing to find here except for those two sounds. I dread having put this question forth, afraid of the answer...

[SteveL]

As I understand it, most included assets are TDM's own ip. If you've got concerns over a specific item not for discussion in this thread, have you raised it with Springheel?

[Airship Ballet]

I feel like if you dreaded it as much as you imply, this would be a PM rather than a thread.

[Springheel]

In a previous forum thread discussing a bit of this issue (made more complicated by additional issues), it seemed said image was to be included with TDM assets in the future.

 

If you're talking about that parchment texture, I thought it was already established that it was not covered by copyright?

[grayman]

If you're referring to the recent discussion about removing a biblical quote from an image, and that image was included in a recently-released mission ...

 

1 - I thought that was put to bed

 

2 - It was added late in the mission's production, so the author might have forgotten to include attribution in the text files.

 

I take it from your creating a public thread to fish around for potential unattributed work, that ...

 

1 - You didn't agree with the other thread's conclusion

 

2 - You haven't asked the authors if the missing attribution was an oversight on their part that will be corrected in the future

[i30817]

Well the first thing wrong is that the updater i downloaded from the site still breaks on folders with spaces. It might be because the update needs to be incremental and it's using a old one?

 

 

 

[=========================] 100.0% File:

Done applying the differential update.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trying to match local files to version definitions...

[=========================] 100.0% File:

Done comparing local files: no luck, PK4 files do not match.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparing local files to server definitions...

[=========================] 100.0% File:

Done comparing local files to server definitions.

A new updater is available: 1 file needs to be downloaded (size: 892 kB).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Downloading TDM Update application...

Downloading from Mirror roggen.jmnet.us: tdm_update_linux.zip

[=========================] 100.0% at 169 kB/sec

Done downloading updater - will restart the application.

Relaunching tdm_update via shell script /home/i30817/Desktop/The Dark Mod/doom3/darkmod/tdm_update_updater.sh

sh: 1: /home/i30817/Desktop/The: not found

 

 

 

[grayman]

Well the first thing wrong is that the updater i downloaded from the site still breaks on folders with spaces. It might be because the update needs to be incremental and it's using a old one?

 

Wrong thread for this.

[Melan]

Excuse me?

 

If you call me and Bikerdude thieves, please name the names and cite the instances. You are obviously referring to Penny Dreadful 2, and the image discussed here. It was added to the mission after it was finished, a decision I did not make, but fully stand behind. Also, I believe you are mistaken on both counts.

 

As much as corporations would like us to forget that they cannot steal our history from us, public domain extends to all works created before the establishment of perpetual copyright.The Heinous Sin of Self-Pollution obviously belongs to this category. It can be reproduced freely and modified, and it is perfectly fine to create derivative works on its basis, which we did. There is also the issue whether a reproduction like a scan or a high-res photo can be copyrighted (as in the case of the image). This idea has been conclusively rejected, even in the copyright-friendly courts of the USA. Even so, there are several scans of the same book cover on the Internet, including this high-res version on archive.org.

 

I fully know stock image sites and IP-based companies are attempting to stake a claim on public domain works on various spurious grounds, and they have a consistent habit of dressing up their false claims in lawyerese. This is, simply put, scary and wrong. A stock image site has as much right to put a claim on a work from 1722 (!) as anyone else: nada, nil and zilch.

 

Finally, I did not ''thank'' the Canon Texture Project, I thanked them. Without scare-quotes, and with my full gratitude.

 

I do not like the implications of this thread, and I am sorry I had to write this post at all.

[Bikerdude]

As much as corporations would like us to forget that they cannot steal our history from us

I particularly liked this line.

[stumpy]

its dated 1722 its likely to have run out of copyright after the death of the author + 70 years is usually the length of copyright in england, copyright laws came in, in england in 1662 as the author is unknown then even if you add 170 years to the date of 1722 then copyright ran out in 1892.

[Goldwell]

Also another thing to remember for not just this case but any case of using creative commons works you can contact the author and obtain written proof to modify the original files/use it for commercial use/etc. So even if you check online and see that there is a no-modification rule in place you cannot see if there is a written agreement between the fm author and the creator. The only people that really know if what they are using is legit or not are the people using them.

[RJFerret]

Only half of responses touch on the question.

 

My question becomes, is there a way to determine which included assets might have been stolen from their creators, or are in violation of their license versus those legally/ethically included?

 

I'm not asking about a specific image, that discussion already took place and folks declared their opinions, there's no point in re-hashing it.

 

But on TDM assets, since I have no way of knowing who contributed what assets to TDM, there's no individual to PM, as apparently there's no record keeping. Emailing everyone in authors.txt would be time intensive, superfluous and potentially accusatory.

 

I intentionally waited to avoid the red-herring of the other discussion. Which is more worrisome, is there reason to avoid the topic regarding other assets?

 

...you can contact the author and obtain written proof to modify the original files/use it for commercial use/etc. So even if you check online and see that there is a no-modification rule in place you cannot see if there is a written agreement between the fm author and the creator. The only people that really know if what they are using is legit or not are the people using them.

 

Which was the case for a sound Bikerdude kindly provided me for my very first FM.

[Lux]

[...] However I saw a stolen image used as a texture--worse, it had been modified to remove attribution, apparently in flagrant violation of the source's attribution-required license.

 

I'm not asking about a specific image, that discussion already took place and folks declared their opinions

 

You can understand the confusion?

 

Also, "opinions" weren't declared. I believe facts were presented or at least that is the way it read and there was no violation of anything.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Lux

[grayman]

After writing an incensed reply to the implication that we have something to hide (guilty until proven innocent), I decided to abandon it and mark this thread as one of those that can go nowhere other than down a rathole that I don't wish to descend. I have better things to do with my time.

 

@RJ, if you have serious concerns with the provenance of TDM's assets, you'll probably be better served by a PM discussion with Springheel and demagague. You'll get no satisfaction in a public forum.

[RJFerret]

Actually I don't understand the confusion, I did make a concerted effort to point out my question wasn't about a specific mission, but did need to provide context of why this leads me to wonder about other assets. That said, I recognize that people often answer what they assume to be the discussion, rather than what is actually being asked.

 

Sorry Grayman to have caused that implication, vice-versa, I was coming from the innocent place.

[SteveL]

Only half of responses touch on the question.

 

Not surprising if a question about a technicality got overlooked when you sandwiched it beneath a public accusation of criminality against two easily identifiable people and an assumption of gross negligence on the part of the curators of this project. All without a shred of evidence. Not up to your usual standard of communication, at all.

 

There won't be a record of where all assets came from, nothing like it. The TDM IP has been built up by contributing members who donate their work by submitting it themselves to the svn repo. How many will stop to add their name to the credits for every texture or model they make? I wouldn't, and there'd be no need to. If someone raises an IP problem about an asset, it'll be dealt with.

 

p.s. the debate about faithful reproductions of non-copyright 2d works was over years ago. I remember reading the bridgeman v corel ruling twice over, all 90-or-so pages at the time. It's a fascinating and beautifully lucid piece of writing, completely accessible to the non-specialist.

[Bikerdude]

• However I saw an image used as a texture, it had been modified to remove attribution, apparently in flagrant violation of the source's attribution-required license.
  
• My question becomes, is there a way to determine which included assets might have been stolen from their creators, or are in violation of their license versus those legally/ethically included?
  

• What image? as Im sure we will find that the licencing for it has been followed by the mod.
  
• The team have been incredably carefull about this RJ, every peice of external resource (texture/sound has been checked before we have used it.
  

• There won't be a record of where all assets came from, nothing like it. The TDM IP has been built up by contributing members who donate their work by submitting it themselves to the svn repo.
  
• How many will stop to add their name to the credits for every texture or model they make? I wouldn't, and there'd be no need to. If someone raises an IP problem about an asset, it'll be dealt with.
  

• And any external resources that have been used or added to the mod would have been either Creative commons licence or a compatable licence that allows us to use to modify and dsitribute said resource as part of the mod.
  
• I havent for one, all I have said is people are free to use stuff I have created they just need to mention that in the readme for this mission. But ultimatly it dosent matter if they dont because everything I make is part of the mod which is covered my the CC licence. For example I have seen a bunch of my textures and sounds used in T2 FM's with no credit, but due my stuff being covered my CC I am not going kick up a fuss about it.
  

[Springheel]

I did make a concerted effort to point out my question wasn't about a specific mission, but did need to provide context of why this leads me to wonder about other assets.

 

The "confusion" probably arises from this line: "I saw a stolen image used as a texture" which is a blatant accusation of theft. Accusing people of theft is hardly a positive way to begin, wouldn't you agree? And it's all the more inflammatory when the use of that texture has already been explained--presumably you're still referring to it as a "stolen image" because you think everyone who has explained why it is okay to use it is wrong?

 

You can see how that might be just a little offensive.

 

As for the more general issue, there is NO way to know whether we have copyrighted material in the mod. Our assets came from dozens of people over the span of a decade. I have no way of knowing whether models being offered to the mod are actually created by the person offering them. I have no way of knowing whether someone sharing a texture with us got it legally or not. Even when I'm making assets myself, I have no way of knowing whether the site I'm getting a texture from actually owns the original texture or whether they stole it from somewhere else. Short of having everyone who donates to the mod sign a legally binding contract to ensure proof of ownership, the best we can do is operate on good faith, and if an issue arises, we deal with it.

[Obsttorte]

I agree with Springheel and Melan. It has been made clear before that TDM will not support any copyright infringments.

 

Obviously it's hard to proof all assets are clean, but if anyone comes up that owns the right on one of them, we can just remove it.

 

Regarding your approach: If you see assets you think they are stolen, it would make more sense to either contact the contributers or, if you don't know them, Springheel or demagogue. Spreading such negative stuff out in a public forum is just not very helpful, especially as you caqnnot be a houndret percent sure whether you are right or wrong.

 

Your concern is however understandable, but as said you should proceed in a different way.

 

Regarding this text example in Melan's new mission: The author/distributor only holds the copyright on the product (the book for example), the copyright of the content (the actual text) expires after a while. In germany for example the copyright on music expires after one houndret years. So if I distribute something from Mozart I have played and recorded myself, this is legal, but not if someone else has played/recorded it. This is a fine but important difference.

[RJFerret]

Thank you all for very considerate and gracious answers on a sensitive topic.

 

Perhaps naïve (I was called worse in PM), I was honestly expecting, "...authors.txt is out of date, look here instead..."--or perhaps "hoping" would be a better choice of word than "expecting".

[HMart]

Just to clarify to anyone that have any doubt, all the models that i donated to the mod (that i'm sad are not much) are made and textured by me and they are free to use and modify, in any way you guys want.

[Paralytik]

Really interesting read, glad to see pretty much everyone being so sensible.

[Bikerdude]

Yup, old thread now.