Enforce terms of use

[Napoleon]

Maybe it would be an idea to enforce people to include terms of use for posted graphical resources, scripts and related demos. Those terms can be really simple like:
 

non-commercial: just credit. (if a list of credits is supplied that is).

commercial: just credit.

or
 

non-commercial: Terms inside script header.

commercial: Ask.

Also people who used ripped/stolen resources should clearly state that they did. They are rare but some do (like a scripter who used ripped resources for his script-demo but then forgets to mention that).

I believe that the scripts-section does have a terms in the example template but it is not enforced.

 

[amerk]

I think this would be difficult to maintain. Tons of resources (audio, scripts, graphics) come through everyday to keep up with. Mods would be combing through the resources everyday just to approve or decline resources without proper ToS.

Not to mention, many resource providers may provide multiple sets in one topic, each with their own ToS, which adds to the confusion.

The simplest solution still works - Unless otherwise stated, assume the resource provided can only be used in a non-commercial game. If you really want to use it in a commercial project, then ask the artist. If it's too much bother, then don't use it, and look at other resources instead.

 

[Napoleon]

Good points.

But I still think that at least for the scripts section it should be enforced. They are reviewed by a moderator anyway. Or they could use your last paragraph (Unless otherwise stated, assume the .... etc.) and sticky and and if they do not add any terms that their scripts and whatever else came with it is automatically considered free to use in non-commercial projects (including modifying it and sharing/selling those addons/changes) by crediting the OP's forum name?

Kinda sucks to make a non-commercial project and then the creator tells you "I rather not have you share any addons that you made for my scripts and I do not want you to alter it either"... Yes I could have asked but I assumed... Well, I assumed wrong.

 

[EvilEagles]

It'd sure be more of a pain for moderators to thoroughly go through everything ever to check if a proper license or ToS existed, in the case of enforcement that is. Not to mention a good amount of resource creators are no longer active in the community. To disallow resources without a clear and concise license/ToS would cut out a big chunk of fantastic resources we've had so far. That's probably not very good.

But I also do reckon there are still some credits to what Napoleon suggests. I think it's a good practice to at least ENCOURAGE resource creators to provide a proper license or ToS. Technically we (everyone, mods included) can remind them whenever and wherever we can. It can be in the rules/format thread, or in their own threads. I believe that's something we should do because firstly, a proper license/ToS can help creators avoid the common legal disputes. And secondly, it also helps clear out the confusion for other members without them having to contact the creators and waiting for a reply.

 

[Kyutaru]

Would this suffice as a ToS?  It's the one I've been using.
 

"All my scripts may be used for non-commercial games, commercial games, tv commercials, let's-plays, podcasts, news stories, firewood, or any other use you may happen to find for them.  Please do not post these scripts on any other site claiming to be the creator.  I don't care about receiving credit, I care about the poor SOB who might actually think you know something about scripting and ask for your advice."

 

[Napoleon]

@EvilEagles

I was just thinking that the mods would only check if the Terms are filled in, w/o checking if the terms are proper/valid/actually present. Like:

"Terms: See script header"

Then the mod doesn't look any further and does not look inside the script header. But if there are no terms in the script header then the user should be able to report it.

Also older resources posted before date X should not be enforced and can be left as is.

But I understand your point of views and I understand that enforcing might not be the way to do it. Encouraging may help as well. Most (scripters at least) seem, imo, to more often forget the terms than to leave them out on purpose.

And for graphical resources and such w/o any terms I assume that most people just want their forum name in the credits + non-commercial only.

Maybe users could have a little button added under their name or something and if you click on it, you see their default terms for all their stuff in case they did not fill in the terms. But that button would probably need to be defaulted to "All rights reserved" and then they forget to change that button I guess...

@Kyutaru:

Yes to me that qualifies as terms. Basically you could shorten it to License: CC0/Public Domain. Which is of course the best license imo, shortly followed by a credit license + do whatever you want.

Off-topic:

Yesterday I stumbled upon a CC3 license that explicitly stated that credits should be given as follow: "Scripts by <name>" (not from these forums). But that would imply that ALL scripts were made by that guy, effectively rendering his scripts unusable because it would conflict with other licenses unless I would use no script other than his... Yes then you have to contact them and hope they reply and are still active . So PROPER terms are also important.

Also if you make an erotic project (or a political project or etc.) it is possible that people do not want their resources used by that particular project anymore. Proper terms can be important here as well.

 

[Mouser]

Off-topic:

Yesterday I stumbled upon a CC3 license that explicitly stated that credits should be given as follow: "Scripts by <name>" (not from these forums). But that would imply that ALL scripts were made by that guy, effectively rendering his scripts unusable because it would conflict with other licenses unless I would use no script other than his... Yes then you have to contact them and hope they reply and are still active . So PROPER terms are also important.

Also if you make an erotic project (or a political project or etc.) it is possible that people do not want their resources used by that particular project anymore. Proper terms can be important here as well.

In the first case, you're not limited to only his name in the credits - you can still give others credit (don't forget to list yourself). Or you could name his script  - say Journaling System: scripts by <name here>. You do have to be careful with 'open source' licenses. I made a thread mentioning the GPL - once you put a GPL'd script in your game (which is legally fine) you can't legally give a copy of it to anyone.

In the second case, once you release your scripts with a license, they're out there. Unless you specifically put in language that lets you change the terms  (I remember WotC changing the license for the d20 SRD when an 'erotic' handbook was about to come out. Book probably gained a ton more sales from the license squabble than if it had just been released quietly.

 

[Napoleon]

Ugh I should not have mentioned something off-topic .

I can't name his script. I must put it in the credits exactly like he stated without any change as enforced by the cc3 as well as by him. Those were his cc3 terms. But he replied by now and it's okay to change it anyway.

I know, and some licenses (like come creative commons) can never be removed once it's applied if I remember correctly. People can still use your old version with the old license even after you change it. And I always avoid GPL for several reasons. Maybe they changed it by now but the old GPL had so many critical issues. I also avoid the CC3-SA because it is so untransparent for games.

 

[Mouser]

I know, and some licenses (like come creative commons) can never be removed once it's applied if I remember correctly. People can still use your old version with the old license even after you change it. And I always avoid GPL for several reasons. Maybe they changed it by now but the old GPL had so many critical issues. I also avoid the CC3-SA because it is so untransparent for games.

The problem with the GPL is it's viral. If you put in a GPL'd script it links to the RPG Maker engine, which means the engine would have to be GPL'd.

 

[whitesphere]

@Mouser

The best approach for GPL might be to state the GPL is not acceptable, but the LGPL is.  If I'm remembering it properly, the LGPL only requires changes to the actual LGPL'd item to be publicized.  So it would not require RPG Maker itself to become open source.

Or, perhaps, use the Apache or Berkeley open source license, which has no "viral" component.

As for this topic, I agree that enforcing would be impractical because the moderators would end up doing little else.

But, having a template for scripts and other resources, and requiring submitters to fill it in, will help.  The moderators could have a  simple template, with required fields, and all resources and scripts submitted must fill in the fields, or the resource will be automatically rejected.  Something like:

Author: (contact info)

Use:

- Non-commercial OK,

Commercial OK?  Yes/No/Contact Author

Modification OK?  Yes/No/Contact Author

So it is the submitter/author's job to figure out who owns what.  Or, at a minimum, each person must clearly identify what pieces s/he owns rights to.  All non-attributed items are NOT assumed to be owned by the submitter/author.

And all credit MUST be given to the appropriate creator.  Modification of the resource, if OK'd by the creator, is fine but the original material MUST be credited accordingly.

All of those would be the submitter's job, not the moderators.

 

[Mouser]

@Mouser

The best approach for GPL might be to state the GPL is not acceptable, but the LGPL is.  If I'm remembering it properly, the LGPL only requires changes to the actual LGPL'd item to be publicized.  So it would not require RPG Maker itself to become open source.

LGPL is no good either - that's only for linked libraries. Apache/BSD/MIT any of those are all fine.