Your thoughts on people having moral, ethic, or content (et al.) limits/requirements in their terms of use?

[RianQuenlin]

.

 

[Bex]

I have seen atleast one single RPG Maker Graphic Resource that forbid use in
Gore Games or Games with Sexual Content.

All others were simple CC-Licenses.

 

[TheoAllen]

What examples of this have you seen and what are your thoughts?

Someone doesn't like their stuff being used in anything that contains pornography. I'm fine with that tbh.

but if you put something on the internet you've thrown it to the wolves.

Not wrong. It applies to everything and you gotta accept it, but that doesn't mean you give up and stop blaming people who do not adhere to your terms of use. We can only fight it through the collective community (reporting/blacklisting the problematic party) or protect ourselves (paywall, obfuscation, etc).

In addition, asking someone to take a certain political, religious, or social stance to use your product can run afoul of the laws of some nations, and would be utterly impossible to enforce that part of the terms in the first place.

The Internet has proven that people do not like political messages. So, while it is impossible to enforce, they mostly just choose to leave (or leave a bad review).

 

[eomereolsson]

I am in general against it, because I believe that we as a community can accomplish so much through the collaboration that is sharing our resources. Excluding someone from this form of collaboration should be avoided.

However there are two important caveats to this. Firstly, only because I don't like that you put restrictions in your ToS that does not mean that I will not honor them. You as a creator made something and it is your right to only share it under certain conditions.

Secondly sometimes in specific circumstances it is actually very sensible to restrict the usage of certain resources. For example I believe @JohnDoeNews created an explicitly child-friendly tileset and forbade using it in nsfw games precisely as to not entice children to play said nsfw game. In this case for example I am fully behind their restriction even though I do not support them in general.

 

[Starbird_Resources]

I'm one of those people. My TOU includes NOT FOR USE IN PORNOGRAPHIC, X-RATED, or OBSCENE GAMES. NO USE IN NFTs PERMITTED.


I don't want my work to be associated with those kinds of games and since I'm the one who did the work to create the art, I get to decide. Simple as. If someone were to bring a breach of those terms to my attention, I'd seek whatever legal relief I could.

I haven't thrown my work to the wolves. There are terms of use and they need to be followed. That's a big thing on this site and in the "real world" in general.

 

[eomereolsson]

I haven't thrown my work to the wolves. There are terms of use and they need to be followed. That's a big thing on this site and in the "real world" in general.

That is a point I forgot to emphasize. If I stole your car, you wouldn't say "well that is my fault for throwing it to the wolves by leaving it in a publicly accessible place". You would be rightfully furious about my action.

 

[RianQuenlin]

.

 

[coyotecraft]

A morality clause makes sense for movie and sports contracts because they're big productions that involve a lot of people. They can't have the movie stars or players getting caught up in scandals.
They have to conduct themselves properly for everyone's sake or they're not allowed on the boat, so to speak. The consequences effect everyone.

But concerning tools and materials, I don't think it's legally binding.
For instance "Do not criticize this product publicly" isn't valid in any contract because you can't take away someone's freedom of speech. In the US at least, pornography is a matter of expression.

 

[eomereolsson]

But concerning tools and materials, I don't think it's legally binding.
For instance "Do not criticize this product publicly" isn't valid in any contract because you can't take away someone's freedom of speech. In the US at least, pornography is a matter of expression.

Apart from the ethical implications if using resources against the express wishes of their creator I don't think this argument holds any water.
If porn was protected freedom of speech regardless of other circumstances, you could legally breach any non-disclosure agreement or publish any classified material if you just include it in some porn. I doubt this reflects legal reality.

Or to stay with my car analogy from my previous post:
Yes, you have the right to freedom of movement. No, this does not mean you can just take my car to exercise that right.

 

[Bex]

Why would i want to use or support Resources of an Artist which follows bigoted stances on "using rights",
excluding People and Groups for questionable reasons, seemingly restricting creativity.
The Artist pushing own radical Agendas which may partially remind of cancel culture or a new form of it.

Edit:
I would look for alternatives.

 

[the13thsecret]

What I'm thinking of when someone writes something exclusionary in their terms is that they don't want their work to become associated with something controversial to them. The x-rated stuff already discussed is a fine example.

And even if it doesn't stop the user, I think the creator was more focused on preemptively saying, "that 'horrible thing' cannot be associated with me."

That is a point I forgot to emphasize. If I stole your car, you wouldn't say "well that is my fault for throwing it to the wolves by leaving it in a publicly accessible place". You would be rightfully furious about my action.

Don't blame me if your car got stuck to my fingers. If your car was that important, you should've nailed it down. (jk)

 

[RianQuenlin]

.

 

[Kes]

I have no problems with people putting exclusions in their ToS. That is their right. This is especially the case if the resources are free. I believe it would be a huge sense of entitlement on my part to suggest otherwise. If, for some reason, I wanted to use that resource for an excluded activity, I would simply go elsewhere.

In UK law (this may differ elsewhere, I use it for illustrative purposes) a legally enforceable contract is formed when there is both Offer and Acceptance. The resource creator offers something with conditions. If you accept their offer, then you are committed to adhering to the conditions.

If the creator's idea of setting limits involves spitting their dummy out while screaming, shouting, and ranting, I'm going to assume the ones that use their content think that acting like a diva is acceptable behavior.

This is stunningly OTT. In over 10 years working on games I personally have never seen a resource creator scream, shout or rant. I have seen developers do that. I think this sort of straw man/aunt sally weakens any argument.

things that are confidential or otherwise under an NDA are considered an exemption from the right to free speech.

But resources for a game are not confidential, nor are they under an NDA, so the point you make is irrelevant.

If you don't like the terms, don't use the resource. It's no different to the exclusions on use that exist in a multitude of situations. e.g. Some car parks say that you can park there only if you agree to their terms (e.g. no overnight sleeping, no inconsiderate parking etc.) Structurally they are doing nothing different to resource creators who also say that you can use their resource except for...

 

[ATT_Turan]

I personally think it's a bit silly, especially for paid resources (I don't recall if I've seen a paid DLC that said no h-games).

Even with free things, some of the things I've seen are silly - there was a user here who decided to start saying "You can't use my materials unless you go through this elaborate crediting process," because they decided the global legal standards for crediting work were insufficient.

I have never seen anything to the extent that you describe, where a creator limits the use to games that have some specific political/societal/religious message. Is that real, or a pretend extreme situation you formulated?

Regardless, like everyone else has said...just don't use that stuff. There's no way that specific asset can be so awesome that you have to have it in your game. Then that creator gets to sit in the corner having spent time on resources that no one else will use.

 

[lianderson]

About 40 years ago, Twisted Sister made a song called "we're not gonna take it". The opening line was about X political stance. Recently, people with Y political stance tried to co-opt it at their rallies.

 

[RianQuenlin]

.

 

[Kes]

this blog entry on Stack Overflow on open source code being used for "evil"

If you genuinely think that a MZ plugin can be used in torture, you must live in a very dark place. If you don't, then that link is just more irrelevant hyperbole.

 

[ATT_Turan]

Off the top of my head, the Taiwanese creator of LonaRPG makes his stance on China's claim to Taiwan crystal clear and a splash screen says that if you play it you agree with his stance.

That is not the same thing as the topic of your thread. That's a completed game that a person might play, not assets that a maker might integrate into their own project.

It's also nonsensical on its face, if you've correctly related the wording - no person nor program can make me agree with something. If you've paraphrased, and the terms of use for the game require you to not play the game unless you do agree with Taiwan, then that just goes back into the realm of not buying/playing the game if you don't want to agree.

I've never even heard of the game, there's no way it's life-definingly important to play it.

Also before anyone gets incorrect ideas on where I got the idea for this thread, it was this blog entry on Stack Overflow on open source code being used for "evil".

I...do not see how that relates to how you described your topic. There is such a huge difference between a programmer saying "I don't want my code to be used to make torture machines or weapons of mass destruction that will be used to hurt or kill actual people" and an RPG Maker asset creator saying...anything you might imagine they could say, that I just don't see any relevance.

 

[coyotecraft]

Regardless, like everyone else has said...just don't use that stuff. There's no way that specific asset can be so awesome that you have to have it in your game. Then that creator gets to sit in the corner having spent time on resources that no one else will use.

Maybe it's not awesome, but scarce. This might be an over simplification of the French Revolution, but my understanding is that the problem was a neglectful ruling class mismanaging the means of production. Like, bakers didn't have access to flour.
A more modern example would be today's farm equipment. It's harder and harder for small farms to operate. They're using these 50+ year old rusty buckets that they can service themselves. Because today's stuff has digital components and licensed software that they can't touch. There was all this legislation going on about the right-to-repair.

It's like, Rpg Maker DLC. The quality assurance is non-existent. But people are willing to use it, and go through lengths to make it work. I nearly posted a rant the other day here about brain dead policies that are just bad business.
You're absolutely right. I could stand here and say nothing. But maybe I'm sick of watching the world burn and want to make it rain.

 

[Kes]

@coyotecraft Maybe I've missed some uber subtle point, but I'm unclear how the QA of DLC, or farming equipment, relates to resources having exclusions placed upon them. That is, after all, the topic of this thread. It would be sad if the thread got derailed.