Jump to content

CC-BY-NC-SA license modification - feedback?


Recommended Posts

At some point I will distribute my Valkerbie model to the KSP community and I understand I need to release it under a license. CC-BY-NC-SA seems the best fit.

However as the Valkerbie is a representation of a model design owned by Games Workshop PLC, who are notoriously protective of their copyrights, I thought I had better include something to show I'm respecting those.

I've included the following modifications to the license, do you think these are fair enough? Not a lawyer, but here goes:

THIS LICENSE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM THE ORIGINAL CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 AUSTRALIA LICENSE TO SPECIFICALLY RESPECT THE COPYRIGHTS AND TRADEMARKS OF GAMES WORKSHOP PLC. CHANGES ARE DETAILED IN SECTION 14.

...

14. Non Standard License Provisions

This license is further limited by the following non standard provisions.

14A Parody

This product is intended as a non commercial fair use parody of designs that are the property of Games Workshop PLC. No copyright or trademark infringement is intended.

14B Other Use of 3D Models

You may not create, or facilitate the creation of, a physical copy of any 3D models provided in this product through the use of 3D printing or any other process.

You may not convert 3D models provided in this product to any other format, including but not limited to STL.

You may not use the 3D models provided in this product for any reason other than in connection with playing Kerbal Space Program.

You may not upload the 3D models provided in this product to a 3D model library.

14C Derivative Licenses

Derivatives of this product must include the Non Standard License Provisions above in their license.

Thanks

Edited by blackhuey
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're at all worried about this release it as public domain, no license, make mention of it being based on artwork copyright Games Workshop PLC.

Although ... it should be noted I'm no copyright lawyer, so I could be wrong about that. A CC license may be perfectly fine, we've had other derivatives here before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'No Rights Reserved' is a license.

A license doesn't have to be 'pre-packaged' like CC or MIT or GPL. You can make it up yourself, the prepackaged ones are just melded into legalese to cover all bases. However you cannot call it Creative Commons if you modify it.

Edited by Alshain
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to rain on your parade, but you have created a derivative work from their original. Releasing a derivative work without express consent of the copyright holder is not "respecting their copyright". I don't think this can be considered a parody in any sense so that type of fair use will not apply.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. I am not an employee or official representative of Squad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you everyone.

I hate to rain on your parade, but you have created a derivative work from their original. Releasing a derivative work without express consent of the copyright holder is not "respecting their copyright". I don't think this can be considered a parody in any sense so that type of fair use will not apply.

I appreciate your comment and parody is a very grey area. That is, however, absolutely the intent. I respect your opinion that the Valkerbie doesn't qualify as parody, but I disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks I've done quite a bit of research into parody fair use provisions, as I make parody music. It is a difficult area of law to understand and there are no hard and fast rules. Ultimately it is a judgement based on a number of factors, one of which is intent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would have to modify other sections of the license as well, and it would cease to be a CC-BY-NC-SA license (which specifically disallows adding further restrictions to the license).

3A Grant of Rights

Provided that the terms set out in this Licence are satisfied, the Licensor grants to You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) licence to exercise the following rights:

  1. Reproduce the Work;
  2. incorporate the Work into one or more Collections;
  3. Reproduce the Work as incorporated in any Collection;
  4. create and Reproduce one or more Derivative Works; and
  5. Distribute and publicly perform the Work, a Derivative Work or the Work as incorporated in any Collection.

You also must have the right to license the work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Creative Commons licenses are clear: no additional restrictions. If you start trying to impose other terms you are no longer using a CC license and you should not claim you are. You may make your own license that's based on a CC one since the license texts are themselves in the public domain, however CC's trademark policy requires you remove all mentions of "Creative Commons" from your license in that case.

On a sidenote, my belief is that applying a "Non-Commercial" licenses to a KSP mod prohibits a major Youtuber or Twitch streamer - basically anyone who makes money from KSP videos, even if it's only a few dollars a month - from showing that mod without seeking separate permission of the mod author. Is that really what KSP modders want? Are mod authors really negotiating with the likes of Scott Manley and DasValdez for a slice of the revenues? Somehow I doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On a sidenote, my belief is that applying a "Non-Commercial" licenses to a KSP mod prohibits a major Youtuber or Twitch streamer - basically anyone who makes money from KSP videos, even if it's only a few dollars a month - from showing that mod without seeking separate permission of the mod author. Is that really what KSP modders want? Are mod authors really negotiating with the likes of Scott Manley and DasValdez for a slice of the revenues? Somehow I doubt it.

This is true for most licenses. GPL requires that derivative works be licensed GPL as well. That means Scott Manley's video (as an example) being derivative of the mod must be licensed GPL compatible. In any case, it is forcing the hand of the person making a derivative. Scott Manley as can contact the mod developer and ask for written permission to break the license for either NC or GPL.

But even if he did not, it comes down to the original author's desire to pursue such legal action. In the case of mods, publicity is in their favor. Games Workshop may not see it the same way.

Edited by Alshain
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is true for most licenses. GPL requires that derivative works be licensed GPL as well. That means Scott Manley's video (as an example) being derivative of the mod must be licensed GPL compatible. In any case, it is forcing the hand of the person making a derivative. Scott Manley as can contact the mod developer and ask for written permission to break the license for either NC or GPL.
Incorrect.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL

E: Actually, this is more relevant:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput

The software only runs under the terms of Squad's license and thus broadcasting is covered under Squad's license. The separate mod licenses only cover derivatives of that mod specifically, it being the author's work.

Edited by regex
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of a plugin I do not believe that would be the case - the output of a GPLed program is not GPLed. In the case of models and textures licensed under the GPL it's less clear, but the GPL is not recommended for that use anyway. A mod author may make it clear by adding a specific exception to the GPL.

(According to the FSF KSP plugin mods may require a GPL exception to be valid for users to use with KSP. I can only see this being an issue if the KSP plugin itself uses code from another developer under the GPL. Perhaps the LGPL would be a better choice for KSP mods.)

In the case of models and textures licensed under CC-BY-SA, yes somebody may argue that the gameplay video is CC-BY-SA also. However that never affected the video maker in making and publishing the video in the first place.

/notalawyer

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput

The software only runs under the terms of Squad's license and thus broadcasting is covered under Squad's license. The separate mod licenses only cover derivatives of that mod specifically, it being the author's work.

If this is true than this right here invalidates the NC argument you made then.

In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people make from their data using your program.

Meaning a YouTube video made from the output of a mod under CC-NC license is still legally impossible to copyright. So it's a non-issue. When I use an NC license I'm concerned about my code. I don't want to find my code in some program that someone is making a profit off of. I get paid to be a programmer, if I make a project available for free, then I don't intend to get paid and I don't expect others to get paid for it either.

Edited by Alshain
Link to post
Share on other sites

A model and texture released under CC-BY-NC-SA are not a program though. A plugin would be and so the NC licensing might not cause the issue I raised, though any user-interface of the plugin may fall under its copyright.

Link to post
Share on other sites
(According to the FSF KSP plugin mods may require a GPL exception to be valid for users to use with KSP.
They have an implicit exception since the plugin doesn't work without Squad's proprietary code.
I can only see this being an issue if the KSP plugin itself uses code from another developer under the GPL.
Yes.
In the case of models and textures licensed under CC-BY-SA, yes somebody may argue that the gameplay video is CC-BY-SA also.
No, again, the plugin/art is made to work with KSP specifically and thus the output/broadcasting is covered under Squad's licensing, E: most especially if it is distributed from this site. Licenses around here are purely to provide guidelines for derivative mods E: and outside use. Edited by regex
Link to post
Share on other sites
A model and texture released under CC-BY-NC-SA are not a program though. A plugin would be and so the NC licensing might not cause the issue I raised, though any user-interface of the plugin may fall under its copyright.

In the case of the model, in order to violate the license you would have to take the model, modify it (or even use it verbatim), then make a profit off it. Simply recording it in a video is not sufficient. It's the same for code.

- - - Updated - - -

In the case of code, CC doesn't recommend their licenses as they aren't designed for that purpose, but there isn't a better NC option without writing one yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, again, the plugin/art is made to work with KSP specifically and thus the output/broadcasting is covered under Squad's licensing, E: most especially if it is distributed from this site. Licenses around here are purely to provide guidelines for derivative mods.
Squad's licensing cannot trump everything. The plugin/art may itself be based on another work that was not made to work with KSP specifically. If that work was CC-BY-SA, and if Squad's licensing were to prohibit a KSP video being released under CC-BY-SA (which I very much doubt), then my understanding is a KSP video featuring that art could not be distributed at all without negotiating other permission, since any distribution would be in breach of one or other license.
In the case of the model, in order to violate the license you would have to take the model, modify it (or even use it verbatim), then make a profit off it. Simply recording it in a video is not sufficient. It's the same for code.
If you have your video "monetised" - Youtube is running ads and sharing revenue with you - there's the commercial aspect. If you solicit donations, have a Patreon, or similar, there may be the commercial aspect.

Basically my original point was that "commercial" doesn't merely mean distributing the mod for money, it's far wider than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Squad's licensing cannot trump everything.
When it comes to KSP and its derivatives, yes, it does. KSP is the original work, all mods are derivatives.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, my last post was a little absolutist. That's bad.

Squad's licensing trumps everything RE: the output of KSP, whether that output contains CC artwork or GPL code output, since the artwork or code couldn't be shown without KSP (if it was, then the author could have say.) That doesn't mean Squad can wholesale steal a modder's code or artwork though, since the author retains rights to their own work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When it comes to KSP and its derivatives, yes, it does. KSP is the original work, all mods are derivatives.
Squad's* terms cannot bind any person who has never agreed to them. If I take some artwork licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and use that art in a KSP mod, the mod is "Adapted Material" and in turn bound by the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. Copyright law let the original artist impose terms on the use of their work and Squad cannot override that. If Squad were to prohibit a mod being distributed in accordance with the CC-BY-SA 4.0 then such a mod simply cannot be distributed at all. (Unless either Squad or the original artist budges and offers new terms, of course.)

*Actually it's not Squad at all, it's DEPORTED B.V. but that's another story.

The same may apply to gameplay videos, it depends on whether they're considered "Adapted Material", whether they might fall under fair use, and so on. Older CC licenses explicitly refer to the right to "publicly perform" which I would think includes playing a game that features the material.

Edited by cantab
Link to post
Share on other sites
Squad's* terms cannot bind any person who has never agreed to them.
Similarly, an author cannot bind the output of Squad's program to their own terms.
If I take some artwork licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and use that art in a KSP mod, the mod is "Adapted Material" and in turn bound by the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license.
Certainly, but that license does not automatically transfer to the output of KSP, a video game made by Squad and distributed under their proprietary license which already governs how performances can be made.
Copyright law let the original artist impose terms on the use of their work and Squad cannot override that.
Correct, but the license of that work cannot override Squad's proprietary license that the work operates under, since the work could not operate without KSP (it being a "modification" of KSP).
The same may apply to gameplay videos, it depends on whether they're considered "Adapted Material", whether they might fall under fair use, and so on.
Fair use applied under Squad's license is what would likely be invoked since Squad own the original content (KSP). Things get thorny when you bring in outside artwork/code but I would argue that Squad and broadcasters have no liability in that case; the responsibility is purely on the author who brought in the outside content.

In truth, NC licenses are probably quite unenforceable, at least in terms of YouTube, when it comes to video game mods. Where NC licenses are useful for mods is preventing a scenario where the creative work is repackaged and resold (as a mod-pack, for instance).

Edited by regex
Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...