Reusing Squad's resources for new mods are allowed?

[Lisias]

Hi. New kid on the block here.

I'm cutting my teeth on add-on development, and - as usual - I'm starting from the basics: changing what already exists to see what I get.

I ended up with a (perhaps?) nice solution for some complains I had read on the forum, but that solution reused some (edited!) meshes from the Squad's vanilla install, and now I'm unsure if I can redistribute the (edited) material bundled with mine.

Looking into the KSP's directory, I found a LegalNotice.txt with many people granting the licensee rights to do whatever is wanted - but of course, each licensor grants the right for his work, and for his work only. But I don't know what resources from Squad's subdirectory was licensed by whom, and of course Squad's copyrighted material is licensed under different terms (or I would not have to buy a KSP copy to legally play it, right?).

I'm not worried about retaining ownership of such material - ethically, I think it "belongs to the game" as I'm reusing game's resources, and I don't mind waiving away the rights for the (few) things I had done. But I don't want to cross any line on the forum, so I choose to be safer than sorry.

Since I didn't found any solid definitions about the issue, what's is currently accepted as the way to go around here?

Edited March 28, 2018 by Lisias
typos

[DStaal]

I think the normal stance on this is: 'No way should you post that'.  The core assets are part of the game, and under their copyrights.  Assume 'all rights reserved'.  You have the right to do with them whatever you want *for your own use*, but not to distribute them.

[goldenpsp]

Not knowing any details, can you achieve what you want by using a MM config to duplicate a stock part with the functionality you need?  Lots of mods do this, especially in cases where a modder isn't yet at the point that they want to or can provide their own create models.

[Lisias]

2 hours ago, DStaal said:

I think the normal stance on this is: 'No way should you post that'.  The core assets are part of the game, and under their copyrights.  Assume 'all rights reserved'.  You have the right to do with them whatever you want *for your own use*, but not to distribute them.

I beg to differ. There're exceptions to the rule in many countries. In USA, in special, there's the "Fair Use" Doctrine that can be applied to my work. See more about this here.

Legally, I'm probably (but granted, not surely) covered by the Fair Use.

The restriction to do whatever I want as long is for "my own use" is for reversed engineering and backup copies of the software itself, not for derivative works based on the original (parodies would be copyright violations otherwise!). Yes, law is confusing - and different countries make different confusions about the issue.

However, I'm not looking for legal advice.

I asking about the community practices. By doing this and promoting my work here, I'm violating some Forum Policy?

[artwhaley]

It's common to reuse stock's textures and models in place - i.e. to have your mod reference their files in the gamedata directory so you can duplicate but resize a model, or borrow from a texture.  But as far as actually opening, modifying, and then transferring that model which is a mix of your IP and theirs...  that's frowned on.   A case could be made that it's fair use...  but given that it doesn't provide commentary or differ in purpose from the original work...  it's just ALSO a space game part...  that case wouldn't be cut and dry.  That said, there also aren't any actual damages - nobody is NOT buying KSP because they downloaded your part instead - so a law suit would be pretty unlikely anyway, even if they did think your use exceeded what was fair.

 The culture here is to be SUPER careful when it comes to that sort of thing - not because it's likely that they'll actually start suing mod authors, but because it's more likely that if they're worried about their copyrights they'll just lock down the game to make it impossible, or difficult, to mod.  I don't consider that SUPER likely...  but Take Two is a big company with a legal division that works hard to protect ALL of their interests.   It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a knee-jerk reaction could occur. 

To answer your actual question - I don't know if it's specifically against a forum rule to do what you've suggested, but my heartfelt advice is 'show us the screenshots of what you make by tweaking squad's models, but wait until you've done something truly original before you actually release it!    

[Lisias]

6 hours ago, artwhaley said:

To answer your actual question - I don't know if it's specifically against a forum rule to do what you've suggested, but my heartfelt advice is 'show us the screenshots of what you make by tweaking squad's models, but wait until you've done something truly original before you actually release it!    

The main purpose of publishing this mod is to add a already asked feature. Granted, it's interesting that nobody did it before (or didn't publish it...), and what we're talking about can be the reason.

About the screenshots, by the concept of the law, there's no difference between showing a screenshot of my altered part and linking the altered part "source code" here! The original part is covered under the copyright both in "source code" as in "object code" (i.e., it's rendered form). So, if I can't link my tweaked parts for download here, by the cold letter of the law I can't publish screenshots of the tweaked parts neither!

Yes. It's a mess. :-) Yes, it doesn't makes sense. =D But yet, is how it is.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Lisias
and lots of typos, and deleted one phrase that in EN sounds provocative (and this is not my intent)

[Lisias]

12 hours ago, goldenpsp said:

Not knowing any details, can you achieve what you want by using a MM config to duplicate a stock part with the functionality you need?  Lots of mods do this, especially in cases where a modder isn't yet at the point that they want to or can provide their own create models.

Now that you mention it... There're some parts that yes, they can use MM as they are just CFG tweaks. It's a good opportunity to learn the thing. Thanks.

But two parts needed .mu tweaks. In one I only changed and added seats and cameras - I saw some CFGs with more than one mesh on the model node, perhaps I can reach the same result combining my mesh (with only the marking objects) with the stock one. It would be a better technical solution too. I will give it a try.

But there's this one part that needed slicing and welding vertices and faces, and frankly this part is the sore reason I though it could be interesting to publish something now.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Lisias
more typos :-(

[klesh]

Similarly, I wonder about copyrighted materials being used by Mission Creators with the new KSP Missions.  The Making History dlc has these "banners" as they are called, images used for success/failure outcomes windows.  The dlc itself contains a few of these banners, which automatically get bundled with your mission when you export.  Essentially the tool Squad gave us for creating missions defaults to including their copyrighted material in your creation, fully intended to be distributed as designed. 

 

 

One might ask, what is the difference then between copyrighted images or part models in terms of distribution?  The former, is essentially encouraged by Squad.

[artwhaley]

6 hours ago, Lisias said:

About the screenshots, by the concept of the law, there's no difference between showing a screenshot of my altered part and linking the altered part "source code" here! The original part is covered under the copyright both in "source code" as in "object code" (i.e., it's rendered form). So, if I can't link my tweaked parts for download here, by the cold letter of the law I can't publish screenshots of the tweaked parts neither!

Yes. It's a mess. :-) Yes, it doesn't makes sense. =D But yet, is how it is.

Actually, is not how it is.   Taking a screenshot of your mod in game is NOT equivalent to distributing the object code.  THAT is actually what is intended under fair use - because you're deriving a work that COMMENTS on their work.   To understand it, remove the mod from the equation.   By your interpretation, EVERY SCREENSHOT on the forum would be a violation.  EVERY game play video on youtube.   Obviously screen shots and screen caps are fair use.   In this instance, the .mu is actually playing the role of 'compiled object code' as it's assembled by Unity to bundle the model with the animations and shaders necessary to put it in game.  The .blend, or .dae or other native 3D modeling application file would be 'the source.'   And all of that makes perfect sense.  

For an example of using two models to add extra transforms, the tokomak habitats mod includes several parts with multiple docking ports and the model and transforms are in separate .mu's.  I'm sure that's not the only one, just one I spotted last week while helping someone with a docking port question.

If your one part is essential, I'd take it as an opportunity to make your own part from scratch.  Again - it's perfectly legal to borrow squad's texture (you don't distribute it - just point the .cfg file to squad's installed version of it.) so if you want to retain a stock look on your geometry, you can map it to their texture.

 

1 hour ago, klesh said:

Similarly, I wonder about copyrighted materials being used by Mission Creators with the new KSP Missions.  The Making History dlc has these "banners" as they are called, images used for success/failure outcomes windows.  The dlc itself contains a few of these banners, which automatically get bundled with your mission when you export.  Essentially the tool Squad gave us for creating missions defaults to including their copyrighted material in your creation, fully intended to be distributed as designed. 

 

That's really interesting!  I think you came up with a question they hadn't thought about!   Technically they SHOULD have to release a license for those images in order for us to distribute them!  I wonder if they'll bother responding to you?

[Lisias]

3 hours ago, artwhaley said:

Actually, is not how it is.   Taking a screenshot of your mod in game is NOT equivalent to distributing the object code.  THAT is actually what is intended under fair use - because you're deriving a work that COMMENTS on their work.   To understand it, remove the mod from the equation.   By your interpretation, EVERY SCREENSHOT on the forum would be a violation.  EVERY game play video on youtube.   Obviously screen shots and screen caps are fair use.   In this instance, the .mu is actually playing the role of 'compiled object code' as it's assembled by Unity to bundle the model with the animations and shaders necessary to put it in game.  The .blend, or .dae or other native 3D modeling application file would be 'the source.'   And all of that makes perfect sense.  

Not quite. The image that such meshes and textures renders on screen are still Copyrighted by the mesh author. The whole shebang is under the Copyright Act, not only the "source code" and the "binary code".

We must have in mind that the Copyright Act *has prevalence* over the GPL. The GPL is enforceable as long it didn't try to counter some right already granted by the Copyright Act.

Being more explicit: I can create my own mesh and texture to mimic the part. The image my set of meshes and textures renders would be still under the original mesh copyright, as the image it renders would be visually identical (or heavily based) to the image the original mesh renders. So, even by creating my own mesh to render the part, I still must be covered by Fair Use otherwise I would be in copyright violation the same way - GPL or no GPL.

About the screenshots being a copyright violation, do you know that Take Two Interactive are demanding rights about every screenshot published on the forum, right? This is to avoid having to claim Fair Use - TTI is demanding a explicit authorization in advance.

From the EULA:
 

Quote

USER CREATED CONTENT: The Software may allow you to create content, including, but not limited to, a gameplay map, scenario, screenshot, car design, character, item, or video of your game play. In exchange for use of the Software, and to the extent that your contributions through use of the Software give rise to any copyright interest, you hereby grant Licensor an exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, fully transferable, and sub-licensable worldwide right and license to use your contributions in any way and for any purpose in connection with the Software and related goods and services, including, but not limited to, the rights to reproduce, copy, adapt, modify, perform, display, publish, broadcast, transmit, or otherwise communicate to the public by any means whether now known or unknown and distribute your contributions without any further notice or compensation to you of any kind for the whole duration of protection granted to intellectual property rights by applicable laws and international conventions. You hereby waive and agree never to assert any moral rights of paternity, publication, reputation, or attribution with respect to Licensor's and other players' use and enjoyment of such assets in connection with the Software and related goods and services under applicable law. This license grant to Licensor, and terms above regarding any applicable moral rights, will survive any termination of this Agreement.

So, no. Not a single one of the screenshots published *here* is a copyright violation, because the mere fact that you were using KSP to take the screenshot already granted the Forum the right to use (and reuse) it.

Fair Use is a "beg for forgiveness instead of asking for permission" thing. You only are sure that you really have the Fair Use right after the original copyright owner challenges you and loose in court. Until this happens, your claim for Fair Use is just a (contestable) claim. Going back to the TTI issue, it's exactly what they are avoiding by demanding rights over the screenshots published on this Forum - the risk to have to beg for forgiveness.

And, just to clarify, please read all the Thread about what I'm asking. I'm not asking about Legal Advice (what I already have). I'm asking about the Forum Policies. I know for *sure* that I can claim  Fair Use (and the GPL is not an issue, as the material I'm using is not covered by GPL). I want to know how the Forum Policies handle such situations.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Lisias
errors... =/

[Lisias]

2 hours ago, artwhaley said:

 By your interpretation, EVERY SCREENSHOT on the forum would be a violation.  EVERY game play video on youtube.   Obviously screen shots and screen caps are fair use.   In this instance, the .mu is actually playing the role of 'compiled object code' as it's assembled by Unity to bundle the model with the animations and shaders necessary to put it in game. 

Are you aware that, recently, Matt Lowne had one of his best videos taken down by YouTube due a music that Matt **HAD** asked and granted the right to use, don't you? He was using Starman from David Bowie.

Well, it's exactly the way things are. The music's copyright holder unilaterally revoked the Matt's right to use the music, and made YouTube take the video down. Just like that.

I'm guessing that that happened when Elon Musk secured the rights to broadcast the music on his Tesla Launch, and then BMG (I'm right? I don't really know) issued the take down in respect to the contract. Since this contract is not active anymore, it appears that the video is back online. :-)

Anyway, the sad answer to you is that *YES* every gameplay on YouTube is subject to a take down by the copyright holder at any moment, and then is up to the video owner the burden to claim Fair Use in court in order to have the video back - Brave New World we have nowadays, online streaming nullified the "Inversion of the burden of proof" that the Copyright Act grants to us (thanks, DMCA).

What happens is that the Copyright Holders in the gaming industry discovered that the backslash they receive by doing that hurts more that any alleged "loss of revenue" they would have by not doing. Some Holders even grant in advance such right (making gameplay videos) in order to have an edge over the competition. :-)

[artwhaley]

28 minutes ago, Lisias said:

You only are sure that you really have the Fair Use right after the original copyright owner challenges you and loose in court.

 

28 minutes ago, Lisias said:

. I know for *sure* that I can claim  Fair Use

I'm nominating this for most self contradictory forum post of the year... and that's saying something, as there's a lot of competition for that title..  You....  JUST SAID the only way to be sure of fair use is to get sued and win.  So...  when did you get sued and win over this issue?   Are you trolling?  Or really this confused?

If you don't see the difference between a screenshot which exists for commentary, critique and review and an actual reproduction of the copyrighted work in the same medium (also being used as a game asset)...  you don't understand the topic at all.   We're talking squad's stuff.  I don't know why you'd even mention the GPL.   That literally affects NOTHING in this thread.   Of course the GPL can't grant something copyright law forbids... because you cannot legally enter a contract to do something illegal.  Duh.  It's not that copyright law supersedes the GPL - both can exist at the same time...  but you can't enter a contract to do something illegal, so WHEN you're violating copyright law, the GPL is not any sort of defense?  I don't know why you brought it up.  Squad's materials are not GPL.   There's no reason to consider it.   

Also, you're totally backwards on the EULA thing.  You are trying to say that... posting a screen shot is fair use of squad's copyright...  BECAUSE Squad's new EULA says that posting it here counts as granting them a license?  Those are two TOTALLY independent licensing issues.   One - your use of squad's models or game engine in your screen shot (which ALMOST CERTAINLY comes under fair use) and two - squad copying the digital file you uploaded and using for other purposes.     Which would never be fair use, which is why they asked for (and you granted) a license for them to use it.   

As for forum policies, well, now you know that I, for one, would report your post as an IP violation.  There's your answer.  Also, please get some more legal advice-  what you've been given was totally backwards.  Whether the mods will take that report seriously, I'd ask them directly.

And since you're still posting...

 

5 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Are you aware that, recently, Matt Lowne had one of his best videos taken down by YouTube due a music that Matt **HAD** asked and granted the right to use, don't you? He was using Starman from David Bowie.

This... in no way relates to this conversation.  That youtube aggressively responds to DMCA requests is irrelevant.   They'd rather take things down than be named in the suits to sort it out...  that's their prerogative... but it's a business's internal policy - not law.   Also...  that case has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.  OF FREAKING COURSE using a song as underscoring in a video is a copyright violation...  BUT - posting an excerpt from that song while you reviewed it, or discussed it in a critical context - would create a fair use argument.  Once again - this is EXACTLY what I was trying to say earlier - that posting a screenshot can be defended as fair use - you're excerpting the work in a different medium for the purpose of discussing it.   Simply duplicating the work or deriving from it is in no way defensible under fair use.  If your lawyer told you that...   get a new lawyer because this one's tying to get you sued so he can get rich failing to defend you.

 

[Lisias]

12 minutes ago, artwhaley said:

I'm nominating this for most self contradictory forum post of the year... and that's saying something, as there's a lot of competition for that title..  You....  JUST SAID the only way to be sure of fair use is to get sued and win.  So...  when did you get sued and win over this issue?   Are you trolling?  Or really this confused?
 

Read *CAREFULLY* what I wrote. :-)

I AM SURE I CAN *CLAIM* FAIR USE. :-)

I have a reasonable confidence that, if challenged, I would win if would have the money to spend on court. And I have a lot of confidence that TTI would *not* challenge my claim because I will not, in any way, depreciate or erode the KSP's value to them on this.

Thank you for your participation on this thread, but I think your line of arguing is becoming disrespectful. What I know for sure is against this forum policies, by the way.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Lisias

[HebaruSan]

On 3/27/2018 at 2:47 PM, Lisias said:

Looking into the KSP's directory, I found a LegalNotice.txt with many people granting the licensee rights to do whatever is wanted - but of course, each licensor grants the right for his work, and for his work only. But I don't know what resources from Squad's subdirectory was licensed by whom, and of course Squad's copyrighted material is licensed under different terms (or I would not have to buy a KSP copy to legally play it, right?).

I think those are for third party libraries that SQUAD is distributing, not SQUAD's own models. Though one of the names in that file apparently is of a 3D modeler, so maybe SQUAD has borrowed a few free models as well?

Quote

But I don't want to cross any line on the forum, so I choose to be safer than sorry.

Here are the forum rules for mods:

The relevant section would be:

Quote

1.1 Including other licenced work with your add-on.

• Your license must be compatible with that of any other material you include with your own add-on, and each license in your package must be mutually compatible. This includes textures, models, sounds, entire mods etc. You must also comply with the license terms of each and every external work in your download and include those licenses in your package. This is very complicated but is a legal requirement. For this reason, it is recommended that you use CKAN scripts instead of bundling others' content when possible and avoid packaging other people's work with your own unless you really know what you are doing. If you are not completely certain that a license is compatible, do not include that content.
• Special circumstances apply for material licensed GPL. This license requires that software that includes GPL-licensed code must also be licensed GPL, but merely including GPL software in a bundle of software does not have that requirement. Whether or not including a GPL-licensed mod along with your own one comes under this requirement is a grey area, so we will not forbid users from packaging another mod that is GPL-licensed along with their own mod. However, if the current maintainer of that packaged mod objects, we will ask you to respect their wishes and either remove that material or change your licence to a compatible GPL one. Please be aware that if you are using a different license and do decide to package a mod that is licensed GPL (or any other license that may be incompatible with yours), you open yourself to the possibility that others can take legal action against you for doing so.

So in order to redistribute works derived from SQUAD's stock content (according to the forum rules), you would have to choose a license compatible with SQUAD's All Rights Reserved license for stock content. But there is no such license, because SQUAD's All Rights Reserved license does not grant you the right to redistribute derived works. So posting any such mod would violate the forum rules (in my non-lawyerly estimation, of course).

Edited March 28, 2018 by HebaruSan

[Lisias]

4 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

So in order to redistribute works derived from SQUAD's stock content (according to the forum rules), you would have to choose a license compatible with SQUAD's All Rights Reserved license for stock content

This forum accepts the Fair Use "license" that can be granted to me by the Copyright Act? It's a fair question - this forum don't have the "duty" to accept such material even by being legal. (they don't even have to accept me posting here!)

I don't need to reuse their meshes, by the way (so I can "avoid" the All Rights Reserved on the binaries). I can create my own (it's just more work). But it would be still under Squad's copyright, as I would be "copying the look and feel" of the part published by them in a derivative work.

[HebaruSan]

6 minutes ago, Lisias said:

This forum accepts the Fair Use "license" that can be granted to me by the Copyright Act? It's a fair question - this forum don't have the "duty" to accept such material even by being legal. (they don't even have to accept me posting here!)

I ignored the fair use question because I don't think there's a credible argument for it in this case (and will continue to do so after you respond to this with your wall of text attempting to rebut this paragraph). It's common see fair use trotted out as a catch-all "I can do whatever I want" excuse, but actual fair use is much narrower than that in reality. As far as I can tell, a KSP mod with an altered version of someone else's mesh is not a form of education, commentary, criticism, or parody. You're not trying to talk about excerpts from the item in a magazine article, you're distributing the actual thing in its original complete form, with some changes.

6 minutes ago, Lisias said:

I can create my own (it's just more work). But it would be still under Squad's copyright, as I would be "copying the look and feel" of the part published by them in a derivative work.

If that concerns you, nothing stops you from creating your own look and feel. Certainly you should not do anything that you believe is an infringement.

[artwhaley]

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

I AM SURE I CAN *CLAIM* FAIR USE. :-)

I am sure i can CLAIM to be the Easter Bunny, but it won't make me hop any higher.
 

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

This forum accepts the Fair Use "license" that can be granted to me by the Copyright Act? It's a fair question - this forum don't have the "duty" to accept such material even by being legal. (they don't even have to accept me posting here!)

Fair use is not a license.   That forum rule specifically requires a license.   No dice.   Fair use is a defense that may be raised when you're served with a copyright claim suit.   And, as you seem to know sometimes and not others - a fair use exception doesn't exist until it's ruled on by a court.  So without a court order, I don't think you'd even have grounds to ask for a forum rules exception.  Not to mention that the use you're talking about is almost certainly NOT Fair Use.

 

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

And I have a lot of confidence that TTI would *not* challenge my claim because I will not, in any way, depreciate or erode the KSP's value to them on this.

Noncommercial use is not, in and of itself, proof of fair use.   Further, if their copyright is properly registered, which I'm going to wager it is, they're not limited to filing suit for actual damages - they can sue for punitive damages.   If the copyright had not been filed previous to your appropriation of it, they'd GENERALLY be limited to suing you for, and having to demonstrate, that you'd actually cost them money - either in damage to the brand or in missed licensing fees they would have made if you'd contacted them and purchased a license to use the content.
 

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

Thank you for your participation on this thread, but I think your line of arguing is becoming disrespectful. What I know for sure is against this forum policies, by the way.

 My line of argument is annoyed, because your line of argument is : 

1.  Very wrong.
2.  Presented with the most supreme of confidence.

Those two I could ignore...  being arrogantly wrong isn't a crime, or 90% of the internet would be in jail for something at some point, myself definitely included.  But 

3.  Dangerous to the community.  You presented your 'theories' that screenshots were illegal until the EULA revision, when somehow you construed that Squad asking you for a license to use YOUR IP somehow conferred on you a license to use theirs....  and that it's perfectly okay to steal Squad's models and redistribute them.   Both of those ideas are damaging to the community - the first minorly because it might dissuade the sharing of legitmate content that improves the community, and the second MAJORLY because you're encouraging people to steal Squad's models.  Which btw, is specifically forbidden in the forum rules too.  Under forbidden content -   Discussing or facilitating copyright infringement or software theft (software piracy);   

I came to this thread and offered advice for both your technical and legal issues, and you glibly ignored it... as you are the advice you're getting from others.   You will NOT dismiss me from the thread, even after you've gone back and edited the most glaring of the parts I proved you wrong on.  For those that come to this thread afterwards...   if you have questions about copyright, licensing, intellectual property, or any of the related concepts discussed here...  do NOT take advice from random internet people... consult with your attorney.   I'm a professional photographer - creating intellectual property, protecting my copyrights, respecting the rights of other IP owners, licensing my work and occasionally selling my copyrights is my day to day job, and my understanding of the topic is based on lengthy conversations with my lawyer.    But that still makes what I 'know' of it second hand, and tailored to be specifically applicable to my situation in my jurisdiction.   Do I think that means I'm probably right on this matter?  Absolutely.   But still - before you end up in a legal mess...  talk to your lawyer with questions.  Because some of the info in this thread is VERY WRONG.   

 

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by artwhaley

[Lisias]

54 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

As far as I can tell, a KSP mod with an altered version of someone else's mesh is not a form of education, commentary, criticism, or parody. You're not trying to talk about excerpts from the item in a magazine article, you're distributing the actual thing in its original complete form, with some changes.

Being the reason I'm asking about this Forum rules for the matter.

In mean time, you are wrong on reducing the fair use to only "education, commentary, criticism, or parody" (but granted, I didn't expanded the concept myself). So I think it's time to expand it.

From this link at stanford:

* Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?

YES. That part in question fulfil a role that no other equivalent and compatible part does, and this role was already asked for before.

* Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings?

YES. The game would be (hopefully) beneficed with a part that has been asked for sometimes in the past by some players. No harm would be done to existing parts.

* The Nature of the Copyrighted Work

KSP is a widely published work, but it's somewhat biographic - as it depicts itself some factual histories. But my part would have no role in any of them.

 

* The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken

Half part of four meshes (internal space, overlay and border must be tailored too), 4/448 of the total meshes from GameData/Squad. 4/1883 of the total number of the files. About 120K of data from a pool sizing 457M.

 

* The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market

This work adds value by including a asked feature here on forum. It don't (neither can) compete or demote revenue of the product, as it can only be used within the product itself. The feature didn't changes any pre-existant feature. The only drawback is that my texturing is not yet so good as the original.

 

* Too Small for Fair Use: The De Minimis Defense

Perhaps.  But I'm not willing to use this card. If the other reasons are not enough, I'll drop my fair use claim.

 

* The “Fifth” Fair Use Factor: Are You Good or Bad?

Good! The work aims to promote KSP by adding a functionality that was asked before to a specific subset of parts.

 

* What If You Acknowledge the Source Material?

Well, I have no intend to omit the source of the mesh I'm using (or the part I'm recreating the mesh). About asking for permission of the copyright holders, this post is my first step, isn't?

----

But, granted, "Unfortunately, the only way to get a definitive answer on whether a particular use is a fair use is to have it resolved in federal court." as stated on the very article I linked. 

 

54 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

If that concerns you, nothing stops you from creating your own look and feel. Certainly you should not do anything that you believe is an infringement.

I *firmly believe* it's not an infringement of the Copyright Law. But I don't know if it would be an infringement of this Forum Policies, which I'm subject if I want to stay around here. :-)

Edited March 28, 2018 by Lisias
bad grammar. sorry

[Lisias]

12 minutes ago, artwhaley said:

Fair use is not a license.  

Granted. It's a right. And this forum isn't about my rights. Being the reason I'm asking about here.

Quote

3.  Dangerous to the community.  You presented your 'theories' that screenshots were illegal until the EULA revision, when somehow you construed that Squad asking you for a license to use YOUR IP somehow conferred on you a license to use theirs....  and that it's perfectly okay to steal Squad's models and redistribute them.   Both of those ideas are damaging to the community - the first minorly because it might dissuade the sharing of legitmate content that improves the community, and the second MAJORLY because you're encouraging people to steal Squad's models.  Which btw, is specifically forbidden in the forum rules too.  Under forbidden content -   Discussing or facilitating copyright infringement or software theft (software piracy);   

I *NEVER*  claimed such thing. I *NEVER* stated that screenshots are illegal.

I stated that screenshots *ARE FAIR USE* when not previously authorized by the copyright holder. And I stated that the TTI's initiative to require granting in advance such rights to them aims to avoid having a troublemaker boring them with claims because they reused a screenshot published here in other place.

And, at very last, I`M ASKING about the Forum Rules. I'm not promoting any kind of infringement.

[HebaruSan]

LOL, wall of text, as predicted.

I'm not going to go point-to-point with you on this, because it would distract from the core point: If your legal intuitions were valid, the GPL and other free licenses would not need to exist, because already you'd be free to grab any copyrighted All Rights Reserved work, make a few tweaks here and there, and then distribute such derived work and argue fair use because you "transformed" it and "added value" to it (as virtually any such modification would, by definition). Obviously this is not the case.

[artwhaley]

 

32 minutes ago, Lisias said:

But, granted, "Unfortunately, the only way to get a definitive answer on whether a particular use is a fair use is to have it resolved in federal court." as stated on the very article I linked. 

And that's your answer - it's NOT fair use until it's decided so by a court, so the forum rules prohibit it.
 

 

22 minutes ago, Lisias said:

I *NEVER*  claimed such thing. I *NEVER* stated that screenshots are illegal.

 

12 hours ago, Lisias said:

About the screenshots, by the concept of the law, there's no difference between showing a screenshot of my altered part and linking the altered part "source code" here! The original part is covered under the copyright both in "source code" as in "object code" (i.e., it's rendered form). So, if I can't link my tweaked parts for download here, by the cold letter of the law I can't publish screenshots of the tweaked parts neither!

There.  You claimed that a screenshot, if it included images of copyrighted material, was illegal to share.

 

And the last bit...  here...  I don't think you're asking at all.  I think you're arguing about what the forum rules should be, even though they've been clearly explained.  

22 minutes ago, Lisias said:

And, at very last, I`M ASKING about the Forum Rules. I'm not promoting any kind of infringement.

Edited March 28, 2018 by artwhaley

[Vanamonde]

Squad may still choose to comment on this matter, but in the mean time, arguing with each other won't improve the situation. The thread has been closed.