Did Squad give credit for community contributions?

[longbyte1]

When I heard the news about 0.24, the company logos contest, and the name contest, I realized that Squad was just offloading asset work onto the community. (Vacation?)

For some reason, on release I felt that 0.24 was "unclean" because Squad never gave explicit credit to the guy who thought of the name "First Contract" and the authors of the company logos whilist raising the price to $27, so I refrained from playing the game for a while.

Squad could have made a separate, freely-licensed community GameData folder that showed exactly what was made by the KSP community instead of Squad, just as how NASA assets have their own GameData folder.

I just feel upset in a way (as if Squad was exploiting the community), and I wasn't really active in the forums when there was a lot of hype for 0.24.

Could anyone explain what Squad ended up doing with the community assets? Did the contest winners end up having to waive their rights to their own entries? Where did Squad give credit?

[Russoft]

Whether or not they gave credit, it's not like people were coerced into participating in either the competition or the survey prior to release. If they were concerned about getting credit, they could have asked before submitting their work. And really, I heard the same title suggestions getting thrown around repeatedly. It's not like First Contract is *that* difficult to come up with independently of anyone else.

[Chrisd857]

The changelog notes the credits in-game were updated; being at work, is credit for the logo makers in there?

[styckx]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/content/296-KSP-First-Contract-%28v0-24-0%29-Complete-Changelog

- Agency Logos added from the winners of the Community Logo Design Contest.

- Added new unique names for Kerbals, suggested by the Community Logo Design Contest winners.

Edit: Not sure about Credits... Didn't look. Also agree. It doesn't matter if they did or didn't.. Contributing is contributing..

[MiniMatt]

The quote below doesn't quite cover the full scope of your question but if I had to guess I'd say copyright remains with the author but author grants Squad full use. (I am not a copyright lawyer. I'm not even a personal injury lawyer. I'm actually not a lawyer of any description).

The rules and disclaimer are mentioned and shown in the submission page itself.

"The winning entries will get placed into the game as official company logos and the creators of those entires will win the opportunity to have their names enshrined among the ranks of Kerbonauts in our name generator."

"By clicking 'Send' you acknowledge that you authorize Squad to use your designs in the game, and to showcase your work in commercial products, and will not receive any compensation or royalty for your entry or your designs. Squad also retains the right to edit selected work for use in the game." Cheers

[Mach_XXII]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/content/289-Eighteen-0-24-Company-Logos-Revealed!#comments

[cpast]

Squad apparently got in touch with all winning logo designers via email, and presumably worked out details then. They also made a post on the website listing winning logos and who designed them.

EDIT: ninja'd

[Lysergic]

For some reason, on release I felt that 0.24 was "unclean" because Squad never gave explicit credit to the guy who thought of the name "First Contract" and the authors of the company logos whilist raising the price to $27, so I refrained from playing the game for a while.

You've refrained from playing the game for the 18 hours 0.24 has been out? Must be rough.

[Kerbart]

The contest rules clearly stated that the winners would have their names added to the list of kerbonaut names. It didn't say anything along the likes of promising riches and fame. I doubt any of the submitters had expectations beyond that.

It's quite the contrary from exploitation. Instead of seeing their user base as passive wallet carriers, Squad engaged with its community to put a piece of the user's identity into the game. I can assure you that if Electronic Arts were to do something like it, having "your" custom flag included in the distributed game would be something you'd have to pay for.

As for Squad raising the price... the closer the product gets to completion, the lower the risk that you're stuck with an incomplete game (or at least the more complete the game is that you're stuck with) in case development, for whatever reason, stalls. Consider it a discount you're getting on full retail price (say $60) and obviously with each new version the discount gets less and less.

Nothing dirty about that. Dirty would be that all users have to pay for an update.

[Ruedii]

While I think getting your name, nickname or handle placed in the name generator's bank is a pretty good prize, they could add in the names on the credits as "community contributors."

It's not really that big a deal, I see it as a "nice thing to do" on Squad's part, not an obligation.

[Rowsdower]

When we got in touch with the winning creators, they were asked for a few things, some being the name they'd like to enter in the Kerbal name generator, as well as the name they'd like to be credited under. They were all publicly credited HERE. While there was no guarantee of being credited in-game other than their Kerbal names, their "credited" names will still be retained, should we decided to further honor them in any credit sequence overhauls that could occur over time. Again, no promises there

[longbyte1]

So who owns the copyright? Squad or the author? Since Squad also has the assets in game, is it against the rules to duplicate those specific community assets?

(I'm just asking these questions in case more contests are held)

[KSK]

So who owns the copyright? Squad or the author? Since Squad also has the assets in game, is it against the rules to duplicate those specific community assets?

(I'm just asking these questions in case more contests are held)

Unless there are any copyright terms and conditions attached to forum use, I'd go with MiniMatt's interpretation. That looks about right since the logo contributors don't appear to have explicitly assigned copyright in their work to Squad, instead it seems that they've effectively granted Squad permission to use their work royalty free.

[Raven.]

So who owns the copyright? Squad or the author? Since Squad also has the assets in game, is it against the rules to duplicate those specific community assets?

(I'm just asking these questions in case more contests are held)

Squad owns the copyright. Everyone who gets involved in a game development project, whether they are community or employees of the development studio, are all under the understanding that everything they contribute will be claimed by the development studio. This is commonplace and is industry standard. In fact, some development studios even have their employees and contributors sign a contract that state that intellectual property they contribute is property of the development studio (they also have them sign a non-disclosure agreement).

Everyone who was involved in the contest was aware of this. And I believe everyone who contributed is ok with this, as they expected those logos to be copyrighted by Squad. This protects Squad and the contest winners, because then someone else from the outside (who has a stick up their butt) cannot sue either one because they felt like an in-game logo looked too much like their own.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

as someone whose work was used in this i don't see why the OP is getting so worked up over it. i'm happy to have a piece of the game for minimal effort compared with devs, and hopefully they are happy to have my logo and you guys are happy to see it in the game. everyone wins

[moeggz]

everyone wins

Nicely said. The debs did this to be nice, the community responded to get a part of the game, and we as players benefit. I think Squad is being more then generous with what already occurred. And, as already said, all parties knew the specifics before going in. If they didn't like it they didn't have to submit a draft.

[cpast]

Squad owns the copyright. Everyone who gets involved in a game development project, whether they are community or employees of the development studio, are all under the understanding that everything they contribute will be claimed by the development studio. This is commonplace and is industry standard. In fact, some development studios even have their employees and contributors sign a contract that state that intellectual property they contribute is property of the development studio (they also have them sign a non-disclosure agreement).

Source? From what I know of copyright law, this is only if the logo creators explicitly transferred copyright, or if the contest specified that submissions would have copyright transferred to Squad or were works for hire (it doesn't look like it did either). The wording of the terms suggests the exact opposite: submitters authorize Squad to do things with the logos, but copyright transfer means you don't have to authorize them to do anything with the work, because you no longer have control. There's a reason for those contracts people are asked to sign transferring IP; it's because the transfer does not happen automatically.

The main reason it matters is just for how we're allowed to use the logos - for instance, who can permit someone to put a logo in the texture of a part. It's unlikely that anyone's getting sued over it, more a "who do you have to ask".

[enneract]

When I heard the news about 0.24, the company logos contest, and the name contest, I realized that Squad was just offloading asset work onto the community. (Vacation?)

For some reason, on release I felt that 0.24 was "unclean" because Squad never gave explicit credit to the guy who thought of the name "First Contract" and the authors of the company logos whilist raising the price to $27, so I refrained from playing the game for a while.

Squad could have made a separate, freely-licensed community GameData folder that showed exactly what was made by the KSP community instead of Squad, just as how NASA assets have their own GameData folder.

I just feel upset in a way (as if Squad was exploiting the community), and I wasn't really active in the forums when there was a lot of hype for 0.24.

Could anyone explain what Squad ended up doing with the community assets? Did the contest winners end up having to waive their rights to their own entries? Where did Squad give credit?

This attitude is absolutely cancerous.

Squad solicited feedback on the names they were thinking of, but had a write-in option. The survey was anonymous. Who are they supposed to credit? 'Anonymous'?

[Beachernaut]

A quick forum search probably could have yielded the information you were looking for.

[Alshain]

Source? From what I know of copyright law, this is only if the logo creators explicitly transferred copyright, or if the contest specified that submissions would have copyright transferred to Squad or were works for hire (it doesn't look like it did either). The wording of the terms suggests the exact opposite: submitters authorize Squad to do things with the logos, but copyright transfer means you don't have to authorize them to do anything with the work, because you no longer have control. There's a reason for those contracts people are asked to sign transferring IP; it's because the transfer does not happen automatically.

The main reason it matters is just for how we're allowed to use the logos - for instance, who can permit someone to put a logo in the texture of a part. It's unlikely that anyone's getting sued over it, more a "who do you have to ask".

By participating they forfeited the rights. That's standard art competition rules. You submit your work as part of a contest and it becomes theirs. They knew it going in, and accepted it.

[GusTurbo]

By participating they forfeited the rights. That's standard art competition rules. You submit your work as part of a contest and it becomes theirs. They knew it going in, and accepted it.

It's only "standard" because they generally specify as much. If it's not stated that you give up your copyright, you generally don't.

[MKI]

I'm pretty much the one that thought of "first contracts. "(On phone, to hard to get citation)

Unlike the logo guys there wasn't really a prize on naming the update. Nor was there any promise of any recognition in anyway. I can't exactly say i own the name, simply because its just a pun used in marketing.

I would have to say its rather disappointing none of the people I messaged about getting clarification responded. I messaged calisker, who posted about naming the update and rowsdower. Neither of which has responded to me in any way or form.

All I wanted was a plain response that my suggestion was going to be used. Or at least private confirmation it was my tag line that's now all over the web. I was incredible excited when I found out the name of the update, but then got disappointed when I found no evidence of what it means to me. In the end it ultimately means apparently the community gave their word on what they think it should be, the Devs chose what they like(mine) and the Devs used it in their work. No where in there is personal reward for the "best suggestion" or any recognition to who proposed it first.

At the end of the day, I am not recognized anywhere, but the update title is equated with the newest form of KSP and recognized by anyone who has internet and KSP. I am not even recognized by the KSP team, since I have not gotten a response nor any recognition anywhere besides in my heart.

So yea it sucks but I'm not surprised by not getting a reply or anything really.

PS my signature and the thread asking for an update name both have my suggestion in it. I believe I'm on the third page or so, which is what I would cite if I wasn't on my phone.

Edited July 18, 2014 by MKI

[I_Killed_Jeb]

I'm pretty much the one that thought of "first contracts. "(On phone, to hard to get citation)

Unlike the logo guys there wasn't really a prize on naming the update. Nor was there any promise of any recognition in anyway. I can't exactly say i own the name, simply because its just a pun used in marketing.

I would have to say its rather disappointing none of the people I messaged about getting clarification responded. I messaged calisker, who posted about naming the update and rowsdower. Neither of which has responded to me in any way or form.

All I wanted was a plain response that my suggestion was going to be used. Or at least private confirmation it was my tag line that's now all over the web. I was incredible excited when I found out the name of the update, but then got disappointed when I found no evidence of what it means to me. In the end it ultimately means apparently the community gave their word on what they think it should be, the Devs chose what they like(mine) and the Devs used it in their work. No where in there is personal reward for the "best suggestion" or any recognition to who proposed it first.

At the end of the day, I am not recognized anywhere, but the update title is equated with the newest form of KSP and recognized by anyone who has internet and KSP. I am not even recognized by the KSP team, since I have not gotten a response nor any recognition anywhere besides in my heart.

So yea it sucks but I'm not surprised by not getting a reply or anything really.

PS my signature and the thread asking for an update name both have my suggestion in it. I believe I'm on the third page or so, which is what I would cite if I wasn't on my phone.

then why are you upset?

[Maxmaps]

I'm pretty much the one that thought of "first contracts. "(On phone, to hard to get citation)

Unlike the logo guys there wasn't really a prize on naming the update. Nor was there any promise of any recognition in anyway. I can't exactly say i own the name, simply because its just a pun used in marketing.

I would have to say its rather disappointing none of the people I messaged about getting clarification responded. I messaged calisker, who posted about naming the update and rowsdower. Neither of which has responded to me in any way or form.

All I wanted was a plain response that my suggestion was going to be used. Or at least private confirmation it was my tag line that's now all over the web. I was incredible excited when I found out the name of the update, but then got disappointed when I found no evidence of what it means to me. In the end it ultimately means apparently the community gave their word on what they think it should be, the Devs chose what they like(mine) and the Devs used it in their work. No where in there is personal reward for the "best suggestion" or any recognition to who proposed it first.

At the end of the day, I am not recognized anywhere, but the update title is equated with the newest form of KSP and recognized by anyone who has internet and KSP. I am not even recognized by the KSP team, since I have not gotten a response nor any recognition anywhere besides in my heart.

So yea it sucks but I'm not surprised by not getting a reply or anything really.

PS my signature and the thread asking for an update name both have my suggestion in it. I believe I'm on the third page or so, which is what I would cite if I wasn't on my phone.

Unsure about first, but we actually got First Contract from several places at once, the poll, forum messages, Reddit PMs, etc. Had there been some sort of clear winner or anything like that we would have been happy to credit, but when 20 people come up with a really solid idea we can't really give a single person credit.