Licensing and mod portal

[Caledorn]

KatherineOfSky, or anyone else, can stream the mod on a 24/7 marathon for all I care.

They just have to do it non-commercially. Just like the streamers who have been streaming IR all weekend without taking any donations or advertising revenue.

All these streamers who have been streaming that you reference to, do they have Patreon accounts linked to their channels? If yes, do you personally consider a streamer/Let's Play series made by a streamer or YouTuber who gets money from people donating to them via Patreon to be making the content non-commercially, as long as the stream or videos involving IR are not monetised?

That's the only thing I wonder about in regards to IR. As for the rest of this debate, it's now about far more than your mod, but about the general licensing of mods etc.

[KatherineOfSky]

Someone mentioned "what about asking nicely?"

The way this whole story began was that I saw the FFF of course; mod looked interesting. After hearing from someone in my community that his license prohibited streaming, that's the first thing I did -- I sent Deadlock and email, offering to link his Patreon/PayPal account in the videos if he would allow me to use his mod in a new series, and asking if there were any other conditions.

The response was no.

That is well within his right, and I accept that. The fact that the prohibition/license isn't displayed anywhere in the game is what started this discussion. It would be awful for someone to get caught in a situation where they could get copyright claims if they were not aware of the licenses, (as I had no been aware of until this week).

[Deadlock989]

All these streamers who have been streaming that you reference to

Don't know, don't care, leave me alone.

[Caledorn]

All these streamers who have been streaming that you reference to

Don't know, don't care, leave me alone.

If you don't know or care, then why create a specific non-commercial license on your mod in the first place?

I mean, the least I would expect from someone who takes such an aggressive stance towards corporatism and non-commercial usage is that they at least do the very basic check-up of whether their terms have been fulfilled before they single out a specific person (as you did with KatherineOfSky above) as "bad" (which you inferred in the rest of your post).

You did not answer the main portion of my question though, so thus I cannot leave you alone as you are the licenseholder of the mod, and you are enforcing the license. I have a Patreon account connected to my YouTube account. I thus make a monthly income from my YouTube content. If I make demonetised videos involving IR, while receiving money from people who support my channel in general via Patreon, is that considered "n-o-n, c-o-m-m-e-r-c-i-a-l" in your opinion? The answer is of crucial interest to anyone who is a content creator on YouTube, Twitch, Mixer or similar and who has a Patreon page.

[Optera]

Someone mentioned "what about asking nicely?"

The way this whole story began was that I saw the FFF of course; mod looked interesting. After hearing from someone in my community that his license prohibited streaming, that's the first thing I did -- I sent Deadlock and email, offering to link his Patreon/PayPal account in the videos if he would allow me to use his mod in a new series, and asking if there were any other conditions.

The response was no.

That is well within his right, and I accept that. The fact that the prohibition/license isn't displayed anywhere in the game is what started this discussion. It would be awful for someone to get caught in a situation where they could get copyright claims if they were not aware of the licenses, (as I had no been aware of until this week).

Not meant as attack on you Katherine, I just don't understand why streamers have a problem doing what developers have to do.

To avoid legal consequences as self employed developer I have to read licenses on every software, module or even snippet I use in my code and only use it when the license is compatible with my projects license.
On projects I earned money with I spent more time considering legal and marketing than actually developing. Which was why I quit commercial developing and only do it as hobby.

[gabberworld]

sometimes i think why i should promo/advertising games or other stuff in live stream first place.

[Deadlock989]

Not meant as attack on you Katherine, I just don't understand why streamers have a problem doing what developers have to do.

To avoid legal consequences as self employed developer I have to read licenses on every software, module or even snippet I use in my code and only use it when the license is compatible with my projects license.

I mean, it's shocking, isn't it. Someone running a business, having to check that they're compliant with the law or with the terms of the software they downloaded and are using under license. Such a monumental effort, to crack open a zip file and skim some text.

Ignorantia juris non excusat, I think said someone said literally 2000 years ago.

[Koub]

Moderator-me here. A word of explaination for those of you who are wondering, I'm watching closely this thread and despite it's somehow heated, it remains mostly civil, with no personal attacks (which I'm glad of), and I'm not willing to impede the discussion in any way, because I think it's very important and necessary. Thus allowing the heat to raise as long as controlled. I will have to, however, if the thread ever derails beyond control towards insults/trolling/flamewar, but hope that won't happen.
Feel free to keep going.

[Optera]

Ignorantia juris non excusat, I think said someone said literally 2000 years ago.

Indeed.
I'm also consultant for Windows and you'd be surprised (or perhaps not) how many businesses up to 200 employees run incorrectly or non licensed software. If MS paid me for reporting, I'd be rich by now.

I can fully understand no one wanting to read that unreadable legalese. But if you are self employed you run a business and have to read and comply to that crap.

[Caledorn]

Someone mentioned "what about asking nicely?"

The way this whole story began was that I saw the FFF of course; mod looked interesting. After hearing from someone in my community that his license prohibited streaming, that's the first thing I did -- I sent Deadlock and email, offering to link his Patreon/PayPal account in the videos if he would allow me to use his mod in a new series, and asking if there were any other conditions.

The response was no.

That is well within his right, and I accept that. The fact that the prohibition/license isn't displayed anywhere in the game is what started this discussion. It would be awful for someone to get caught in a situation where they could get copyright claims if they were not aware of the licenses, (as I had no been aware of until this week).

Not meant as attack on you Katherine, I just don't understand why streamers have a problem doing what developers have to do.

To avoid legal consequences as self employed developer I have to read licenses on every software, module or even snippet I use in my code and only use it when the license is compatible with my projects license.

If you look at the Bethesda games, not the commercial mods but the TES Nexus mod site, where particularly Skyrim and Fallout 4 are a substantial thing on YouTube, you'll notice that the mods there only come with permissions - not with licenses. Factorio is the first game I've encountered that uses licenses that I associate with the GNU/Linux-side of the computer world on their mods, as far as I know. I may very well be mistaken on that though, and simply just be ignorant - which in that case is my mistake. I've been made aware that KSP had similar licensing on their mods for a while, until the dev changed the licensing terms for their mod community.

It's not about having a problem doing what developers have to do. It's about wanting to play games. I have a background in computer technology myself, so I am more aware of licenses than the average person is. Expecting people to read licenses, understand the differences between e.g. CC and MIT, and let alone understanding the legalese inside those licenses, is .. optimistic, at best. When all people want to do is play the game, record or stream footage of it, and then include mods, they don't think about these things.

Is that a mistake from the people who make footage of games? I can certainly agree to the argument that it is. But if we start requring youngsters who stream stuff to read through highly complicated license documents before they can sit down and do what they enjoy, we may just as well discontinue encouraging people to stream. I.e. what I am arguing is that there need to be some kind of leniency, or at the very least a basic statement from a game developer on how mods that are offered inside the game will be handled in terms of license terms. Wube has not given an official response to what they will do yet, and until they do all we have is this debate and some discussions here and there in various places like Discord servers etc.

[Optera]

It's not about having a problem doing what developers have to do. It's about wanting to play games. I have a background in computer technology myself, so I am more aware of licenses than the average person is. Expecting people to read licenses, understand the differences between e.g. CC and MIT, and let alone understanding the legalese inside those licenses, is .. optimistic, at best. When all people want to do is play the game, record or stream footage of it, and then include mods, they don't think about these things.

Is that a mistake from the people who make footage of games? I can certainly agree to the argument that it is. But if we start requring youngsters who stream stuff to read through highly complicated license documents before they can sit down and do what they enjoy, we may just as well discontinue encouraging people to stream. I.e. what I am arguing is that there need to be some kind of leniency, or at the very least a basic statement from a game developer on how mods that are offered inside the game will be handled in terms of license terms. Wube has not given an official response to what they will do yet, and until they do all we have is this debate and some discussions here and there in various places like Discord servers etc.

I can fully understand no one wanting to read that unreadable legalese. But if you are self employed you run a business and have to read and comply to that crap.

Again if it wasn't clear.
Streamers who make a living from it are not playing games for fun, they play to make a living. By any definition are they self employed and have to comply with all legal regulations.
While for private use companies generally turn a blind eye, commercially abusing software is often harshly fined.

[Caledorn]

I can fully understand no one wanting to read that unreadable legalese. But if you are self employed you run a business and have to read and comply to that crap.

This reminds me of discussions that I've encountered in various Linux forums/communities... It is very technical, and it makes certain assumptions about things that someone from a specific position (in this case your position is that you have to do this exact thing on a regular basis, and thus have gained the knowledge necessary) takes for granted that same level of understanding applies to everyone.

Yes, you are right - but I also added something more to that. I also brought in young people who wouldn't understand the complexity of the unreadable legalese. Heck, many grown up people wouldn't understand the legalese. I had to Google extensively to understand the CC v4 license myself, and even the basic understanding I have from it still would require me to ask a lawyer to clarify the question about "Am I using this mod commercially if I have patrons that donate money to my channel?". And Deadlock clearly has no intent of answering that question, so even though he said "I don't care", and I had an interest in making non-monetised footage of IR, I couldn't do it because he refuses to answer that question.

[Bilka]

but I also added something more to that. I also brought in young people who wouldn't understand the complexity of the unreadable legalese.

I don't think is a valid argument. Any "youngster" who is not able to deal with the legal stuff isn't allowed to make money anyway. I quote from the twitch affiliate program agreement:

If you are an individual, you must be at least 13 years of age. If you are between the ages of 13 and 18 (or between 13 and the age of legal majority in your country of residence), you may only participate in the Program under the supervision of a parent or legal guardian who agrees to be bound by this Agreement.

I quote from youtube adsense:

The minimum age requirement to participate in AdSense is 18 years. [..] In case you are under 18 years old, the only way to start monetizing your videos is to link the YouTube account to an approved AdSense account (of a parent or guardian who is over 18).

Anyone who is above [legal-age-of-country] is considered capable of understanding the legalese/getting help in understanding it. Anybody under [legal-age-of-country] cannot make money from "content creation" so they don't have to understand the legalese.

[Optera]

This reminds me of discussions that I've encountered in various Linux forums/communities... It is very technical, and it makes certain assumptions about things that someone from a specific position (in this case your position is that you have to do this exact thing on a regular basis, and thus have gained the knowledge necessary) takes for granted that same level of understanding applies to everyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoranti ... on_excusat

Yes, you are right - but I also added something more to that. I also brought in young people who wouldn't understand the complexity of the unreadable legalese. Heck, many grown up people wouldn't understand the legalese. I had to Google extensively to understand the CC v4 license myself, and even the basic understanding I have from it still would require me to ask a lawyer to clarify the question about "Am I using this mod commercially if I have patrons that donate money to my channel?". And Deadlock clearly has no intent of answering that question, so even though he said "I don't care", and I had an interest in making non-monetised footage of IR, I couldn't do it because he refuses to answer that question.

You are arguing from a human perspective, that's not how the world of lawyers works. The legal world doesn't care if you reached legal age yesterday, are an industry veteran, nor how long you where running your business.
They only care for how much they can sue you, or how much they get paid to get you out of the picture so their clients video has a better search result.

I hope you agree that a wake up call without legal consequences like Deadlock gave to Katherine is better than bringing down the DMCA hammer in full force.

[KatherineOfSky]

Not meant as attack on you Katherine, I just don't understand why streamers have a problem doing what developers have to do.

To avoid legal consequences as self employed developer I have to read licenses on every software, module or even snippet I use in my code and only use it when the license is compatible with my projects license.
On projects I earned money with I spent more time considering legal and marketing than actually developing. Which was why I quit commercial developing and only do it as hobby.

I don't feel attacked. I'm just answering the question.

There's no formal training for being a YT content creator. You learn as you go. Early on, you learn that you should check whether a game is allowed to be monetized or not. This is displayed almost always near the Press Kit/Assets. A yes permission is very explicitly stated and easy to find: "Content creators have permission to monetize streams/videos of x game."

TBF, it never even occurred to me that mods have their own licenses. It seemed very natural to me that mods would follow the same permissions as the original game, since they require the game to run.

As to looking into modding Factorio: it doesn't help that Factorio's system of modding doesn't really encourage finding licenses. Mods installed from the game are insta-transported into the mysterious appdata folder. In-game there is no mention of license. If one does go digging, then you have zip files, which are not necessary to unzip. I am not a coder, so it is not a natural interest to look there. On the mod portal, which I visit fairly frequently, the license is listed, but I took that to apply to other modders: e.g. sharing code and assets with other mod authors.

I think that it is a common thing that coders and modders think about, but it is not a natural activity for people unfamiliar with this line of work. It's like any specialty subject. If I spoke to you about high-end carving techniques, you might be equally baffled and clueless about what I am speaking of. It would not even occur to you to use 40k grit sanding fabric to finish a fine piece.

I have no problem asking for permission or licenses. I just simply didn't know that it was necessary. Now I've gained new information.

[Deadlock989]

I hope you agree that a wake up call without legal consequences like Deadlock gave to Katherine is better than bringing down the DMCA hammer in full force.

Unintentionally. Nothing could have been further from my mind than randoms off the internet, when I was fiddling with the annoying forms on the mod portal on Friday and worrying about publishing my thousand hours of work for all to criticise.

In the end it all comes down to the fact that if you broadcast yourself online playing a game, you don't have to give it a moment's thought.

Unless you're taking money.

Exactly the same as literally every other single human activity that is exchanged for money, in every country in the world.

That's the world. Money has consequences. If you don't want the consequences, don't seek the money.

I'm not sure I'd characterise something so utterly basic as a "wake-up call".

[gabberworld]

funny thing is,word commercial usually is used if you sell something, but in this case you not actually sell product but only advertising and get sometimes money about that if donators enjoy.

i would send that product to hell who want get profit about that

[KatherineOfSky]

I hope you agree that a wake up call without legal consequences like Deadlock gave to Katherine is better than bringing down the DMCA hammer in full force.

I don't understand this. My interaction with Deadlock was primarily through an email. I asked, he refused, and that was it.
The notification of the license was from a kind person in my discord.

[Caledorn]

Yes, I am arguing from the human point, and I am acutely aware of legal age and also "ignorantia juris non excusat". We're talking about mod creators here - people who make works for fun. Not multi-million corporate entities that would sue anyone if there was even the slightest whiff of money to be gained. But I am still in the dark about my actual question here. I'll put it in a simple and single line:

Is a content creator who uses Patreon, making non-monetised videos of something covered by the CC NC license, violating the license?

This https://www.quora.com/Does-asking-for-d ... he-license link has two responses, one from a CEO who runs a podcast company, that says no, as long as the support is optional, as Patreon and any donations are (which would include Twitch donations and YouTube donations during a stream).

And as gabberworld also raises - which I tried to address earlier: Content on YouTube and Twitch is not behind a paywall. Nobody has to pay a dime to watch it! I.e. a streamer or a YouTuber is not selling a product (in particular if it is not monetised on said platforms, as having ads for revenue on the videos could be argued to be selling a product albeit by proxy - but I'm sure the law applies to that, as YouTube is specific about CC NC licensed material cannot be monetised in their terms).

[Deadlock989]

And Deadlock clearly has no intent of answering that question

I can't give you legal advice because I'm not qualified to do so.

If I were qualified to do so, I would probably charge you for it.

You are the "content creator". It's your job to understand what you're doing.