Deleted resources

[OVOgenez]

Let this be a separate thread.

In the history of mapmaking, there are many users who deleted their resources, for example @D a w n (DonDustin), @-Grendel, @Pyramidhe@d, @Murlocologist, and others.
To be honest, I don’t know the exact reasons, but a lot of time has passed since then...

So, has anyone kept their contacts? Or does someone still stay in touch with them?
I think many people would love to see those resources in the proper sections here on Hive.
It’s kind of silly that people are still fishing these resources out of custom maps (and meanwhile, uploading maps with these resources here is not forbidden — I could even make a map entirely consisting of resources of only one such author, lol).

Anyway, it's worth at least trying.

 

[General Frank]

All four of them simply no longer wanted to share their resources with the Hive and the wc3 community as a whole, because they got disillusioned by the Hive and their greater administration due to various reasons - some personal ones, others because the staff messed up massively at the time.
This is very relatable.

That is their right, but if that is right thing to do (deleting their resources that is) is an entirely different question entirely.

I think it should always be kept in mind that most people don't like their stuff being shared without their consent and behind their backs.
If the Hive or any other side forgoes that for the sake of 'the common good' then you might as well scare off others, because they feel that their resource no longer belong to them.
If that happens to the Hive and Hive and their staff just no longer gives a damn about common courtesy and user's right then you might as well stop modding wc3 entirely.

User's resources should always belong to the author and they should always be reserved the right to with them what they want.

 

[tillinghast]

i bet that's exactly the reason some of them deleted their stuff, to be begged to restore it
don't give them the satisfaction, especially because it's all still there, you just gotta dig a little bit or ask around

if you don't want your stuff shared around and messed with on the internet - don't fucking share it yourself in the first place
then you can sit on it and do nothing with it, like a dragon on a pile of gold
you can't un-share something from the internet, miss Streisand

 

[Footman16]

The Hive in my view has a responsibility to it's artists whether they be modellers or mapmakers or anything in between. As part of this responsibility it is respect for the artists' work and artists' wishes.

If this means deleting their work that is something we as a community should respect. Some do it out of spite, some do it for other reasons but at the end of the day the Hive moves on and the community moves on and continues to create great stuff.

When it comes to fishing for deleted resources out of custom maps the onus in that case shifts from the Hive to the uploader and person going through the effort to recover that resource.

Ofc people's reasons for doing things might change or no longer be relevant and if you wish to contact some of these people to ask to restore their works you are obviously more than welcome to, however the Hive will not be restoring these resources against the author's wishes.

Those are just some of my thoughts

 

[DREADMAN]

I don't understand you, just save all the resources you need, or why do you need to share them openly if the authors have deleted them?

 

[Panda]

Also, to add on to all this.. it does suck that they put all that effort into something to just delete it but insecurities runs deep in alot of people..

If theres a specific model/skin/icon you need though im sure you can ask around if someone could make you something that represents something they have made in the past that has been deleted.

 

[Kyrbi0]

To answer your question directly, yes there are people who have kept in contact with (some of) them, and I wouldn't be surprised if it has come up in discussions. If you'd like some details on their reasons for leaving, you'll have to do some digging, but you can PM me for details on 3 of them (I don't remember Pyramidhead's reason).


My opinion on doing so: ehhhhh. I totally get the urge, truly I do, but I really think it is a dicey situation. Usually people who have removed all their resources have not done so for purely rational, level-headed reasons, and may have done so as a "punishment" to the community. So you're going into a situation which has a high likelihood of causing drama (even if only in personal emails or DMs) & thus to drive them further away from considering bringing stuff back. Maybe they'll be chill about it... but maybe not, and it's a coin flip either way, which aren't good odds in my book.

You'd do much better to reach out to someone with genuine interest in getting to know them, developing a friendship, and then maybe at some point, asking them why they removed their stuff & whether they would consider bringing it back.


Now to the wider, philosophical issue underpinning your question: you've already heard from Footman & General Frank about the state-of-play & why. Hive has maintained a pretty maximalist position of "respect the author's rights", which I personally understand & appreciate... mostly. I am also somewhat 'communitarian', concerned with the "good of the many", and like you wish it weren't so easy for someone to nuke the resource section at a whim. I'm not sure how to thread that needle better than what we're doing now (limiting rights in some way?), and I'm not sure how solvable this problem really is. Aside from poring over old maps, it's possible to find archives of basically everything if you know the right people (it's just considered kinda gauche & possibly against-the-rules to advertise such, if you know what I mean; e.g. I wouldn't make that "-Grendel Model Archive" Map anytime soon (or at least, don't call it that )).


//EDIT// - Alright @deepstrasz, which part of my post has you 'Sad'?

 

[deepstrasz]

All that wasted time for resource moderation.

Yeah, a one liner.

 

[OVOgenez]

I don’t think there’s any point in pondering or philosophizing. There aren’t even any ways to contact the authors yet…

 

[tillinghast]

There aren’t even any ways to contact the authors yet…

start with @-Grendel
literally just hover over his name and press "Start conversation"
i called him a bitch in dms once and he responded with a funny youtube video to show how totally not mad he was
come on, mr. golden tongue, as soon as he reads "BOOM!!" he will change his mind about the whole situation, i'm certain of it

 

[OVOgenez]

start with @-Grendel
literally just hover over his name and press "Start conversation"
i called him a bitch in dms once and he responded with a funny youtube video to show how totally not mad he was
come on, mr. golden tongue, as soon as he reads "BOOM!!" he will change his mind about the whole situation, i'm certain of it

But will he reply? His last activity was 2 years ago.

 

[tillinghast]

But will he reply? His last activity was 2 years ago.

out "conversation" was after he deleted everything and hid himself
and since then he's cried about someone (@stein123 i think) posting a screenshot of his edited model in the gallery, i think that was in 2024
i'd like to believe he's still around, reporting everything he doesn't like

 

[Kyrbi0]

I don’t think there’s any point in pondering or philosophizing. There aren’t even any ways to contact the authors yet…

Did... you read my post? I know it was long but right at the top I answered this question.

All that wasted time for resource moderation.

Yeah, a one liner.

That's a good point; another 'cost' to allowing authors the freedom to mass-delete is all the wasted time in moderating their resources over the years.

I'm not sure how that responds to my question for you (& now @General Frank I guess), though.

 

[Luashine]

I think it should always be kept in mind that most people don't like their stuff being shared without their consent and behind their backs.

We have witnessed the greatest medium of all time to be created before our eyes: send anything around the globe within a second for - practically - free: messages, audio, images, video.

And yet people decide to be control freaks, because others shall not dare to touch your digital toys (fyi: copying is non-destructive and free). Map "optimization" protection is another facet of this. It has done more harm than good; immense harm in total as of today - looking back 20 years.

the "good of the many", and like you wish it weren't so easy for someone to nuke the resource section at a whim. I'm not sure how to thread that needle better than what we're doing now (limiting rights in some way?),

Educate people on what 'free culture' is. Although it clashes with the modern notion of copyright that intends to restrict everything behind an unconditional monopoly for nearly 100 years.

---

To contribute to OP's topic: isn't it funny that Hive, by its own rules, requires people to refine their OSINT skills to find and contact the original creators (doxxing)? Asking for more info is essentially that. If electronic communication fails, is it OK to send a carbon letter? With how openly available US data is, this level of information gathered is certainly feasible, although impractical.

 

[deepstrasz]

clashes

The examples in this have more to do with imitation than creativity. Where does one draw the line? Or are we referring to creative imitation or imitating creativity?
Do you feel helping people develop their creativity means everyone can have their own fan fiction The Lord of the Rings? Don't we then step on imitative kitsch as in our current AI era rather than true generative work?

 

[Footman16]

To contribute to OP's topic: isn't it funny that Hive, by its own rules, requires people to refine their OSINT skills to find and contact the original creators (doxxing)? Asking for more info is essentially that.

That's not what doxxing is. Don't be ridiculous, contacting people through their publicly available online mediums whether that's their Hive profile or otherwise (such as a linked Email or profile on another website) is not doxxing.

 

[OVOgenez]

It really doesn’t matter what the rules are, or why exactly such rules exist on one platform or another — we just follow them.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

In my eyes, models/icons are art, and that’s why I want to share them with other people. It just so happens that Hive is the most popular platform. And if on Hive a person is required to ask the author’s permission, then on XGM you only need to credit the author. And nothing can be done about that.

But it’s interesting - how is the authorship of a particular resource proven here? By majority opinion? Well, that doesn’t even matter, since the final word always belongs to the administration.

Yes @deepstrasz, it is really 'Haha'.

 

[General Frank]

In my eyes, models/icons are art, and that’s why I want to share them with other people. It just so happens that Hive is the most popular platform. And if on Hive a person is required to ask the author’s permission, then on XGM you only need to credit the author. And nothing can be done about that.

That's not quite right. You can report a resource (even without needing an account) on XGM to have a resource removed without a question. This is very forthcoming.

But it’s interesting - how is the authorship of a particular resource proven here? By majority opinion? Well, that doesn’t even matter, since the final word always belongs to the administration.

Some have a good memory and experience and can say with a good credibility if a resource is stolen or who made it in the first place.
I've had my fair share of that over time.

 

[Retera]

I have an opinion. Let me use a hypothetical example: as author of Retera Model Studio tool on Hive, suppose that I decide because of the emotions and drama in my heart that I want to delete this program from Hive and tell everyone that they should no longer use it, in the hopes that creating this kind of social damage cloud from me doing that will cause more people to use War3 Model Editor and more people to do Classic Graphics instead of Reforged Graphics as a result, because for some personal reason I decided this month that Classics is my favorite and I hate Reforged graphics style now.

Unfortunately, if/when I delete Retera Model Studio like that, then a different Hive user will re-upload Retera Model Studio back to the Hive Workshop without my permission and against my wishes. If I get mad at them, they can actually cite the license file of Retera Model Studio which exists on the GitHub page here:

MIT License

Copyright (c) 2023 Retera

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

So when that other user re-uploads Retera Model Studio to the Hive Workshop against my wishes in that future, I have no legal right to give a hoot because their rights of what they could do with the program were stated at the time they downloaded it, including the right to use, copy, modify, merge, republish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software. I'm pretty sure the way the law works, if you obtain a software with a License and then the person who authored the software says, "I'm changing the license, pray I don't alter it any further!" then their new license only applies to new versions of the software that the original author releases under the new license but not retroactively to prior licenses, since retroactively changing licenses is stupid and even though modern corporations probably love to do it with their Term of Service they are at least required to (or supposed to, I would hope, in my non-legal-advice opinion of morality) tell you inside the license itself that the terms may alter at any time and you agree to the new terms at any time that the company decides them whenever the company decides them, which they agree to notify you about. (I have definitely seen that clause in some programs people use, like maybe Discord or Whatsapp or whatever!)

But that "I can update the terms and you agree to any future thing I want" clause is missing on Retera Model Studio! So, if I add that clause, then you can just refuse to use the new version I created.

Something like this already happened when Warsmash changed its license from a permission license such as the one shown above, to instead use a GPL copyleft license a year or two ago. Using the git version control system, it's possible to navigate GitHub and find old versions of Warsmash to which the old license applies, but new versions and new code are affected by that license. This might have a major impact on Reforged because it means that if Reforged developers open up the Warsmash GitHub and copy code from it and put that code into Reforged itself, then they might become legally obligated to share the sourcecode of Reforged itself because of the terms of the GPL (or at least the portions based on GPL Warsmash and new versions of those portions of the code -- I am not a lawyer).

---

So, long story short, there shouldn't be map "optimization" and "model deletions" if we're going to live in a society under common law, because the more reasonable thing is to have license files for models that describe the express limitations for how a user can or cannot use a model. Ideally, Hive would probably have a way for models to select one of a few standard licenses as well as a way for the user to attach a custom text license if they feel that is absolutely necessary for their work. And likely we could do the same for maps.

What is the argument against this? Why are we not doing this? I have seen users on Discord tell me that caring about licenses like this for Warsmash is a mistake because of China, and because in China the laws all don't apply so the licenses to software don't apply. As far as I'm concerned, they could make the same argument with the space aliens. Space aliens might come down in a flying saucer, attach an ethernet cable to the human internet, download all the code of Warsmash, and fly it back to Mars and play Warsmash on that planet without telling me and might start violating the GPL licenses of Warsmash. Does that mean that until I can prove there are no space aliens, that I should believe there are no laws here or in any country since there cannot be enforcement?

No, because I'm a human, and I don't have any plans to visit Mars or China any time soon, so let's be reasonable.

 

[General Frank]

Spoiler: [...]

Spoiler: [...]

I have an opinion. Let me use a hypothetical example: as author of Retera Model Studio tool on Hive, suppose that I decide because of the emotions and drama in my heart that I want to delete this program from Hive and tell everyone that they should no longer use it, in the hopes that creating this kind of social damage cloud from me doing that will cause more people to use War3 Model Editor and more people to do Classic Graphics instead of Reforged Graphics as a result, because for some personal reason I decided this month that Classics is my favorite and I hate Reforged graphics style now.

Unfortunately, if/when I delete Retera Model Studio like that, then a different Hive user will re-upload Retera Model Studio back to the Hive Workshop without my permission and against my wishes. If I get mad at them, they can actually cite the license file of Retera Model Studio which exists on the GitHub page here:



So when that other user re-uploads Retera Model Studio to the Hive Workshop against my wishes in that future, I have no legal right to give a hoot because their rights of what they could do with the program were stated at the time they downloaded it, including the right to use, copy, modify, merge, republish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software. I'm pretty sure the way the law works, if you obtain a software with a License and then the person who authored the software says, "I'm changing the license, pray I don't alter it any further!" then their new license only applies to new versions of the software that the original author releases under the new license but not retroactively to prior licenses, since retroactively changing licenses is stupid and even though modern corporations probably love to do it with their Term of Service they are at least required to (or supposed to, I would hope, in my non-legal-advice opinion of morality) tell you inside the license itself that the terms may alter at any time and you agree to the new terms at any time that the company decides them whenever the company decides them, which they agree to notify you about. (I have definitely seen that clause in some programs people use, like maybe Discord or Whatsapp or whatever!)

But that "I can update the terms and you agree to any future thing I want" clause is missing on Retera Model Studio! So, if I add that clause, then you can just refuse to use the new version I created.

Something like this already happened when Warsmash changed its license from a permission license such as the one shown above, to instead use a GPL copyleft license a year or two ago. Using the git version control system, it's possible to navigate GitHub and find old versions of Warsmash to which the old license applies, but new versions and new code are affected by that license. This might have a major impact on Reforged because it means that if Reforged developers open up the Warsmash GitHub and copy code from it and put that code into Reforged itself, then they might become legally obligated to share the sourcecode of Reforged itself because of the terms of the GPL (or at least the portions based on GPL Warsmash and new versions of those portions of the code -- I am not a lawyer).

---

So, long story short, there shouldn't be map "optimization" and "model deletions" if we're going to live in a society under common law, because the more reasonable thing is to have license files for models that describe the express limitations for how a user can or cannot use a model. Ideally, Hive would probably have a way for models to select one of a few standard licenses as well as a way for the user to attach a custom text license if they feel that is absolutely necessary for their work. And likely we could do the same for maps.

What is the argument against this? Why are we not doing this? I have seen users on Discord tell me that caring about licenses like this for Warsmash is a mistake because of China, and because in China the laws all don't apply so the licenses to software don't apply. As far as I'm concerned, they could make the same argument with the space aliens. Space aliens might come down in a flying saucer, attach an ethernet cable to the human internet, download all the code of Warsmash, and fly it back to Mars and play Warsmash on that planet without telling me and might start violating the GPL licenses of Warsmash. Does that mean that until I can prove there are no space aliens, that I should believe there are no laws here or in any country since there cannot be enforcement?

No, because I'm a human, and I don't have any plans to visit Mars or China any time soon, so let's be reasonable.

Just because you do not care does not mean there are people out there that don't share your opinion.
Like I said many times that if we comb over everything to lowest common denominator then we can just become worse and truly without any rules. That would be bad.

 

[Retera]

Just because you do not care does not mean there are people out there that don't share your opinion.

If they feel that way, why is there not a license file provided along with their resources that specifies permitted use cases for those resources?

That's moreso my point -- not my opinion about what I do or don't care about, but the fact that this opinion is codified in a license file along with my resource that makes everything clear.

 

[General Frank]

If they feel that way, why is there not a license file provided along with their resources that specifies permitted use cases for those resources?

That's moreso my point -- not my opinion about what I do or don't care about, but the fact that this opinion is codified in a license file along with my resource that makes everything clear.

Laziness and the fear of 'doing something wrong and looking stupid', I guess.
Hive does have a 'open source' tag, but it is kinda a joke.

I try to write what you can do with my resources mostly.
Some people make fun of it, most people respect it and others are generously nice asking about things.

 

[Retera]

generously nice asking about things.

I think that's better than nothing, but it would be really cool to have a system so that they did not have to ask because it would be so obviously what was allowed and what was not from the consistent selection of license files -- and which one the model author selected.

In my opinion, a system like that is way, way better than having to ask the author because it means resources can safely be used in every possible context even when the author is retired or has left this creative space.

 

[General Frank]

I think that's better than nothing, but it would be really cool to have a system so that they did not have to ask because it would be so obviously what was allowed and what was not from the consistent selection of license files -- and which one the model author selected.

In my opinion, a system like that is way, way better than having to ask the author because it means resources can safely be used in every possible context even when the author is retired or has left this creative space.

I agree, although it might be a good idea to have things as open as it gets in the event that the author changes their mind.

 

[Footman16]

I think that's better than nothing, but it would be really cool to have a system so that they did not have to ask because it would be so obviously what was allowed and what was not from the consistent selection of license files -- and which one the model author selected.

In my opinion, a system like that is way, way better than having to ask the author because it means resources can safely be used in every possible context even when the author is retired or has left this creative space.

But authors DO literally say in the description their wishes with their resources a lot of the time. And for those that don't we defer to what I think is a pretty basic baseline of how to approach any issues with sharing, editing etc which is just "ask".

 

[The Big M]

Well.. here's the case against model deletion including recommendations:

1. the files were originally uploaded with the intention and wishes of them being used by the community (on the free and open internet nonethless)
2. tantrums are not helpful, are not of sound mind (ruining your life in a moment or in this case hurting humanity is to be avoided) and they dont respect the wishes of their own person the one who uploaded in the first place
3. the goal of this site is working together to enrichen ourselves and our creations (more convenience not less) - a hub to help people and create opportunities.... and scattering the community across countless sites trying to find models is counterproductive (less worth in the site means less people in the site means less people having the ability to thrive the ability to affect the community) yes reality exists and sometimes legalities have to force ur hand for the sake of the site existing BUT beyond that contrived rules catering to egomaniacs should be abolished
4. rights,laws,rules,etc... are written and rewritten by people theyre not a magical law of nature so as an argument by itself it falls flat its not what people feel like or seen somewhere else it can be exactly what we want it to be (and in this case the people owning the site literally can decide for the site) if authors dont want their stuff out there they wont put it out there - everything else is catering to manipulators, short term gains, etc.. sacrificing the future..... u want to benefit from your work? more people on the site helps with that, accept the rules that help us grow and if ure not here dont want to be here u either swallow your pride come here and benefit or someone else will upload your work from elsewhere and youll have less of a spotlight

More can be said, especially in regards to particular thoughts that some might feel isnt answered by it (like transformative work or performance optimizing even historical archiving) - however its general enough for now.. onto recommendations

• anyone can upload effectively anything
• delete is removed, if sadly not then once the request to delete is sent forth a period of consideration starts (3-6 weeks? maybe more..) at the end of which the deletion can actually happen, manually, by another click (also giving notification and time for people to collect it in case they didnt because they didnt consider something stupid and dont have unlimited storage and or easy time searching for files)
• moving forward create category boxes on submission (default being open source) and a one-way way to change from archaic to open source (optimally open source would be the only option but if we cant have the best situation might as well push for a better situation)
• obviously dont forget to change the rules on the site so people can know

 

[Retera]

Question: Are there international copyright or trademark laws that affect this? If I upload a deleted model from an author who adamantly wants it gone, but the website owners keep that file up, can they be held legally liable?

I'm just curious if there's some underlying law, following that as a basis might reduce the amount of discussion needed.

 

[MasterHaosis]

if you don't want your stuff shared around and messed with on the internet - don't fucking share it yourself in the first place
then you can sit on it and do nothing with it, like a dragon on a pile of gold
you can't un-share something from the internet, miss Streisand

Actually that is very true statement according to my opinion, tillinghast nailed it to the point.
Check some ,,unwanted" videos from stars, politicians etc... when once upload on internet can become super viral in matter of hours due to vast amount of social media and platforms today. Even videos from presidents and they cannot do anything to stop them unless they want to nuke half of the world. I mean sure, someone may sue New York times and win and earn some money, but they cannot undone that millions of billions worldwide saw it and potentially possess said video.

Then someone expects that he can protect his model, one moment he will upload it, the next moment he will remove it and whole world is obligated to dance as he plays song. That is an illusion, thats not how world functions, as anyone can go to some chinese, russian, tongan or some central american servers and upload it normally and our members can still access and download it normally just like before, because you do not need passport to visit that place you simply click and wait few seconds. Oh hey, pirate bay functions like that and clashed with more powerful corporations in the past, and people still download movies there.

Now, here we function with mutual respect, sense and logic mostly and respect someones wishes. If he does not want his models public anymore, let it be, there are tons of other models around. Simple as this. I personally do not like that behavior punishing the whole site because of getting mad over something, but nothing we can do about it. Just let it go. The only thing that is questionable here is deepstarasz point about wasting tons of time for moderating mass resources someone uploaded. Thats good point too.

 

[The Big M]

Now, here we function with mutual respect, sense and logic mostly and respect someones wishes. If he does not want his models public anymore, let it be, there are tons of other models around. Simple as this. I personally do not like that behavior punishing the whole site because of getting mad over something, but nothing we can do about it. Just let it go. The only thing that is questionable here is deepstarasz point about wasting tons of time for moderating mass resources someone uploaded. Thats good point too.

Where is the MUTUAL respect when u delete all the work youve donated to the community?
Where is the sense and logic of making the world a worse place (especially at a whim)?
Where are the wishes of everyone else? what about the autors own past wish

Sadly.. here we function on an emotional illusion and have for a long time (like how ported models section is a recent addition tho it shouldve existed for decades)
There are a lot of things we can do about it in fact and we should (even if its something as simple as a section with links towards other sites or at least changing rules about the assets from a contest, etc...)

 

[Luashine]

The examples in this have more to do with imitation than creativity. Where does one draw the line? Or are we referring to creative imitation or imitating creativity?

deepstrasz, do you really want to go ahead and define the line in the sand that separates "imitation" from creativity?

Do you feel helping people develop their creativity means everyone can have their own fan fiction The Lord of the Rings? Don't we then step on imitative kitsch as in our current AI era rather than true generative work?

Yes. Exactly. They should be allowed to, with a clear separation and attribution. Fan fiction does not form a threatening substitute to original author's works, as long as it does not try to replace a work by rewriting it due to hostilities.
If you were to consider "50 Shades Of Grey" to be a worthy piece of a cultural phenomenon, you should know that the author E.L. James started refining her art by writing Twilight fan fiction. The fan fiction communities serve as creativity incubators. And some authors (or their publishers) seem to have an issue with that, including the aforementioned EL James after her rise to prominence, where they actively go after fan fiction works and authors.

That's not what doxxing is. Don't be ridiculous, contacting people through their publicly available online mediums whether that's their Hive profile or otherwise (such as a linked Email or profile on another website) is not doxxing.

You misread, yet correctly quoted the entire sentence where I talked about "requires people to refine their OSINT skills". Because... let's see:

- If you are editing an existing map by someone else you must request permission to create your own version. If the author cannot be reached or does not reply, you have permission to edit the map. However, if the author ever replies or comes back, he/she may request your map to be taken down. - Map Submission Rules

The idea of this entire thread is to carve out an extra-legal space between the Platform (Hive), Authors and Users. Whatever you think is right - is wrong, because the copyright protection is an explicit monopoly that lasts like at least 5 decades worldwide. Anything else puts everyone involved in a suable gray area or worse.
Retera hit the nail on the head, talking about attaching proper licenses. Apparently he is the only one aware in this thread, only because software developers (FSF) have turned it into a philosophical issue of utmost importance. This makes licensing is a topic many more software devs are educated about (on average).
Whatever period of non-contact you would have put forth in the rules here, will still be against the copyright law. At best, one could argue good will in court... should it ever come this far. Therefore, if you wanted to really ask for permission, you'd need to find and contact the author sparing no expense. Including finding their offline address and sending a mail. All these other rules are, legally, a roleplay.

Let's forget the real world and assume 30 days is enough to wait for a request to "auto expire". Should a map maker really wait, doing nothing? The creative impulse to create may have vanished by then. Or the real world has struck / no time / or whatever. Is it not 30 days, but less? Why?

There are painfully relatable precedents:

How Copyright Restrictions Suppress Art: An Interview With Nina Paley About "Sita Sings The Blues"
After pouring three years of her life into making the film, and having great success with audiences at festival screenings, she now can't distribute it, because of music licensing issues: the film uses songs recorded in the late 1920's by singer Annette Hanshaw, and although the recordings are out of copyright, the compositions themselves are still restricted. That means if you want to make a film using these songs from the 1920s, you have to pay money — a lot of money (around $50,000.00).

...

Anon1: The interview OPENS with Nina saying people warned her not to use the music. She willingly ignored them. Sorry - FAIL!


I'm a documentary filmmaker so I am constantly stuck in the web of fair use and copyright. But here's how I've addressed these issues. Any time I need music, I ensure I have the rights to the music BEFORE I put it in my film. Notice that she's been able to negotiate down from $220k to $50k. Guess what, if she had approached them prior to filming it probably would have been $50k. Once your film is out there using uncleared music the filmmaker is completely at their mercy.
.....

Reply to Anon1:
So, to paraphrase... you say that you're a documentary filmmaker so you're constantly stuck in the web of fair use and copyright. But here's how you address these issues. You simply avoid producing any art that some corporation might want to try to prevent you from producing, unless you can afford to pay them off. You'd have to be an utter moron to go out and produce something beautiful and important without first asking permission from the lords who own the resources you're using and charge monopoly prices for them.
Don't you see that this system is fundamentally sick and that rather than trying to fix it you're just sitting there making fun of the people who won't play along? Historically, when an unfair and unreasonable law is passed, the ones who ignore the law and stand up for true fairness are more likely to get hurt, but ultimately they're the heroes who will be remembered in the most positive light.

http://questioncopyright.org/nina_paley_sita_interview

because the more reasonable thing is to have license files for models that describe the express limitations for how a user can or cannot use a model.

In my opinion, a system like that is way, way better than having to ask the author because it means resources can safely be used in every possible context even when the author is retired or has left this creative space.

Thank you. And this is how Creative Commons came to be. From the idea of Free Culture to an easy to understand and use license. The family of Creative Commons licenses. One should note, it does not have any provisions to satisfy control freaks, it is reduced to only 4 questions:
1. require attribution?
2. allow commercial use?
3. allow derivative works?
4. require sharing under the same license?

What is free culture?

Free culture is a growing understanding among artists and audiences that people shouldn't have to ask permission to copy, share, and use each other's work; it is also a set of practices that make this philosophy work in the real world.

Another opinion:

Copyright Terrorism
...
Copyright issues seem to be cropping up with increasing frequency in the quilting world and I for one would like to try to stem this flow, or at least open your eyes, to the very real threat looming for our craft.

What is this threat? Where is it coming from?

It is coming from within our own ranks. Quilters with a certain penchant for copyright and legal wrangling are turning our open, creative craft into a mine field of rules, regulations, licensing, attribution, and copyright lockdown that it's enough to make anyone set down their rotary cutter and sell their sewing machine.
....
My question is this: is this the world we want to create?

I try to write what you can do with my resources mostly.
Some people make fun of it, most people respect it and others are generously nice asking about things.

&

But authors DO literally say in the description their wishes with their resources a lot of the time.

Both of you defend a position that puts any downstream users in legal uncertainty. The same reason that lawyers have always advised against of rolling your own licenses or modifications. There has been a great deal of discussion about JSON library license:

The JSON License (read the whole text here) is typical of permissive licenses, with a grant of broad rights, an obligation of attribution, and a disclaimer of liability. Great stuff so far. The fly in the ointment is a little, nine-word addition: “The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.” “Software” is a defined term. “Good” and “Evil” are not. And therein lies the problem. -- The JSON License and the Problem with "Good" and "Evil" | Black Duck Blog

Now that I've looked at Gen Frank's verbatim text again, it is exactly the same story as with the JSON license. It's good enough if you don't care as an individual and it's bad enough to avoid it, if you were to think ahead of a potential legal battle:

Please give credits if you use it in your campaign/map.
Don't edit, repost or share my resources without my full and written permission.
You are not allowed to monetise your maps in any way if you use these models.

---

If you wish to edit my resources, please write me a personal message on the Hive or on Discord and we can discuss your wish.

---

If you use the resource(s) in bad faith I have the full right to take away the ability to use this resource.
And if you have questions about the model, feel free to contact me. // copied from here, underline added by me

General Frank (link): I feel that if you properly give credits to the game and the people involved it should be fine.

This is the level of legal understanding put forth in this thread.

if we comb over everything to lowest common denominator

The only common denominator is the existing law, unless you become an activist to push against the narrative supported by millions $$ in lobbying budgets of the copyright lobby. For the past century has only ever seen further restrictions turned into law.

Question: Are there international copyright or trademark laws that affect this? If I upload a deleted model from an author who adamantly wants it gone, but the website owners keep that file up, can they be held legally liable?

Yes, the so-called Safe Harbor provision of the American DMCA. It is more or less the same standard everywhere in the world that protects service providers as long as they act in good faith themselves. More complete examination to be found in 17 U.S. Code § 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online

---

I'm fascinated by how artists say that their adherence to copyright is about money (even when they aren't making a living with their work). But, when you dig a little deeper, it comes out that it's about fear. It's about the fear that someone will do what you're doing but do it better than you ever did. -- Gwenn Seemel

I will end on a more utilitarian yet provocative note by re-posting @oephun 's reply in a conversation about all this permission jazz here:

I told you, I am not going to bother him about silly stuff like this.

Though, I think there's a valuable lesson here. Being honest about things in life leads to silly conversations like the ones we are having. If I wrote "oephun" in the author field of the map and deleted the triggers from the trigger editor, would you even have known that Toadcop was the map's author? We would both be on our merry ways eating mămăligă and watching old episodes of The Simpsons (or whatever you are doing). I am glad that I didn't. I would not be doing this wonderful back-and-forth with you... so thank you!

PS: If Toadcop ever reads this thread I am 99% certain he is going to laugh his ass off.

Instead of spending more time creating, we are collectively required to waste days upon weeks of time to educate ourselves on legal matters et cetera, just to perpetuate the current system. The black sheep are boo'ed and reprimanded for daring to leave the herd.

As far as Hive is concerned, its role as a platform is clear. Its wish is to remain neutral to not anger the authors with control freak tendencies, because it's the only decision to cause less ongoing drama. Unavoidable collateral damage as it is.

 

[Footman16]

This is a hobby for a 23 year old game.

 

[General Frank]

I have had stuff reposted and stolen and then claimed by other people before and I had to fight tooth and nail to get it removed and even get help here to get it rectified.
I am just doing that to make sure people just respect the basic stuff.
I don't plan to delete my resources as long as the site is run with how I can identify with it.

 

[tulee]

While respecting the wishes of the authors of these resources might lose us some models, we gain x100 more when people see we respect the wishes of authors in general, and they are willing to share their stuff on hiveworkshop.

 

[OVOgenez]

I swear, one day I’ll create a cinematic map with all the resources of a particular author and call it something like “Definitely Not a Complete Pack of -Grendel’s Resources”, and just try to delete it. Otherwise, you’d have to delete every single map here that uses his resources.

 

[MasterHaosis]

Where is the MUTUAL respect when u delete all the work youve donated to the community?
Where is the sense and logic of making the world a worse place (especially at a whim)?
Where are the wishes of everyone else? what about the autors own past wish

Sadly.. here we function on an emotional illusion and have for a long time (like how ported models section is a recent addition tho it shouldve existed for decades)
There are a lot of things we can do about it in fact and we should (even if its something as simple as a section with links towards other sites or at least changing rules about the assets from a contest, etc...)

I agree with that. like I said, I am not fan of punishing entire community over something like that either, but some people are just like that, emo quit, got blown in the head and do this.
But some people like General Frank indeed had problems in past with stolen assets and had to fight, that is also truth.

 

[Greedy Martyrdom]

I swear, one day I’ll create a cinematic map with all the resources of a particular author and call it something like “Definitely Not a Complete Pack of -Grendel’s Resources”, and just try to delete it. Otherwise, you’d have to delete every single map here that uses his resources.

Reminds of my restricted model back then when I was pirate who pirated from pirates and people.

 

[Ralle]

I swear, one day I’ll create a cinematic map with all the resources of a particular author and call it something like “Definitely Not a Complete Pack of -Grendel’s Resources”, and just try to delete it. Otherwise, you’d have to delete every single map here that uses his resources.

I didn’t read the whole thread but I saw your comment.

Map moderators only check if proper credits are given. They don’t reject maps just because they use a model that was once published and later deleted by the author.

When someone publishes a resource under a license (and here on Hive it’s usually something like CC BY or CC BY-ND depending on the author’s choice), they can’t really “unpublish” it. Removing it from Hive is fine, but it doesn’t erase the fact that it was already released to the public. Published means published.

Out of respect, Hive stops distributing models if an author wants them taken down. But maps that use them are not affected—because that’s not how publication works.

 

[deepstrasz]

deepstrasz, do you really want to go ahead and define the line in the sand that separates "imitation" from creativity?

Yes. Kitsch is not art and uncreative.

If you were to consider "50 Shades Of Grey" to be a worthy piece of a cultural phenomenon, you should know that the author E.L. James started refining her art by writing Twilight fan fiction. The fan fiction communities serve as creativity incubators.

Agree to disagree. Best practice is to not do fan fiction but your own stuff.

Let's forget the real world and assume 30 days is enough to wait for a request to "auto expire". Should a map maker really wait, doing nothing? The creative impulse to create may have vanished by then. Or the real world has struck / no time / or whatever. Is it not 30 days, but less? Why?

Oh poor map edit enthusiast. What will we do without yet another The Scourge of Lordaeron "remaster"?

There are painfully relatable precedents:

But mah songs which aren't even mine! Can't make a movie without them! It's all so unfair!
I'm pretty sure she could have come to terms if the documentary was not sold afterwards and free.

Instead of spending more time creating, we are collectively required to waste days upon weeks of time to educate ourselves on legal matters et cetera, just to perpetuate the current system. The black sheep are boo'ed and reprimanded for daring to leave the herd.

If some want to be anarchist, it's on them. That doesn't mean it has to be everyone's way of life or that it is something that would make the human society better.
I can imagine making a game, which would be yours of course because you made it, that is about the player turning on a PC and playing World of Warcraft. Yeah, basically as you'd include some music into a film, you'd put World of Warcraft in your game because you know, it's making art and without doing that your game won't be a masterpiece or would not be at all.

 

[Wind Rose]

Relatively large online communities are difficult to manage because literally anyone can join. This inevitably creates an environment where people of all kinds clash; some people handle it better and others (like me) who handle it worse. And well, in the end, many decide they no longer fit in or are no longer comfortable in the community, so they decide to delete their contributions.

It doesn't matter if it's due to ego, a desire to annoy, pride, or whatever. In the end, although Hive somewhat protects the author's wishes, anyone who has downloaded it can reupload it anywhere else and distribute it without the author being able to do much to prevent it. To me, it's just a way of showing discontent with the community in question, for whatever reason.

 

[deepstrasz]

It doesn't matter if it's due to ego, a desire to annoy, pride, or whatever. In the end, although Hive somewhat protects the author's wishes, anyone who has downloaded it can reupload it anywhere else and distribute it without the author being able to do much to prevent it. To me, it's just a way of showing discontent with the community in question, for whatever reason.

One would wonder what's the point of still being on a community which you don't want to be on. Deleting your stuff doesn't do anything to change things but working with the staff for a solution or starting a thread in Site Discussion might actually do something.

 

[Wind Rose]

One would wonder what's the point of still being on a community which you don't want to be on. Deleting your stuff doesn't do anything to change things but working with the staff for a solution or starting a thread in Site Discussion might actually do something.

Just because I don't feel comfortable participating in the community doesn't mean I don't really enjoy the content posted. With the account, at least I can like and occasionally comment. That's why I'm still here.

 

[Homor]

Nexus Mods archives everything and I've always liked that. Idk if it'd work for this site but I'd love to see it.

I agree, although it might be a good idea to have things as open as it gets in the event that the author changes their mind.

Yeah that's one thing I don't like about Nexus Mods: they tend to cross boundaries with people's mod rights. Sometimes it's done for the sake of stability or the safety of their files but I can't say I'm very comfortable with the idea of losing control over your creations to the site you uploaded them to, and not being able to delete them if you're really serious about it.

Now, when you upload something publicly you always lose the ability to "completely" control how it's used and spread around, but modding communities live and die by mutual respect and mod authors feeling open to make stuff.

There's a fantastic video by the YouTuber Down the Rabbit Hole about the "Unofficial Skyrim Patch" that shows both sides of the issue pretty well. He shows how Nexus kind of oversteps some boundaries in the name of trying to make things as marketable and easily distributed as possible. But he also shows the other side of the problem: a mod author named "Arthmoor" is so damn controlling with his mods and how people use them that he basically ended up becoming a mini dictator and forces everyone to play the game his way and his way only, with tons of mods depending on his to work and aggressive shutting down anyone who tries to make an alternative.

So obviously, there's a balance needed. Mod authors need to have some kind of control over the fruits of their labor, but they shouldn't be allowed to use that in an abusive or dismissive way. Again, a modding community lives and dies on mutual respect.

 

[The Big M]

Wouldnt a dual ownership situation solve this issue? the owner retains its ownership specifics with the caveat that hive also owns the products uploaded on the site with the caveat that its only for this site (and maybe only to be used in wc3 specifically as is)

I mean really what are reasonable good scenarios where it does make sense to remove models u created? i genuinely cannot make one up

1. if u want money this isnt the place to go AND your value is in the skills more than specific models with specific artstyle and design specific to a popular well known game - if u want to make money in this place grow the site by making it more useful and do something like a patreon take requests
2. if u want to use your models as influence to force others to change their decisions by holding your models over their heads - well why would we allow that
3. if u have an emotional tantrum be it quality of your work or missunderstanding basic statistics to the point u confuse individuals with a community and a community with individuals and are on a vendetta to hurt them in order to achieve "justice" or something else like 4. or other confusion u havent explored and shot from the hip - again why would we allow that
4. if u are a staunch defender of rights and the concept of them thats great but in this case u are a blind zealot since anything can be a right since its a human invention (hence u dont have a lot of rights that u could have.. most in fact) its not about the right itself its what the right produces as an effect which in this case again give me a reasonable good scenario where it makes sense to have it in our situation not in other situations - hence why would we allow that (just to placate emotions? since the variables changed a lot it makes no sense to use the same recipe by default)

creators absolutely have ultimate control over the fruits of their labor.... up to the point where they decide otherwise - like publishing on a site like hive or to use an analogy if u knitted some socks yeah theyre yours once u donated them to a charity theyre no longer yours and behavior that tries to cozy that is just delusional at best (in this case it would be giving the design to a charity to mass produce for "free" to anyone that wants a pair)

mutual respect is MUTUAL and RESPECT - if creators dont want to respect the site and the people on it why should the site respect them...... i respect your wishes to hurt us isnt mutual respect and again we (obv the owners) can create the site rules (obv respecting laws)

I swear, one day I’ll create a cinematic map with all the resources of a particular author and call it something like “Definitely Not a Complete Pack of -Grendel’s Resources”, and just try to delete it. Otherwise, you’d have to delete every single map here that uses his resources.

That'd be splendid - u can just make it Rare Model Resources Pack (if u got others thatd be even better), in fact i made a couple maps like that with models i found nice across time

And if its allowed (the rules are a mess and it gave me a headache) i can upload them here too if u all want em (id prob want a mod permission for it - id rather not get subjectively hit by the rules and maybe lose the account since its annoying and yes i dont have a great opinion of the site) theyre 9 maps of like 1GB in total

 

[deepstrasz]

Nah. I think it's fine if they remain locked in maps where no one will remove them from after the model/skin/icon author deleted them from the site.
Such authors should get penalized though, temporary bans or restriction from uploading things for a while.

 

[The Big M]

Nah. I think it's fine if they remain locked in maps where no one will remove them from after the model/skin/icon author deleted them from the site.
Such authors should get penalized though, temporary bans or restriction from uploading things for a while.

Why? it makes no sense to be against providing resources for people and such cases already exist on the site + protecting maps isnt a requirement (nor should be) and free to open maps are uploaded already

 

[deepstrasz]

Why? it makes no sense to be against providing resources for people and such cases already exist on the site + protecting maps isnt a requirement (nor should be) and free to open maps are uploaded already

The point is not to force anyone to something. So if a user doesn't want their stuff here any longer, it comes at a price of (temporary) penalty while what you suggest is that they can never remove their stuff once they upload it. That's extreme.
The open source map case is different. It's willingly done so, not mandatory. Plus many of these open source uploaders didn't make their maps from scratch or got systems from other maps and so on.

 

[The Big M]

The point is not to force anyone to something. So if a user doesn't want their stuff here any longer, it comes at a price of (temporary) penalty while what you suggest is that they can never remove their stuff once they upload it. That's extreme.
The open source map case is different. It's willingly done so, not mandatory. Plus many of these open source uploaders didn't make their maps from scratch or got systems from other maps and so on.

i think there might be some confusion here - what i understood from your comment was that you commented on map packs in general, like ultimate terraining map (that may contain specific artists and or just assets in general) and my reply was about maps specifically

removing stuff youve uploaded to the world is extreme too, also something being extreme (whether it is or not) isnt an argument for or against anything - throughout history lots of ideas that are the norm today were considered extreme

and to clear the remaining confusion on my end at least:
1. is the Nah from your original comment a reply to my request for permission on uploading those 9 maps?
2. who is the temporary ban aimed at? people who make map packs or people who want their stuff from the site gone (be it models icons maps etc..hence my reply)

 

[deepstrasz]

and to clear the remaining confusion on my end at least:

Both are related to the authors who upload (including those who also make them) and delete resources.
Assuming that anything that's done by anyone is simply automatically everyone's is bizarre. Where does one draw the line between if it's material or otherwise? I'm referring to the concept at large.
So I think a sort of common ground is a good idea, where you can take all your stuff away but get penalized by doing so. Some might act better afterwards, some might just leave. Let's not fool ourselves. Nothing is truly unique and we shouldn't just welcome artistic quality but human quality as well.

 

[The Big M]

Both are related to the authors who upload (including those who also make them) and delete resources.
Assuming that anything that's done by anyone is simply automatically everyone's is bizarre. Where does one draw the line between if it's material or otherwise? I'm referring to the concept at large.
So I think a sort of common ground is a good idea, where you can take all your stuff away but get penalized by doing so. Some might act better afterwards, some might just leave. Let's not fool ourselves. Nothing is truly unique and we shouldn't just welcome artistic quality but human quality as well.

Right so thats a no on uploading the 9 maps if i got that right (u could be a bit more direct and less cryptic)

I never assumed anything done by anyone is automatically everyones (thatd be very idiotic) - just the stuff thats uploaded (since by default it is gifted to the world) should be (as it basically is for the most part) after all nobody is forced to upload on hive
Now about where to draw the line we can just decide that (i mean currently the site itself has sections with specific rules for specific materials be it tools, maps, or icons) after all while theres use in the general concept, some things are different thus likely causing differences - and the goal is better rules (for example hive being against map deprotection in most cases which is something i agree with since its better for both community and individuals - but even there there is theoretical gain to be had be it long abandoned maps as it currently is iirc or MAYBE asking for very old versions of maps be unprotected for educational/resource purposes)

Right but what if instead of penalizing people who do something stupid we just dont allow them to do that in the first place wherever possible - if u cant take down your stuff u wont get penalized for doing so nor will u hurt the community. yeah its true that some people will change or leave essentially no matter what decision u make (its a statistical reality)

Im not sure what u mean with the "nothing is truly unique" point but i wouldnt mix artistic quality and human quality together - if someone is terrible u dont have to limit other aspects like uploading stuff or if they make bad art not able to interact with the community
After all i doubt the main goal of hive is providing catharsis

 

[deepstrasz]

Right so thats a no on uploading the 9 maps if i got that right (u could be a bit more direct and less cryptic)

By maps, I meant actual maps that use the models for characters, NPCs etc. not crappy model packs under the guise of a map.

I never assumed anything done by anyone is automatically everyones (thatd be very idiotic) - just the stuff thats uploaded (since by default it is gifted to the world) should be (as it basically is for the most part) after all nobody is forced to upload on hive

I understand quite a lot, might even be with you on the deal but the point is there's times in life when you want some of your past deleted whether others agree with that or not. I've had musicians on YouTube that I followed which simply one day decided the stuff they uploaded until then did not represent them anymore and simply took it all down. I hated that but that's their choice eventually. Whether someone was lucky and can do rogue uploads, that's another discussion which might or might not be moral.

Im not sure what u mean with the "nothing is truly unique" point but i wouldnt mix artistic quality and human quality together - if someone is terrible u dont have to limit other aspects like uploading stuff or if they make bad art not able to interact with the community

Well it matters when such users either upload joke material without any improvement or are menacing users (I dunno, convinced Nazis, Commies, religious fundamentalists, essentially people who spread harming ideas and such).