Came late to the party.
For example:
One can take resource x, never give a flying freak about permissions, perform the required changes on the resource to become tailored to needs and use it in map anyways.
So now i have to ask: What has changed ? do people think that they lose control over their own resource when someone else made an edit on it, whats really the fuss about it ?
Its not like one could claim ownership over an edited version of an already existent resource, since the original is already there and a myriad people can present factual evidence that its made by the original creator first.
Yeah its yours, i obviously dont own it cpt. obvious, gotcha, so what ?
Really dont understand whats so terrible if one simply recolors an icon or changes a few bits on a model, the whole thing is more like being used as excuse for jerky behaviour.
I observed this only on this site, never did get to witness this being an issue of this extent at any other place.
Besides if you are that paranoid about sharing your stuff, why publish a resource at the first place ? I find the whole thing a bit offensive tbh, it sounds like you automatically proclaim everyone esle to be a bloody thief right out the bat just because you have produced a resource. wtf.
Edit: This post may seem like a rant at first place, however its not and i really dont get it.
I see what you're saying, but all this stuff, Credits & Permission to Edit... It's all just a part of living in civilized, ethical society, in my opinion. Yes, everything up here is available for use & re-use... It's simply common courtesy to both Credit the works that you used, and to ask Permission to Edit it when necessary.
I consider the resources made by users here to be works of art, of a sort. Would you modify works of art for your own benefit?
Secondly its a pain in the butt to scan through the entire hive again per resource to look up every single author, when you are of the type that deletes the archive and with it the readme that contained the author's name after unzipping.
Credits going to basically the whole hive site would have been enough i guess.
Yeaaaahh... Even when you delete the .zip, the unzipped folder has the readme. And while it's a pain, again, it's just something we need to do. I've been doing it for years.
There is nothing wrong to edit someone else model, no matter if it is a custom made, originally edited or something on the middle ground.
If you plan to incorporate your model into your project and not upload it for people to use freely it is totally fine. If you protect your map even better. Shame on people that just rip resources of maps, since you should not do it in the first place.
If you need that edit to test some vital function it should be no harm to the original author.
But you should be aware that if you plan to post your project, map, campaign or whatever to the open ether of the net then you might want to contact the original author to let them know what you did.
Most would not veto that I guess.
So it is always better to ask since it is not too hard.
Honesty also always wins.
I pretty much agree, though I'm kinda surprised to hear it coming from
you. I dunno, you just strike me as a really protective artist, not liking people to modify your stuff. (deja vu?)
So but wait, you're saying it's OK to Edit things without permission, as long as we don't
re-upload it? Huh, that'd be super convenient for me...
I can understand where Eagle is coming from with his OP.
I simply do not have the time nor the opportunity to credit everyone I used resources from, let alone ask them for permission to edit their resources. I do that for big resources, but for a 3kb attachment model that is just a ripped geoset of an existing unit in the game uploaded on hive? Ain't gonna happen!
Almost no model I used from hiveworkshop could be used without some editing here and there in my case. Either was the model missing some optimization in terms of filesize, or there was a death animation missing (in terms of attachment models) or the attachment bone coordinates had to be re-adjusted to fit most attachment models.
Almost any weapon/shield attachment here on the hive is way too large for any realistic art style (I don't get this hive fetish for ridicolously oversized weapons).
And a lot of the unit models you can get here are poorly optimized. Sometimes this goes as far as having complete geosets of invisible vertices that can be removed.
If I had to ask for permission to do all those adjustments, I could have never released any significant map updates within reasonable time.
Also, people claim to have the intellectual property on resources, that were actually ripped or edited initially. Take for example Born²Modificate. There's no denial about the good thing he did to the WC3 community and everyone who uses his resources without crediting him is imho a giant douche. The quality of all the models is amazing and there is no doubt he put a tremendous amount of work into it.
However, all this doesn't change the fact that all the textures are just rips and edits from Gothic.
Asking for permission to edit or giving credit to a resource imho really depends on the scale of the resource. If I can tell that a resource took time and dedication to make, I will definitely give credit, no matter what. I will ask for permission when editing a custom made unit model that was made from scratch and not just modified from the existing game files. I'll mention people like 67chrome, who constantly contributed quality work to this community completely free to use for years. I will mention guys like Vexorian, Magtheridon, Nestharus and all the other guys who wrote all those nifty hacks and systems that made all the fancy stuff we can do nowadays possible. I think we can all agree that without Vexorian and Newgen, WC3 modding would have probably been dead years ago.
...
Reverse-engineering is an important aspect of content making. I think it's in everyone's interest to make it as easy as possible, especially since all resources on hive are non-profit anyway.
Hrm... I'm not sure I agree with this. Credits are important; you're showing your appreciation for the work that went into stuff. Granted, not everyone does the same amount of work (a Jigrael-classic compared to a geomerged footman & centaur head)... But
someone somewhere did
some work to help you out.
So are you saying that Geomergers are less worthy of credit than Scratch Artists?
@Zwiebelchen, you make it sound like you have to ask for permission to edit a resource that will only be used in your own map. Asking for permission to edit resources is only relevant when you will be redistributing it as a separate resource. So if you want to create a model and upload it and you base it off somebody else's you'd need permission, but if you edit a model to make it fit in your map, there's no need for permission. In both cases, you will of course always need to credit the original author, but permission is only necessary for redistributing an edited resource.
Ok, now coming from Ralle... Seriously? I coulda sworn we had to ask Permission to Edit anything, generally. But you're saying that's only for re-uploads? Crazy, that's super-helpful.
I'll probably still ask for permission, but merely as a courtesy...
Well I was actually an apologist of crediting people, but I liked your post nevertheless, Zwie.
EDIT: It makes me wonder, is it true that we've got so many models needing optimization? Perhaps we should start a new endeavour to get in touch with those authors and have the proper adjustments made? What do you guys think?
"Apologist", I like that...
While I like the idea of optimization, I agree with many others; this wouldn't be worth the time & effort. Perhaps on a personal basis, or perhaps (with an overhaul of the system) allowing any regular user to upload 'improvements' as 'addendums' to a given resource... In fact, the latter might provide a good "practice ground" for beginner modelers/artists/etc in practicing the craft...
I just looked at the rules for the first time in my life, and I can't see anything anywhere saying the rights are reserved for the creator.
As to agreeing, that is actually wrong. You can go with it the other way - not doing anything means agreeing. This is the way PayPal works, for example.
This way, you simply send a private message / email to all model creators stating the EULA is going to be changed, and they should do something if they do not agree.
Weird. I coulda sworn that'd all be in there...
^Yeah, it's more about putting the onus to do something on the user, rather than the company.
cause this is highly against usefulness of the resource.. The easier its applicable for many needs, the more useful it is, and that I need to go over a day/week procedure for editing a cursed pixel on a damn picture.. well, is not useful at all. (And by this I'm not encouraging anyone to go riot and shit, till rulez up, you'll have to face the consequences)
I've always given you guys stuff to work with, i think
