Of Modding, Plagiarism and Nazi Artists

[Gilrandir]

Being about two decades younger than the notorious Axalon vs Tyberius feud I have no intention to further it by taking sides. For once, I don't know the true facts (I think no one does nor ever will) to judge and all the evidence I possess is hearsay. On the contrary, by this post I will try pour some oil on troubled waters (I hope not add oil into the fire). I see no sense in flinging at each other charges of plagiarism and trying to dodge them in matters of modding.
Modding is essentially plagiarism. Modders take a finished and complete product, change it to fit their shifting purposes and designs and present the result as their own creation. To illustrate my point I would like to draw upon Axalon's "Art Metaphor"© which he introduced in his "Hitler as a post-impressionist" post©. (I put here copyright slugs to avoid possible charges of being a plagiarist, thankless fosterling, outlaw, thief of love, usurper of glory, captain foolhardy, slayer of kin and betrayer of kin unrepentant).
Imagine that I bought the original of La Gioconda. I bring it home, take a brush and paints and set to work. I change the lady's color of the hair, add a scorpion tattoo on her wrist, put an ice cream cone into her hand and paint Eiffel tower in the background. Then I call the picture La Gilranconda or La Gioconda - The Gilrandirmod or just La Gioconda 2.0 and claim that I'm the author of this picture. The same with mods. You cannot claim to be the author of what was started by others.

[caravel]

You're clearly a filthy Tyberius-Supporter©

And:

(no idea about the copyright and licence on this one, if I get sued or issued with a summons I'll let you know about it, or if I disappear you'll know why... I have a friend in the corrupt pro Tyberius, anti "modders' rights".org management who is a corrupt lawyer, so not overly worrried)

[Cyprian2]

I, for one, have learned to shut up and enjoy the great mods that are available to us.

[Beskar]

In the respect of the OP, you are the author of La Gioconda 2.0 if you do those changes, assuming you adequately credited the original work for their work.

As such, if some one then takes your picture and adds a UFO in it, they are assumed to credit you for your work (at least) as well as being the author of the new work.

Rather like how an academic journal is full of references and comments put forward by different papers and authors. Many of the things you write you either thought or passively came across, however, you are required to do abit of digging to give credit to people who said things before you and in the process you become more informed on those points due to reading their work, and then their sources. As such, the credit is ever expanding.

Simply taking your La Gioconda 2.0 then saying I did the work is clear plagiarism, as it is clear I never added that tower or scorpion tattoo to the work.

I don't even know what the original argument was about, so all I say is simply take what I said, put the information together and there is your answer. If some one uses someone elses work without crediting them, then it is plagiarism.

Then there is the whole issue of 'permission', but that is a different kettle of fish. As if you credit the original, it isn't plagarism, but doing it without their permission, especially when they requested you not to do, makes you a 'scumbag' in the scheme of gentlemans/ladies code of conduct.

[Zarakas]

In the respect of the OP, you are the author of La Gioconda 2.0 if you do those changes, assuming you adequately credited the original work for their work.

As such, if some one then takes your picture and adds a UFO in it, they are assumed to credit you for your work (at least) as well as being the author of the new work.

Rather like how an academic journal is full of references and comments put forward by different papers and authors. Many of the things you write you either thought or passively came across, however, you are required to do abit of digging to give credit to people who said things before you and in the process you become more informed on those points due to reading their work, and then their sources. As such, the credit is ever expanding.

Simply taking your La Gioconda 2.0 then saying I did the work is clear plagiarism, as it is clear I never added that tower or scorpion tattoo to the work.

I don't even know what the original argument was about, so all I say is simply take what I said, put the information together and there is your answer. If some one uses someone elses work without crediting them, then it is plagiarism.

Then there is the whole issue of 'permission', but that is a different kettle of fish. As if you credit the original, it isn't plagarism, but doing it without their permission, especially when they requested you not to do, makes you a 'scumbag' in the scheme of gentlemans/ladies code of conduct.

Well said Tiaexz.

Code of conduct, ethics, integrity etc.

[Beskar]

Doing some reading on the matter (I was a little blind on the issue, and simply said what the 'common practise' is) it seems that Tyberius was caught foul of using some of Axalon's work back in 2008 then he released an update in 2009 correcting the offending images. It definitely seems like a very old issue now (5 years ago) and it seems Tyberius admitted he was at fault and corrected his work.

So on that particular incidence, Tyberius was in the wrong and since corrected it. Axalon is right in that Tyberius should have at least credited the work in question and asked for permission in its usage when going public with it.

Any debate seems rather dead and buried on that matter, which I am guessing which is why caravel has the .gif of 'flogging a dead horse'. Which makes him right on the matter!

On a more general note with permissions, from experience, 9/10 modders will allow you to use their work in your mod (with due credit), no problems. The only incidences where this doesn't occur are usually large scale mods or those which took a lot of work. Sometimes these can be added/developed as modules for other mods.

[Gilrandir]

In the respect of the OP, you are the author of La Gioconda 2.0 if you do those changes, assuming you adequately credited the original work for their work.

As such, if some one then takes your picture and adds a UFO in it, they are assumed to credit you for your work (at least) as well as being the author of the new work.

Rather like how an academic journal is full of references and comments put forward by different papers and authors. Many of the things you write you either thought or passively came across, however, you are required to do abit of digging to give credit to people who said things before you and in the process you become more informed on those points due to reading their work, and then their sources. As such, the credit is ever expanding.

Simply taking your La Gioconda 2.0 then saying I did the work is clear plagiarism, as it is clear I never added that tower or scorpion tattoo to the work.

I don't even know what the original argument was about, so all I say is simply take what I said, put the information together and there is your answer. If some one uses someone elses work without crediting them, then it is plagiarism.

Then there is the whole issue of 'permission', but that is a different kettle of fish. As if you credit the original, it isn't plagarism, but doing it without their permission, especially when they requested you not to do, makes you a 'scumbag' in the scheme of gentlemans/ladies code of conduct.

I don't know for sure but I think I'm right in believing that NO MODDER has ever asked for permisssion from Creative Assembly or whoever that was who designed TW series to maim and twist what they created. And the post was not about legal consequences and considerations. It was about the mods per se - no original thinking, no creative initiative, only second hand consumption. Crediting only underscores that ultimately it wasn't you who brought this product into being.
That is why I see no point in raising hue and cry over the alleged theft. Why, it is the same as Gollum (not the (ex)resident of this forum but the one in The hobbit) shouting "Baggins thief" chose to forget that the Ring was not his own and obtained after a crime.

[Stazi]

That is way I see no point in raising hue and cry over the alleged theft. Why, it is the same as Gollum (not the (ex)resident of this forum but the one in The hobbit) shouting "Baggins thief" chose to forget that the Ring was not his own and obtained after a crime.

THIS ^

Mods are possible only because CA or SEGA just doesn't say anything. Each mod is based on a game and the game creator can force to shut down and delete a mod whenever he wants. Each mod is generally a crime that is allowed by game creator because it helps to spread the fame of an original game and brings more money.

[caravel]

In this post from 2008, credit is clearly given for some content - I would say that throws out the argument for any claims of outright theft/plagiarism: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...rsion-Released!

It needs to be made clear that this was not a simple case of someone ripping off someone elses stuff from behind their back...

Collaboration in both directions: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post1994689

Permission to use the images was initially given: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2078983

It has been clear to me all along that:

1) While it was clearly wrong for Tyberius to not to give proper credit (though once again I point to the first first link), the offending images were removed and an apology issued.

2) Permission was given (third link), credit was given, perhaps sloppily in the linked thread, the whole issue here appears to be that there was no text file with proper credits actually included with the distribution files.

3) The claim that the offending content was still present, albeit modified, in the later corrected release is just one person's word against another's.

4) A dispute between two people over a personal issue, should never be used as justification for shitting up two messageboards with negativity and a sour grapes attitude for nearly 6 years.

5) The feud is one sided, hence beating a dead horse, because Tyberius is long gone - so it's normal members who know nothing of this dispute (and quite rightly don't care about it) who are having to suffer almost every thread invaded with slanderous venom filled diatribes, interspersed with the usual gratuitous promotion of his own modding project.

6) He quite openly vilifies other members, such as gollum, myself, the "org management" or anyone else who disagrees with his point of view on this matter. Anyone who plays the Tyberius mod, or even mentions it, seems to become a target or is labeled as a "supporter". This is the main issue.

[Beskar]

I don't know for sure but I think I'm right in believing that NO MODDER has ever asked for permisssion from Creative Assembly or whoever that was who designed TW series to maim and twist what they created.

You have full disclosure from Creative Assembly to modify the game for non-commercial purposes and not to be distributed in a format which doesn't require you to own the game. This is similar licence to almost every franchise. The only exception they sometimes make (like Paradox does) is deny you to modify the .exe code, but otherwise you can mod to your hearts content.

It was about the mods per se - no original thinking, no creative initiative, only second hand consumption. Crediting only underscores that ultimately it wasn't you who brought this product into being.
That is why I see no point in raising hue and cry over the alleged theft. Why, it is the same as Gollum (not the (ex)resident of this forum but the one in The hobbit) shouting "Baggins thief" chose to forget that the Ring was not his own and obtained after a crime.

But the current 'owner' is Gollum, even if he stole it by illicit means, it doesn't invalidate the fact it was stolen from him.

Either way, this is a bad example when it comes to modifications as better example would be the case of academic journals in how they supplement previous work.

Sorry this is how the world works, you cannot simply takes some one elses work and label it your own without any credits. In fact, all mods should actually credit CA in their work, this is usually done in the form of a disclaimer.

Mods are possible only because CA or SEGA just doesn't say anything. Each mod is based on a game and the game creator can force to shut down and delete a mod whenever he wants. Each mod is generally a crime that is allowed by game creator because it helps to spread the fame of an original game and brings more money.

Wrong.

As Nikodil posted: On short, the license allow you to make and distribute mods for non-commercial purposes. The license does not allow you the include copyright-protected work of others

Modding is older than the internet, since the very early days of Qbasic and dos, people were reprogramming to produce different results, many of these even became successful games. Obviously as the software became more sophisticated, they put in notices in regards to copyright and licencing. As this expanded they put in safeguards/licencing to make the practise of modding 'kosher' as it did end up producing more revenue for the corporations involved.

As such, it is not a crime as you stated, as CA gives permission.

--

The whole thing is simply a Gentleman/Ladies code of conduct. If some one helps you, you thank them, if some one contributed work to your project, you thank/give credit for it. This not only shows you have integrity as a modder but it also actually thanks those people who are willingly offering their help and support for your project and as such, they might help others knowing their help is well thought of and appreciated.

If this is not evident at the .Org, respect and honesty are things we value here, we also believe in justice, so if some one messes up, admits it then fixes it, it is seen as the issue being settled. We want a friendly atmosphere where people can contribute as kindred spirits, not as villains, so even if some one has wronged you, forgive them once the changes have been made.

As for a particular matter mentioned, it is rather dead and buried and it is five years old and it is settled. It shouldn't be discussed anymore and to credit caravel, it is like 'flogging a dead horse'. Since being aware this was brought up in another topic recently, I will recommend that this issue remains dropped.