PC New EULA grants 7D2D all of your content?

[meganoth]

"What is an Exclusive License? In exclusive license, no company or individual other than the licensee can use the intellectual property. In an exclusive license, even the licensor loses its rights to use or exploit the rights of intellectual property."

A quote from www.contractscounsel.com , the name suggests they know what they are talking about (hopefully).

But, this could mean "in any way; and (specifically) for any purposes in connection with the Software..."

Highly unlikely it is meant that way. "in any way" would have given TFP already all rights, and there is no legal reason to again mention a subset. Even if someone wanted to highlight such a subset to the reader for clarity reasons he would then have to say "specifically" just like you did. So I think the exclusive licence is only meant in conncection with the game, but even that is quite a package.

I am not sure on what grounds they had shut down Mischief Makers (which I am perfectly fine with, they should be able to decide who profits from their game). Maybe it wasn't easy and they changed the licence to "exclusive" to have more muscle for similar occasions. It does mean though they can shut down any mod or video on the simple grounds they don't like it and own it exclusively. Could they do this because modders usually have no copyright on derived work anyway? Or not?

The interesting question is: What actually changes for modders? TFP could have stolen their work for their own mods already with a non-exclusive licence. As I said above, whether they could have simply forbidden it already is an interesting question for which I have no answer for, it seems to make it easier though. What else? Does anyone see a practical difference?

 

[BFT2020]

Based on what? Copyright? EULA? Or an Exclusive license that excludes You from your rights?

This is true, but in the other direction. Superman is immune to damage, not to copyright. DC can give the exclusive rights to Superman to anyone, including TFP, and this EULA argues that they would automatically do so if they were to make the mod. And since it's an exclusive right, it would exclude DC from utilizing superman (in whatever scope the EULA attempts to apply to).

Note that you're likely thinking of "someone other than DC" making the mod; that person obviously doesn't have the ability to sign away DC's rights. Making such a mod could even be legal and monetizable, some form of fair use, and still not affect any DC rights. But DC as the copyright holder has the ability to sign the rights away, them making the mod would be the comparable case.

Because nothing in copyright is "ownership"; only "rights" and licenses to those rights. "Exclusive license" as granted in this EULA is as close to ownership as anything comes within copyright. The creator of a thing has no special rights in that regard.

Regardless of what is written in the EULA, nothing in it would supersede copyrights and trademarks.  So if Arez would create a mod that has Superman in it, the EULA doesn't automatically grant TFP rights to the Superman character.  DC does and would still own the rights to Superman and would be within their legal rights to ask for damages / request a takedown of the mod that included Superman.

If a mod creator has copyright material that they own, then TFP would not be granted ownership of that copyrights through the EULA.  Courts would only allow TFP to use the EULA to protect their property, not take over the property of others (since the purpose of the EULA is just for 7 Days to Die).  TFP could use the EULA to stop distribution of the mod with the mod creator's copyright material in it, but it doesn't grant them ownership of that copyright material.

Some mod makers out there pay license fees to use paid assets for their mods, TFP would not be granted rights to those paid assets just because they are in a mod created for 7 days to die, those still reside with the original owners of those assets (and TFP also could not distribute those mods since they didn't pay for the assets in the first place, only the mod creator could do it).

The same thing applies to a Content creator's (or anyone else) likeness / voice.  By agreeing to the EULA, the content creator is not granting TFP rights to use their likeness or voice for commercial reasons.  If TFP were to make a model that represents me and put it into a paid DLC, I could take them to court and would win damages since they did not have an agreement with me to use my likeness for their purposes.

The mods I have created so far are based off the 7 Days to Die game coding and use the vanilla assets.  I don't own any of those as they are owned by TFP.  I can't charge anyone to download and use my mods (though I would never do that as that is not why I mod).  I also cannot publish my mods but deny certain people / groups from being able to download and play them. 

Companies can put anything in EULA or contracts, but none of it is legally binding until a court rules as such.  I am seen employment contracts where the company thought they could put a cause in the contract that states the employee could never work again in that industry at any position if they left the company.  A cause like that lands dead on the door step in any court of law.

 

[theFlu]

So if Arez would create a mod that has Superman in it, the EULA doesn't automatically grant TFP rights to the Superman character.

That's exactly what I said? Arez doesn't have the rights to superman, Arez can't assign the rights. Arez's own character is a different story as he does have the rights.

If a mod creator has copyright material that they own, then TFP would not be granted ownership of that copyrights through the EULA. 

"Ownership"? That's not a thing, not in IP, nor here. Right to make copies (and to prevent others from that, thus 'exclusive' right), that's copyright. And in the EULA you're granting exclusive rights to TFP. A list of them, essentially all of them. A list that de facto (not necessarily de jure) allowed them to Cease and Desist a mod from being distributed; not modified, not changed, just stopped. There's no "ownership" beyond that.

All the bits and bops that make a mod are under the same rights / licenses, the EULA draws no distinction. If the creator doesn't have the rights to give away, there may be another legal challenge from the third party whose rights are involved, but that has nothing to do with what rights are exclusively licensed to TFP when the creator party does indeed have them.

Likeness/voice, yeah, that's a weird section of law, and it doesn't seem nearly as universal as the basic rules of copyright. It doesn't seem to be implied in the EULA in any way. But the footage from your facecam in a video about 7dtd seems to be perfectly fine for TFP to use for any purpose, if the EULA is to be taken at face value. Your likeness won't protect that, as you've signed away the rights to the video. They can't (probably) model you based off that video and make you into a bandit against your will, likeness protection should apply to that - but what they could use the video for without likeness issues, I'm no expert...

The mods I have created so far are based off the 7 Days to Die game coding and use the vanilla assets.  I don't own any of those as they are owned by TFP.

Any of them, indeed, code, assets AND the mods. And there's a moral line there somewhere, requiring exclusive rights to your mods seems wrong to me even under the modern moral framework that informs the current law. (My personal morals are much different, but I can entertain other moral systems while keeping mine...) Even you selling your mods wouldn't harm TFP in any way, as long as you're not selling straight up replacements to their DLC or whatnot. So demanding that they themselves can sell your mods is a bit far...

 

[khzmusik]

License is not ownership.

An exclusive license is ownership. This is how copyright assignments (aka copyright transfers) are made.

From the Copyright Alliance (a pro-copyright lobbying organization):

The exclusive rights of a copyright owner may be licensed to third parties on an exclusive or nonexclusive basis. A copyright exclusive license is one in which ownership in one or more of the copyright owner’s rights is transferred by the copyright owner to a third party. A copyright nonexclusive license occurs when the owner retains ownership of the copyright and retains the right to license the same right to others.

copyrightalliance.org/faqs/exclusive-vs-nonexclusive-licenses

(The underlining is by me, the bold is by them.)

Highly unlikely it is meant that way. "in any way" would have given TFP already all rights, and there is no legal reason to again mention a subset. Even if someone wanted to highlight such a subset to the reader for clarity reasons he would then have to say "specifically" just like you did. So I think the exclusive licence is only meant in conncection with the game, but even that is quite a package.

[...] The interesting question is: What actually changes for modders? TFP could have stolen their work for their own mods already with a non-exclusive licence. As I said above, whether they could have simply forbidden it already is an interesting question for which I have no answer for, it seems to make it easier though. What else? Does anyone see a practical difference?

I hope you're right, and that's how I read it too, but the language is ambiguous enough to be concerning.

But if we're wrong, then what changes for modders is that they can't use their own content for anything. For example, if I wanted to use my models in a mod for a different game (perhaps even my own game), then I would be committing infringement of TFP's copyright.

Or if I do write new dynamic music for 7D2D, I can't mix the tracks to "songs" and release it to the public on Soundcloud, or monetize it on Spotify, or release it for use by other people on YouTube. I assigned those rights to TFP when I agreed to the EULA so I would be committing copyright infringement.

 

[khzmusik]

If a mod creator has copyright material that they own, then TFP would not be granted ownership of that copyrights through the EULA.  Courts would only allow TFP to use the EULA to protect their property, not take over the property of others (since the purpose of the EULA is just for 7 Days to Die).  TFP could use the EULA to stop distribution of the mod with the mod creator's copyright material in it, but it doesn't grant them ownership of that copyright material.

This is flat-out incorrect. The EULA transfers copyright ownership - though the copyrights that are transferred are probably only limited to copyrights in the context of 7D2D. (Similar to how film companies sell the "overseas" rights to companies in other countries.)

(EDIT: I thought the forum software would automatically combine this with my previous post, sorry.)

 

[Roland]

The Superman Scenario reminds me of the mods for Palworld that added Pokémon characters. Nintendo was who went after them and shut them down—not Pocketpair afaik. 
 

Pocketpair certainly didn’t gain rights over Pokémon because some modders included them and I doubt any “exclusive rights” wording would make any difference to Nintendo. 

 

[khzmusik]

The Superman Scenario reminds me of the mods for Palworld that added Pokémon characters. Nintendo was who went after them and shut them down—not Pocketpair afaik. 
 

Pocketpair certainly didn’t gain rights over Pokémon because some modders included them and I doubt any “exclusive rights” wording would make any difference to Nintendo. 

It reminds me of a different kind of superhero story.

Back in the 60's and 70's, Marvel Comics used to include a "voucher" on the back of their paychecks to artists. These vouchers claimed that the artists assigned "any copyright, trademark, and any other rights in or related to the material" that the artists had created.

You couldn't sign the paycheck without also signing the voucher.

There's a scanned photo of such a paycheck, here:
www.comicsbeat.com/when-carl-burgos-tried-to-sue-for-the-human-torch

 

[canadianbluebeer]

But it didn't predate the game upon which it was built. It doesn't matter whether it predated Twitch Integration. It only mattered that it was competing with Twitch Integration. TFP didn't need to change the EULA to shut it down.

But why would they when 99% of content only enhances their game's image and reach? In almost every case TFP is going to want mod makers to make their mods and distribute them freely and for influencers to showcase their game for as many likes and subscribes as they can get. There is no motive for them to do what you fear except in the very narrow band of situations where some content creators may be competing directly with them, harming their brand, and/or sewing confusion in the marketplace. 

That big "flap" with Mischief Makers was the exception and not the rule. There hasn't been any slippery slope TFP lawyers have been sliding down throwing injunctions and taking videos, mods, or other content for themselves and there won't be. The established pattern for over a decade is to encourage a robust modding community which mostly monitors itself just as it has for years and years. Is the word "exclusive" going to suddenly change things?

No.

Is that even possible with 4k hours played? I don't know what name you censored but I'd plug in "Valve Thug" if you can actually pull that off.

There was nothing in the EULA to stop MM.  If there was, why wait so long to enforce it?

We had a long thread about that before when it happened.  Really didn't want to rehash it.

Like any twitch extension, the maker got 20% of the bits spent. (like TFP does now)

You could still watch the steam and not spend anything. You could use points as well (no money).

The mod was free to get/use. The bits split isn't up to the mod author, that is done by twitch. I don't believe there is a way to change that.

SELLING the mod, well yes, that was a no-no, still is. (and rightly so!) That isn't how it worked.

Exclusive does indeed change things.  Does that mean the TFP will start using videos/clips from stream for their own monetization?

No idea. It just means they COULD, and the creator of said stream is out of luck.

So, ctually, this change does indeed look like sliding down a slippery slope.

The censored word is one that the forum filters would have blipped out anyway methings. 

(and I have no idea how Valve would handle it. I'm not exactly eager to try though. Although I'm still holding a grudge over the whole MM thing)

(I'm retired now. I can do that) 

 

[khzmusik]

Exclusive does indeed change things.  Does that mean the TFP will start using videos/clips from stream for their own monetization?

No idea. It just means they COULD, and the creator of said stream is out of luck.

That isn't a huge problem for me personally. What is a huge problem is that TFP could not only do that, they could take down the original videos.

Of course, the EULA as currently written explicitly allows gameplay videos and monetization of those videos. But the EULA could change at any time, and the copyright transfer can't.

From the EULA:

This license grant to Licensor, and the above waiver of any applicable moral rights, survives any termination of this License.

Now, will they do that? As a standard practice, almost certainly not. But if there's something in a specific video that they don't like, then they might.

And on the off chance that TFP ever transfers exclusive rights again (like they did with Telltale), or if Richard and Joel sell the company (like Mojang did with Minecraft), then it won't be TFP making these decisions.

But once again, I have to re-iterate: Absolutely nothing in the EULA is problematic to me, if they would just change the word "exclusive" to "non-exclusive". And this should be a trivial ask. The only thing TFP lose is the ability to misuse the EULA for bad purposes.

 

[meganoth]

Mmmh, by chance I read the modding community forum rules just now and found this line: "All files uploaded become the sole property of The Fun Pimps as derivative works of 7 Days to Die.". Those rules are at least 1.5 to 2 years old I would say. When was the EULA changed? Recently? If yes, then it just made what was already a rule enforced in the forum a legally "enforcible" rule (maybe depending on country), especially for nexus and other sites with 7d2d mods on it. It seems modders here in the forum have already lived for some time with that sword over their heads

 

[theFlu]

Those rules are at least 1.5 to 2 years old I would say.

Time flies; the announcement about MM by TFP is from 1.5 years ago, things were happening prior to the post:

https://7daystodie.com/mischief-maker-usage/

Close enough to not be a coincidence, not saying it wasn't, but can be either or.

 

[canadianbluebeer]

Mmmh, by chance I read the modding community forum rules just now and found this line: "All files uploaded become the sole property of The Fun Pimps as derivative works of 7 Days to Die.". Those rules are at least 1.5 to 2 years old I would say. When was the EULA changed? Recently? If yes, then it just made what was already a rule enforced in the forum a legally "enforcible" rule (maybe depending on country), especially for nexus and other sites with 7d2d mods on it. It seems modders here in the forum have already lived for some time with that sword over their heads

The link about MM usage was from Jul 2023. It was Jun 2023 that the EULA changed. (and the flap began)

MM first came out Dec 2019.

It was never uploaded here. You went to the MM site, downloaded the server portion and the client. (free)

Install the extension in Twitch. (again free)

I can't find what the EULA said BEFORE Jun 2023 though. 

Water under the bridge now though.

The mod rules post  .. "Edited August 17, 2023 by Crater Creator "    this was after the MM flap.

Since it's over a year old, (and done by a mod) cannot see the edit history. 

Anyway, enough about MM.  It's the "Exclusive" thing this time.

 

[khzmusik]

@faatal anything you can say about the wardrobe system and new outfits?

i think thats the only element of what's coming on the roadmap we have not heard anything about so far.

I'm more concerned about whether TFP will take down any modders' content that offers new outfits. There are already a couple of mods that do that. Since, by the EULA, TFP own all the rights to those mods, I'm worried that they might just make them disappear.

 

[SylenThunder]

I'm more concerned about whether TFP will take down any modders' content that offers new outfits. There are already a couple of mods that do that. Since, by the EULA, TFP own all the rights to those mods, I'm worried that they might just make them disappear.

I would only think this would happen if the modders made the DLC outfits available.

 

[khzmusik]

I would only think this would happen if the modders made the DLC outfits available.

That is not what is in the EULA. According to the EULA, any modder's original content is owned by TFP, and they can take it down for any reason (since TFP own it).

But if that's how TFP is considering things, then I have no problem with it. Any TFP-created DLC will always belong to TFP, so distributing that content is breaking copyright law, even if the (non-TFP) distributor didn't agree to the EULA.

 

[SylenThunder]

That is not what is in the EULA. According to the EULA, any modder's original content is owned by TFP, and they can take it down for any reason (since TFP own it).

But if that's how TFP is considering things, then I have no problem with it. Any TFP-created DLC will always belong to TFP, so distributing that content is breaking copyright law, even if the (non-TFP) distributor didn't agree to the EULA.

That part of the EULA is bog standard for any game that supports modding. TFP doesn't have anything special there.

 

[khzmusik]

That part of the EULA is bog standard for any game that supports modding. TFP doesn't have anything special there.

It's not bog standard. It's bog standard for AAA games, but not for games in general. The vast majority of indie games only require non-exclusive licenses, where the game developers (or distributors) don't own modders' original content. The EULAs grant the game developers unlimited rights to use that content, but they don't own it.

Taking down content from the game itself is a different story, and I fully support TFP (or any game developers) who choose to take that route. That content belongs to them, modders shouldn't be able to just rip it and offer it for free.

So if a "modder" rips the DLC outfits and distributes them as a mod, then yes, of course, they are doing something unlawful. TFP are entirely within their rights to take it down.

 

[EvilPolygons]

It's not bog standard. It's bog standard for AAA games, but not for games in general. The vast majority of indie games only require non-exclusive licenses, where the game developers (or distributors) don't own modders' original content. The EULAs grant the game developers unlimited rights to use that content, but they don't own it.

Taking down content from the game itself is a different story, and I fully support TFP (or any game developers) who choose to take that route. That content belongs to them, modders shouldn't be able to just rip it and offer it for free.

So if a "modder" rips the DLC outfits and distributes them as a mod, then yes, of course, they are doing something unlawful. TFP are entirely within their rights to take it down.

No EULA has the power to override your country's copyright laws, generally speaking. Licensing laws are different from country to country, but in general EULAs cannot grant a company the legal right to "take ownership" of an original work of art -- especially if that art is already owned by a third party! Imagine if The Fun Pimps tried claiming ownership of Escape From Tarkov's art assets just because there's an EFT mod for 7dtd!

A EULA can legally apply to mod files themselves and (possibly) code, but not art assets. A developer can shut down your mod, legally, but they can't steal your art.

 

[Riamus]

It's not bog standard. It's bog standard for AAA games, but not for games in general. The vast majority of indie games only require non-exclusive licenses, where the game developers (or distributors) don't own modders' original content. The EULAs grant the game developers unlimited rights to use that content, but they don't own it.

Taking down content from the game itself is a different story, and I fully support TFP (or any game developers) who choose to take that route. That content belongs to them, modders shouldn't be able to just rip it and offer it for free.

So if a "modder" rips the DLC outfits and distributes them as a mod, then yes, of course, they are doing something unlawful. TFP are entirely within their rights to take it down.

The short answer is that TFP supports modding the game.  They aren't likely to take down mods just because those mods add custom outfits.  There would be no reason to do so and alienating the modding community when they want to support it and know that it keeps people playing their game would be a dumb move.  Could they do it?  Probably.  But would they?  That's very unlikely.  They would limit such actions to things like people making paid DLC outfits available for free or doing similar that undercuts TFP's sales.  And custom outfits aren't going to have any significant impact on DLC outfit sales.  A lot of people who want more outfits would pay for the official outfits because those will work in any game, regardless of what mods people are using, so they are just easier to use.  And even those who use outfit mods will have a good chance to get the outfit DLCs.

The EULA is mostly to prevent stuff like making mods that give paid stuff away for free and to allow them to use images or videos of mods as part of marketing the game if they want to.  There are other reasons, but those would be some of the main things.  And, in the end, EULAs are governed by the country the user is in and what that country allows or doesn't allow regarding them.

 

[khzmusik]

No EULA has the power to override your country's copyright laws, generally speaking. Licensing laws are different from country to country, but in general EULAs cannot grant a company the legal right to "take ownership" of an original work of art -- especially if that art is already owned by a third party! Imagine if The Fun Pimps tried claiming ownership of Escape From Tarkov's art assets just because there's an EFT mod for 7dtd!

A EULA can legally apply to mod files themselves and (possibly) code, but not art assets. A developer can shut down your mod, legally, but they can't steal your art.

Copyrights can be assigned to other parties through contracts. That's part of every country's copyright laws - in fact it's the entire purpose of copyright in most countries. Creators are granted statutory, exclusive rights to copy and distribute their works, so that they can sign away those rights in exchange for money, so they can earn enough to create more art.

A EULA is essentially a contract between yourself and the game developers. So if the EULA requires you to assign your copyrights to the developers, it's legal. The 7D2D EULA does in fact require you to assign your copyrights to TFP.  (At least when those copyrights are used "in connection with the Software and related goods and services".)

Of course, third parties disd't agree to that contract, so TFP won't own their assets. But if you accepted the EULA, anything original that you create in connection to the game is owned by TFP, including original artwork.

You can use me as an example. There are no bandits in the game yet, so I created some as a mod (using NPC Core). The characters are not from the game - I created them in Fuse, rigged them in Mixamo, and touched up the weight painting in Blender; only the animations and weapon models are from the game (those are in NPC Core).

But by agreeing to the EULA, the models I created and rigged are no longer owned by me, they're owned by TFP.

The short answer is that TFP supports modding the game.  They aren't likely to take down mods just because those mods add custom outfits.  There would be no reason to do so and alienating the modding community when they want to support it and know that it keeps people playing their game would be a dumb move.  Could they do it?  Probably.  But would they?  That's very unlikely.  They would limit such actions to things like people making paid DLC outfits available for free or doing similar that undercuts TFP's sales.  And custom outfits aren't going to have any significant impact on DLC outfit sales.  A lot of people who want more outfits would pay for the official outfits because those will work in any game, regardless of what mods people are using, so they are just easier to use.  And even those who use outfit mods will have a good chance to get the outfit DLCs.

The EULA is mostly to prevent stuff like making mods that give paid stuff away for free and to allow them to use images or videos of mods as part of marketing the game if they want to.  There are other reasons, but those would be some of the main things.  And, in the end, EULAs are governed by the country the user is in and what that country allows or doesn't allow regarding them.

I am worried because Roland specifically called out mods that compete with DLC, as something TFP would take down:

Moving forward TFP is preparing DLC that they plan to sell and we have already heard whispers of people threatening to mod their own versions as a "take that" move against TFP. I see this more comprehensive language as TFP prepping for future DLCs that they want to sell but due to the modability of the game some may try to bootleg and circumvent which would again be a form of user content directly competing against TFP content.

Perhaps he was talking about "mods" that just rip the DLC content and re-distribute it. But that doesn't make any sense, because TFP don't need to be assigned the copyrights owned by people who agree to the EULA in order to do that.

There is already language in a different part of the EULA, which makes it clear that TFP retain ownership of their trademarks and copyrights. They are already well within their rights to take down mods like that.

So, what he seems to be implying - and I could be wrong - is that TFP will seriously consider taking down any mods because they are competition for the DLC, even if those mods contain nothing from the DLC.

For example, let's say TFP sells a "meat suit" outfit as DLC, which makes you invisible to zombies (but not animals or bandits). If a modder offers their own version of a "meat suit," without using any of the DLC's assets, TFP would take it down.

Now, obviously, Roland doesn't work for TFP, and doesn't make decisions about what to take down or not. But he knows more than most people about what the developers are thinking, so that's why I'm concerned.

If anyone from TFP says they won't do that, then I'll consider the matter settled.