PC New EULA grants 7D2D all of your content?

[Roland]

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.

I don’t understand what is problematic about the scenario you described. Why shouldn’t TFP have the right to shut down mods that directly compete with content they want to sell?

Even if a modder doesn’t use content directly from the DLC they are still using content from the base game.  There is not a mod in existence that is considered original content. They are all what’s called derivative content. 

That alt meat suit cannot function nor has any purpose whatsoever without the base code that  is TFP’s original content. Why should TFP allow someone to use its own platform to rip them off?

 

[khzmusik]

I don’t understand what is problematic about the scenario you described.

Because all mods can be considered "competition" depending upon the whims of TFP.

For example, when TFP add bandits to the game, they could take down the custom bandits mod that I created. Or they can take down Teragon because it's competition for their own RWG.

Or, they could take down the existing armor mods from Little Red Sonja and Mumphy when they put out their own armor DLC, which is the reason I brought this up in the first place.

To say it's not friendly to modders is an understatement, and should have everyone concerned.

EDIT: This goes against their entire ethos about modding, which is why I don't think TFP will do it - I just want to make sure.

I thought of this because I just started the game, and there's an option, in Steam, to launch the game without EAC. I'm pretty sure that exists specifically because 7D2D supports C# modding, which is incompatible with EAC. It's yet another example of how TFP, generally, is extremely friendly to modders.

 

[Dark Sun]

Because all mods can be considered "competition" depending upon the whims of TFP.

For example, when TFP add bandits to the game, they could take down the custom bandits mod that I created. Or they can take down Teragon because it's competition for their own RWG.

Or, they could take down the existing armor mods from Little Red Sonja and Mumphy when they put out their own armor DLC, which is the reason I brought this up in the first place.

To say it's not friendly to modders is an understatement, and should have everyone concerned.

EDIT: This goes against their entire ethos about modding, which is why I don't think TFP will do it - I just want to make sure.

I thought of this because I just started the game, and there's an option, in Steam, to launch the game without EAC. I'm pretty sure that exists specifically because 7D2D supports C# modding, which is incompatible with EAC. It's yet another example of how TFP, generally, is extremely friendly to modders.

As much as I have full respect to our fellow modders, Sonja and Mumphy included, it is within the legal right for any company to protect their investment, and to strike down anything that may be deemed a threat to their bottom line, mods included. If TFP eventually wish to strike down all cosmetic outfit mods, bigger backpacks, map generators, etc., as unfortunate that would be, again, that would not be a legal overreach. Do I think TFP will go down this path? Cosmetic outfits aside (still a big maybe), I do not think so, for reasons you have already stated.

As long as you don't break EULA (ex. locking your mod behind your Patreon account), or you don't pilfer money directly from TFP's pockets (like MM), then you'll be fine, at least up until this point. That may or may not change in the future, but unless such a day comes where TFP do change their mind and go full Nintendo or Wizards of the Coast, any serious discussion around TFP targeting modders en masse is merely paranoia.

 

[khzmusik]

So, this was moved from the 2.0 dev diary. I guess that's appropriate, but the entire reason I brought up the subject was because of the DLC which is supposed to be released with 2.0, so I thought it was relevant to post in that thread.

So it's on that topic, let me rephrase the question so that it is a bit more relevant.

With the paid DLC armor coming in 2.0, should we expect to see takedown notices on the existing armor mods?

 

[Roland]

So, this was moved from the 2.0 dev diary. I guess that's appropriate, but the entire reason I brought up the subject was because of the DLC which is supposed to be released with 2.0, so I thought it was relevant to post in that thread.

So it's on that topic, let me rephrase the question so that it is a bit more relevant.

With the paid DLC armor coming in 2.0, should we expect to see takedown notices on the existing armor mods?

No. Unless any of the existing armor mods are exactly similar to the armor types coming out. No also to bandits because TFP is including bandits with the base game and not as paid DLC so there is no competition.  Just like none of the current mods that add new creatures and zombies compete with anything that TFP sells.
 

No to random world generators for the same reason.

Yes to Mischief Maker which was a direct competition to Twitch Integration which is a revenue generator for the company. 
 

There’s no slippery slope here to TFP shutting down all modding and “stealing” content for themselves. Seems pretty clear that they will protect their sources of income and allow things that enhance the gaming experience but don’t divert people away from spending money from their own offerings. 

 

[EvilPolygons]

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.

Corporate lawyers can put whatever they want in a EULA, but historically the courts have held a pretty narrow view of what a EULA can actually enforce. TFP could sneak language in demanding you name your first born child "Pimpbot 5000," or demanding access to your private porn stash. But it wouldn't hold up in court. EULAs specifically govern the allowed use of software by end users, and the right of a company to terminate that license. Judges have been very reluctant to allow EULAs any broader scope than that.

To be clear, licensing (or transferring ownership) of creative works requires specific types of legal contracts, and no, EULAs  do not satisfy the legal requirements of a formal artistic licensing contract or copyright assignment contract.

Taken from a legal website:

"A software company can't use a EULA to circumvent copyright law and claim ownership of an artist's work simply because the artwork is used within the software.
If an artist uses software to create or modify artwork, they retain the copyright to that artwork, even if the software's EULA contains broad language about intellectual property."
 

 

[khzmusik]

TFP could sneak language in demanding you name your first born child "Pimpbot 5000,"
 

Too late, my son is already named Pimpbot 9000.

To be clear, licensing (or transferring ownership) of creative works requires specific types of legal contracts, and no, EULAs  do not satisfy the legal requirements of a formal artistic licensing contract or copyright assignment contract.

Taken from a legal website:

"A software company can't use a EULA to circumvent copyright law and claim ownership of an artist's work simply because the artwork is used within the software.
If an artist uses software to create or modify artwork, they retain the copyright to that artwork, even if the software's EULA contains broad language about intellectual property."

Can you give sources, specifically a link to a court ruling? I tried searching for that phrase, and the only thing that came up is AI text.

I've only seen rulings where judges have ruled that EULAs are valid. But I'm American, so maybe it's different per country, and I just haven't found the legal precedent you're referring to.

 

[Riamus]

I know the EU has very strict laws regarding EULAs, though I don't know the details because I just don't care enough to look it up.  The US isn't as strict about EULAs, but copyright laws are enforced pretty well here, so I am not sure that an EULA that takes away someone's copyright would hold up in court.  But it's really a moot point anyhow.  TFP isn't going to go after normal mods because it'll hurt their sales by doing so and really has no value to them anyhow.  Roland summed it up pretty nicely a few posts above.  Besides, if they didn't want to allow mods like outfit mods or whatever after 2.0 is released, I'm sure they'd have already let those mod authors know.

 

[khzmusik]

I know the EU has very strict laws regarding EULAs, though I don't know the details because I just don't care enough to look it up.  The US isn't as strict about EULAs, but copyright laws are enforced pretty well here, so I am not sure that an EULA that takes away someone's copyright would hold up in court.

That is possibly true, though I don't know enough about EU copyright law to know for sure. I do know that EU copyright law has "moral rights" that can't be waived or transferred, and that would make things complicated. But moral rights are distinct from economic rights, which can be waived, and I think those rights are covered in the EULA.

But if you can link to a court case, or statute, that tackles this issue, that would make things much clearer.

TFP isn't going to go after normal mods because it'll hurt their sales by doing so and really has no value to them anyhow.  Roland summed it up pretty nicely a few posts above.  Besides, if they didn't want to allow mods like outfit mods or whatever after 2.0 is released, I'm sure they'd have already let those mod authors know.

TFP already took down that Twitch mod without letting anyone from the mod team know about it (AFAIK). It's not unreasonable to assume they could do the same thing for existing cosmetic mods that compete with their own cosmetic DLC.

And, why would they? It's not their job to keep track of mods, or to know which mods implemented which features. How would they even know who to notify? It's far easier for them to just release DLC, then after the fact, decide that some mod is "competing" with them (without determining when it was released, or whose assets are involved, which requires a lot of manual work).

Also, Roland can say "No" all he wants, but since he doesn't work for The Fun Pimps, that is just his own opinion. He knows the devs more than most people do, so his opinion has a lot of weight, but it would make me feel a lot better if someone who officially speaks for The Fun Pimps lets us know what they intend to do.

 

[Dead Smarty]

Tl;dr

Basicly EULA's should be dealt with at the moment of sale, not after. Meaning that when you see the EULA at start-up and you don't agree, you should be refunded and not like Sony's "You already installed it so tough luck" policy.
EULA's are also not allowed to conflict with national consumer laws or any other laws.

Everyday practice however for everyones conveinience is not to make a big deal out of it, click "ok" on everything and deal with conflicts the moment they show up. just keep in mind that for certain things you cannot use ignorance in your defense.

If it deals with rights of modders there is one thing we have to keep in mind: Without the game there would be no "market" for mods. In this case an EULA is a tool for developers to set the boundaries. The only thing they should not touch is mods for own use, any public mod is fair game. It does NOT give them rights to USE any asset produced by modders without decent compensation for their work.

 

[theFlu]

but it would make me feel a lot better if someone who officially speaks for The Fun Pimps lets us know what they intend to do.

While that's not a bad take, the intent can change at any point - say, they hire/assign a new "product owner" to handle the game management after gold. If that happens, the only thing that matters is the legalese.

 

[khzmusik]

Basicly EULA's should be dealt with at the moment of sale, not after. Meaning that when you see the EULA at start-up and you don't agree, you should be refunded and not like Sony's "You already installed it so tough luck" policy.

I'm curious. When you agreed to the EULA, did you read - and understand - this section?

USER CREATED CONTENT: The Software may allow you to create content, including but not limited to a gameplay map, screenshot or a video of your game play. In exchange for use of the Software, and to the extent that your contributions through use of the Software give rise to any copyright interest, you hereby grant Licensor an exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, fully transferable and sub-licensable worldwide right and license to use your contributions in any way and for any purpose in connection with the Software and related goods and services, including the rights to reproduce, copy, adapt, modify, perform, display, publish, broadcast, transmit, or otherwise communicate to the public by any means whether now known or unknown and distribute your contributions without any further notice or compensation to you of any kind for the whole duration of protection granted to intellectual property rights by applicable laws and international conventions

(Emphasis mine.)

If you did, do you think this will be rejected by an EU court of law, such that it isn't valid?

 

[Dead Smarty]

If you did, do you think this will be rejected by an EU court of law, such that it isn't valid?

Personaly EULA's like this will stop me from contributing anything. Without any decent mentioning in credits there are grounds for lawsuits concerning plagiarism.
Any modder that still wants to publish something and make a little money out of it: Contact publisher and make agreement before publish your work. After all, you are using their vehicle for the ride.

On the other hand: I read this particulair part as concerning to gameplay data and screenshots. Mods can be argued if they are the result of the use of the software or use of modders creativity...
Good luck with that, sorry I'm not able to provide a lawyer-proof answere.

 

[Dead Smarty]

Too late, my son is already named Pimpbot 9000.

This is a case that falls outside EULA's. However, there are childprotection laws that open the door to a "bad parrenting" lawsuit.

 

[khzmusik]

Personaly EULA's like this will stop me from contributing anything.

Yes, and that's a big problem.

The quote was taken from the TFP EULA. It is really making me think twice about modding the game, since the EULA makes it clear that I don't own anything I create in my mods, and they can be taken down (or taken over) by TFP at any time, without any reason given.

It sends a message that I'm wasting my time by modding the game. Like most modders, I'm putting in a lot of work. If it's just going to end up taken down, when nobody can tell me that it is going to be taken down beforehand, then what's the point?

The money angle is irrelevant - and it's not in the EULA. It might be relevant if TFP decide to take a mod's content and offer it as paid DLC (which is absolutely allowed in the EULA), but I don't think that will happen. I think the main concern is that modders' work will just be memory holed.

Maybe that isn't a concern, but the EULA allows it, and so far nobody who actually works for TFP have denied that this is being considered.

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

I mean they would shoot themselves in the leg if they take down mods that don´t directly compete with anything they make money with. Highly unlikely tbh. They made the game easy to mod for a reason. If they start taking down random mods that don´t compete with what they sell, this game will die fast.

Communication should be better though.

And the EULA also states that you can´t hide a mod behind a paywall. Voluntary donations yes, but selling the mod or having it on a discord where only patreons have access are big nono.

 

[EvilPolygons]

Too late, my son is already named Pimpbot 9000.

Can you give sources, specifically a link to a court ruling? I tried searching for that phrase, and the only thing that came up is AI text.

I've only seen rulings where judges have ruled that EULAs are valid. But I'm American, so maybe it's different per country, and I just haven't found the legal precedent you're referring to.

Yes, EULAs are valid in determining whether companies can terminate their users licenses or go after them for monetary damages for product misuse. That is a completely different animal than what we're talking about. The topic here is whether EULAs can circumvent US copyright law, most especially the preemption clause of the Copyright Act. Generally speaking, they can't.

There's quite a bit of case law concerning the limitations of EULAs, and what they can and can not do, but what we're interested in here is the topic of derivative works.

Three well-known cases in which software companies attempted to assert ownership of user-generated content -- all with the same result. A software company CANNOT claim ownership of a creative work unless its software generates the majority of the work involved, with only minimal input from the end-user:

Design Data Corp v. Unigate Enterprises Inc

Torah Soft Ltd v. Drosnin

Rearden LLC v. Walt Disney Co

In other words, every RWG map generated by 7DTD is owned by TFP. No question about it, because those maps are automatically generated by the game software with only minimal input from the user. But there is not a single legal precedent in existence which would give TFP the right to assert ownership over an original zombie model created in a third-party software suite such as 3D Studio or Blender, and then merely imported into Unity/7DTD. The same goes for textures, music, sound effects or any other creative work.

By the way, the only major video game EULA case I can even think of in which the court found in favor of a software company is MDY Industries LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment Inc. However, that case centered around illegal cheat software which directly breached the EULA and caused financial harm to Blizzard. So that's very much apples to oranges.

 

[Roland]

t sends a message that I'm wasting my time by modding the game. Like most modders, I'm putting in a lot of work. If it's just going to end up taken down, when nobody can tell me that it is going to be taken down beforehand, then what's the point?

Seems to me that in the end modding is ephemeral in any case. You might get tired of updating and abandon it, TFP might release an update that renders your mod obsolete or superfluous, eventually the game itself will sink into the oblivion of games people used to play. 
 

So one way or another a mod you create isn’t likely going to last through the ages.  So why should anyone make them?  I suppose for the passion that hobbies create in people and the acknowledgement and praise of those who love what you did. 
 

By the way, these other reasons for your mod coming to an end after all the hard work you put into it are way more likely than TFP taking your work for their own. And since modding is a hobbyist passion project more than anything else there will always be those willing to do it for the joy of doing it without much care for whatever cause eventually brings their mod to an end. 
 

My own Rolmod 0XP mod no longer exists because I abandoned it. I’m glad I put the work into it that I did and collaborated with the people I did. It was worthwhile to me despite it no longer existing. 

 

[zztong]

I looked these up out of personal curiosity.

Design Data Corp v. Unigate Enterprises Inc

1. Appeal affirmed a ruling that you cannot download illegal software.
   
2. Appeal affirmed software copyright does NOT extend to the output files unless the user's input is minimal.
   

Torah Soft Ltd v. Drosnin

1. Determined for software output to be protected under copyright (of the software) the software must perform most of the work.
   

Rearden LLC v. Walt Disney Co

1. Harder for me to summarize. Suggests it is hard to define when software copyright extends to outputs.
   

In other words, every RWG map generated by 7DTD is owned by TFP. No question about it, because those maps are automatically generated by the game software with only minimal input from the user.

I get where you're going with this and I think it is a fine example. I also think it doesn't take into account when a modder has a major effect on RWG's behavior, such as when they add 50 custom Tiles and 250 custom POIs.

Likewise, use of the Prefab Editor to make a POI doesn't convey a copyright over that expression of how the blocks are assembled, but good luck using the POI without the software and TFP's blocks.

All that said, is it moot if the modder isn't generating any revenue or taking revenue away from TFP? I mean sure, somebody can bring a civil suit, but the result is everyone loses because of the legal costs.

 

[EvilPolygons]

I looked these up out of personal curiosity.

1. Appeal affirmed a ruling that you cannot download illegal software.
   
2. Appeal affirmed software copyright does NOT extend to the output files unless the user's input is minimal.
   

1. Determined for software output to be protected under copyright (of the software) the software must perform most of the work.
   

1. Harder for me to summarize. Suggests it is hard to define when software copyright extends to outputs.
   

I get where you're going with this and I think it is a fine example. I also think it doesn't take into account when a modder has a major effect on RWG's behavior, such as when they add 50 custom Tiles and 250 custom POIs.

Likewise, use of the Prefab Editor to make a POI doesn't convey a copyright over that expression of how the blocks are assembled, but good luck using the POI without the software and TFP's blocks.

All that said, is it moot if the modder isn't generating any revenue or taking revenue away from TFP? I mean sure, somebody can bring a civil suit, but the result is everyone loses because of the legal costs.

Correction: Everyone loses except for the lawyers. They get paid regardless of the enforceability of their EULA or the merits of their case.

Interesting you mentioned POI creation and blocks, because that's something I've been musing about lately; US copyright protects artistic designs and schematics for buildings and architectural spaces (Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act). Theoretically an original building design would be protected like any other work of art, but I wonder what the courts would say to a building design that CANNOT exist outside of a game editor? Because the construction of a POI is totally dependent upon the vagaries of the 7DTD POI editor, ie, what blocks are available, how they fit together, structural integrity, yadda yadda.

I suspect a court might side with the developer in a case where a POI was entirely designed within the editor without any prior concept art or drafts (or whatever) being produced outside the game. Or maybe not.

But imagine a situation where an architect designs a building or structure using traditional means, then transfers ownership rights to a separate legal entity such as an LLC, and then has the company grant him a non-transferable, personal use license to (his own) building design. The architect then cobbles together the best possible approximation for that design inside the 7DTD POI editor. At that point, obviously TFP owns the game files...but what about the derivative work itself? Who owns the  building design as adapted to work inside the game engine?

Legally, the architect/player is no longer the owner of his own IP -- it belongs to the LLC he formed. His license to use the design is non-transferable, so TFP wouldn't be able to claim ownership over it via EULA because...well, because it's a non-transferable license. Would the POI be considered a completely new derivative work? And would it be considered derivative of the game software OR the original building design owned by the LLC? It makes my head hurt just thinking about it.