Custom Mario Kart talk:Privacy policy

From Custom Mario Kart
Jump to: navigation, search

About "All posted content is the property of its respective creators."

I think, custom tracks are never the property of the creators, because they always use copyrighted material. In fact, creating a track means editing a track made by Nintendo and exchange or modifying some subfiles without Nintendos permission. And if a third person edits the CT and redistribute it, he does the same as the ct creator before. So editing of ct (including the half year rule) can only be etiquette rules, but never policy rules. And fixing bugs, that don't change the track character, should also be allowed by etiquette . And (I think because of my experience) nearly all track authors like/accept anti glitch edits.
I had this discussion at the beginning of the Wiki with Tock. That was the reason for calling it etiquette.
Wiimm (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree: No one can claim any properties on custom tracks, because creating a custom track violates Nintendos rights. That's the reason for cleaning file hoster accounts by Nintendo partners and for developing patching file formats like WBZ. So I find, that the old distinction between rule and etiquette was very good.
Hanno (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
1) You can create a Custom Track without editing existing Nintendo tracks.
2) "respective creators" also means any 3rd Party content (aka Nintendo files) are the property of them.
3) If you take away those rights from the creators they wont make any new Custom Tracks at all. I for myself already thought about stopping to work on CTs in the past if people edited my tracks without my consent.
4) Nintendos Partners (you don't even know if they really are such) never use the Term Custom Tracks or files from the Game when they remove stuff from other websites. Google deleted one Link to this Wiki (Zillas Luigis Mansion URL) in their search engine because of "Copyright claim #3: Nintendo: Mario Kart 7". Of course Zilla did not dumped the 3D Model from Mario Kart 7 therefore they don't really look into only claiming true Copyright Violation.
5) Most track authors want to fix glitches and stuff on their own. Thats why people should notice the track author if there is a big problem with it. Also most Track authors accept edits made by you Wiimm because they know that you know what you do. I for myself dont really like the fact that you work on fixing Petite Park but I dont care enough to make an argument about that.
Tock (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, let us take Petite Park for example.
  1. Your team (instead of names) has taken original Nintendo sub files like itembox.brres, brads-files, posteffect and more. Then you have edited some of the files (e.g. karehayama.brres). Last not least you have replaced model, KCL and KMP. This mix together is Petite Park.
  2. Then I take Petite Park, edit KCL and exchange the KMP.
What is now the difference between both steps? Both edit and replace sub files made by others.
And here are the answers of your points:
  1. Show me at least one usable track without any Nintendo stuff.
  2. The modified Petite park is then the property of me, your team and Nintendo. Before it was the property of your team and Nintendo and before that it was the property of only Nintendo.
  3. Until now, we had only the etiquette rules. But the point is, you can't claim the property of the complete track. And if an author changing Nintendos software without permission, he can't forbid, that others does the same with his software based on the not really legal step before.
  4. My Mediafire conflict based are only related to custom tracks. But skip this argument, because it's not important.
  5. Old rules said 6 month and Petite Park is much older. It seems no one else has interest to update. But I like the track and want to include it into my next distrib. So I decided to do it by my self. And for newer tracks I ask the authors.
Wiimm (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
You are the best example for this ;) You made tools to get rid of Nintendo Files in Custom Tracks. Also "before it was the property of your team and Nintendo and before that it was the property of only Nintendo." is wrong. The Track was made before the Nintendo files were added so it was done before. Also the Custom track author has the property right on my 3D Model and Textures. The track author never accepted to include his content in your modified track. And like I said your tools are the perfect example to try to remove Nintendo files in the distribution process.
Tock (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
What is the difference between "The track author never accepted to include his content in your modified track." and "Nintendo never accepted to include his content in custom tracks."?
And if a track author ignores the never given permission, he can't permit the same right to third persons.
Wiimm (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This discussion was already made when we changed the forever rule to an 6 month etiquette. If you don't care about the opinion of the Custom Track Creators they won't create new Tracks. With your tools and the wbz format we even eliminate the Nintendo files from our CTs. There are already CTs not on this Wiki due to this etiquette and you want it to be even worse for the CT authors. Also I talk about distributing and you talk about playing. Im totally fine with you changing Petite Park to Luigis Circuit for your own playing but I dont like it to have 20 Versions of my track distributed on the Internet.
Tock (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Here is my opinion on this: If someone wants to edit my track, the person should at least ask before they do, tell me what he wants to change and get my permission. For me, it depends on what will be edited. If a person just wants to put new textures in my track, I would say no, because I created the track with the looks I wanted, but when it's about glitch fixes, then I would say yes or maybe, but I still prefer to fix and update a track by myself. Example: If someone would just upload my track with a KCL update without asking me for permission or anything, and uploads it to the wiki, I would ask a mod to take it down or I would fix the KCL by myself and maybe change some other small things in the track and then replace the download.--Buschkling (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I attempted to organize the overlapping concepts in the Ettiquette section with Wiimm's privacy policy so that they would be in one place and not contradictory in anyway. Anyway, I take the phrase "All posted content is the property of its respective creators" to inclue not only the Custom Track maker but also all other contributors, including Nintendo. The design, layout, texturing, etc. is a new work, even if it it derivative of a Nintendo level. We could amend this to "All posted content is the property of its respective creators, including, but not limited to, textures, models, layout and design. Mario Kart is created by Nintendo. The Custom Track Wiiki is in no way affiliated with Nintendo or its associates."

As for edits, the six month thing is primarily for authors that are difficult to contact, not active authors. --Jefe (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

1.) I think we must distinguish the legal aspects (privacy policy) and the nice and friendly interaction with each other (etiquette ). Both are important. Let us consider: If I take Windows and change the start screen, can I declare it as my property? And can I forbid, that any other one does the same based on my modifications? I think, "no" is the clear answer for both.
2.) I think, the last change of Jefe to distinguish police and etiquette goes to the right direction.
Hanno (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Your new screen is considered your intellectual property. It's the addition or replacement that you created, and only that, the rest still belongs to Microsoft. The same principle applies to custom tracks and other content. The creative aspect belongs to you. Take a texture hack of Moo Moo Farms for example. The textures you create for it are your own work. The model and all other aspects of the level are still Nintendo's intellectual property. To take that further, let's say you changed the route over the level and moved all the cows, but did nothing else. Your changes, your ideas added to the level are considered yours, even if it is just a KMP edit. The level itself is still Nintendo's. --Jefe (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
But the point is (I repeat myself): If a user modify a track made by Nintendo without permission, why can I not modify the new track without his permission? It is the same action!
However, I accept the etiquette (mostly) and asked users for permission, if the track is younger than 6 month. And I do it without permission, if a user did not answer for weeks (he can forbid it later). Exception is that I center cut minimaps immediately. In the last years I had only one conflict at the very beginning, because the user have forgotten to read its PM on marioakartwii.com.
Wiimm (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I doubt Nintendo wants us to edit levels, but they turn a blind eye to us for the most part. If you were to ask, this is the sort of response you would get.

Nintendo tracks are the publicly available to all users as a base for editing, unlike user-made tracks. That said, in game communities that have a server-client setup like UT2004, it is considered normal and necessary to edit levels for the purpose of fixing bugs and improving gameplay. I do this all the time for maps on my server, often going beyond simple bug fixes. The unwritten rule is that you do not release these maps to the public outside the server without seeking permission from the author, although some do anyway. Considering that some maps were released ten years ago, it is often difficult, if not impossible to find the original authors.

Similarly, I consider what you, MrBean, and others do in fixing bugs for your distributions much the same as server edits. As long as you don't release it outside your distribution before that six month window, it's fine. But you should try to contact the authors before you release those edits to the public. --Jefe (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"But the point is (I repeat myself): If a user modify a track made by Nintendo without permission, why can I not modify the new track without his permission? It is the same action!"
And I repeat myself again. Most users now don't modify a track made by Nintendo without their permission anymore they create their track from scratch and import around 10% of the content from a Nintendo track. With Hannos example: I create my own OS and use the Windows startscreen. With Tools I can patch my OS, which I want to distribute, to not include the Windows File but the user is required to patch the OS with a Windows DVD. This would mean the OS I distribute is completly mine but on the Userbase they need to patch the startscreen into it.
I still own the rights on my own written OS and a 3rd Party can't say I used a Windows file on the userend and now they can do whatever they want with my OS.
If XY creates a Texture Hack of GBA Bowsers Castle 3 you can't simply take their rights away from the Textures they made. The same goes for Custom Tracks. You cant take away the rights on the textures, 3D Models, KMP file, KCL and other stuff. But if the author used a Nintendo file like itembox.brres everyone is free to extract that file and add it to their CT especially when they use your patching system. Using Nintendos content in Tracks and distributing them are two different things. We (the CT community) always tried to use as little as possible of Nintendo files even back in the Texture Hack scene. The SZS Modifier had a feature where you can download a patch file with all the remaked textures and you were able to patch a certain Nintendo track. Distributing only your Patch files does not violate the rights Nintendo has on their copyrighted material.
Tock (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
"import around 10%" LOL -- Hey Mr Judge, sorry about stealing the 4 wheels. But it doesn't matter, because the wheels are only 10% of my self made car.
And how did you measure the percent value?
Hanno (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Always those trolls... With that example I showed that there is a difference between importing something and editing something. "Mr Judge, I used your car wheels in my Car but I dont sell/distribute them and people need to get them from you to use my car." If I buy tires from BMW and make a car by myself, BMW cant deny me the chance to use their tires on my car. Im not allowed to sell the tires with my Car, but I can without them and tell people to get the tires from BMW. Thats why the SZS Mod had such a feature and now Wiimms SZS Tools have the Feature with the wbz format.
Tock (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Also if Wiimm adds some code from XY in his Tools (I don't care if it's Public Domain) both Wiimm and XY still have Copyright on their Code. If Wiimm says "nobody is allowed to edit my Tools" this also counts for XY. Of course XY can say then you are not allowed to include my Code, but Wiimm can people require to install XY's Tools to use Wiimms Tools.
Tock (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I planned to say nothing more, but fact is, that nobody except me distribute the tracks as SZS files including Nintendos stuff.
But more important is, that a community like this can't exist without open source. And here open source means open tools, open knowledge, open tracks, open objects, open fonts and so on. It is impossible, that one user can make the research, tools and good tracks. Each track author use open tools and open knowledge and it's at least ethical not correct, if a ct creator say: It's mine an nobody is allowed to use it.
And now I speak about me: I never made a track. I helped other people and improved technical aspects of tracks.
I like custom tracks very much and so decided to support the community. I analysed cameras, item routes, start positions, respawn point, check points and many more. I also find out much about file formats. I wrote down my knowledge and I developed tools to manifest them. And all for free. And nearly all track creators use some parts of this and is totally legal. But if the people forbid the open usage of their products, they must be reminded, that they do illegal things and that no one can claim rights on illegal things. And so my question is: If you modify nintendos tracks, how can you forbid the same action with your+Nintendos tracks.
To regulate the balance between all open (my opinion) and the total prohibition, we had a etiquette and a 6 month rule. I accept this for friendliness. And friendliness is also an important thing in our community.
Wiimm (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
It sometimes feels like some people dont like to read what I write. "And so my question is: If you modify nintendos tracks, how can you forbid the same action with your+Nintendos tracks." For around 2 Years pretty most Track Authors I know dont modify Nintendo Tracks but use Nintendo content. The next big thing is: if we would change the rule and take away the track authors rights on their tracks, they will STOP creating new tracks or STOP posting them on the Wiki. i don't think you want this to happen. I have no problem with us replacing all the Download Links on the Wiki with .wbz files if there is are two batch files which 1) get the Files from the DVD and 2) where you just have to drop the .wbz file into the Batch cmd window.
Tock (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Just for clarification, the WBZ file format does not prevent copyright violation; you are just as likely to be sued for using SZS as you are for using WBZ. Therefore, there is no need to force download links in either format. Also, permission is not required to modify custom tracks. Custom track textures do this all the time, and since most of that happens outside the Wiiki, it's outside of its jurisdiction and there is nothing that you can do about it. Distributions are also permitted to modify custom tracks without permission but some choose not to for obvious reasons. On the Wiiki though, "releasing" a modification of a custom track without the creator's permission is generally not allowed, save for the 6 month rule. After 6 months, anyone can release a modification of any track on this Wiiki, however the original creator has the right to deny such modifications at any time regardless of the 6 month rule, if they're still active anyway. That should be good enough.
Now as for track ownership, all custom tracks are property of Nintendo, no exceptions. Why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
In Laymen's Terms, you are using their file format or a derivative of it, perhaps unknowingly, and without their permission. That makes every custom track ever released an automatic breach of copyright, regardless of how derived that work is. Now, if you released a textureless (or textures that you own full rights to) model in a geometry definition file format (assuming you own full rights to the design of the track and assuming that the file format is not proprietary), all of that work is your's. Congratulations.
Anyway, if you want to learn more about acceptable copyright policies for modifications, Google is your friend. For example, my first Google search brought me here: http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/Legacy:Mod_Copyright
Enjoy. --Torran (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A texture hack of a custom track was recently submitted to the Wiiki: Nebula Sea Factory (Nebula Lava Factory Texture). Because the original author requested its removal, I have done so. However, this wouldn't be the first time that CT texture hacks have made their way to the Wiiki, and it certainly doesn't stop this type of content from appearing on other sites such as the Mario Kart Wii Forums, where most CT texture hacks are posted. So as far as this goes, I question how the Wiiki should handle it, and perhaps texture hacks as a whole including the Nintendo ones. --Torran (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I say just go with [original] author request, if available. Just because content is hosted on another site does not mean it absolutely has to be hosted here. DarkyBenji's content was a good example of this, up until a few months ago. Any other thoughts?
-- Have a nice day, from ZillaSpaz 07:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Requests

"If contributor(s) submit work with other people's content WITHOUT PERMISSION, they will be promptly asked to take it down. Ignoring this issue will result in a [temporary/permanent] ban." And also the privacy policy page to be protected like the Rules. --Michael (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)