Not sure if this is good or bad (Sgt Mark Patreon in question)

16 minutes ago, Cipher said:

Dang, did he? I don't follow BD at all. That's asking for a C&D right off the bat if so, and I'd be totally behind any request to stop distributing that, but if that's accurate, it seems like a separate thing from the Patreon.

Yeah I mean, as far as I know, he's using Patreon to get paid for making a standalone Doom game, and he's probably the highest profile modder we have given how much coverage he managed to get outside of the Doom community. It's like a perfect storm to attract friendly lawyers wanting to talk with you.

I was under the impression that the actual game source code was originally released under the premise of only being used for non-profit reasons, so perhaps that is what this is about?

I'm unclear about why Bethesda has any say at all about mods for classic Doom. They didn't originally publish Doom or Doom II. I guess it's because id and Bethesda are both owned by ZeniMax?

13 minutes ago, Scotty said:

I was under the impression that the actual game source code was originally released under the premise of only being used for non-profit reasons, so perhaps that is what this is about?

The Doom source code was relicensed as GPL, so it most certainly can be used for commercial purposes.

The question of whether or not a game mod - even if it doesn't contain any obviously copyrighted content - is totally free from any legal claim by the copyright holder of the game is, unfortunately, not a particularly well settled question, so far as I know.

Doesn't <what ever firm> have the right to the name Doom when used in a video game for profit ? Maybe I am being thick.

7 hours ago, Glaice said:

 

Not entirely sure if good or bad for the community in general..

Eyyy I posted that on reddit

Here is some more screenshots if you guys want. (I just posted the interesting parts)

I can only hope this doesn't blow itself out of proportion or turn out to be a broader worry with anything that has to do with the name Doom. I do see this passing by and the community will continue like normal, but on the other hand I am concerned on what else Bethesda has on their mind since it would be worrying if it's more than Patreon donations.

After reviewing those chat logs, I am sure Mark will dispatch any future legal disputes he may have in a mature, tactful manner.

WE DODGED A BULLET

Just for now. Tommorrow they will find another reason to do their stuff and reduce our freedom.

3 minutes ago, Myst.Haruko said:

Just for now. Tommorrow they will find another reason to do their stuff and reduce our freedom.

Maybe

I don't think creating uncertainty in the Doom community on account of Sarge would be the big downside for Bethesda in enforcing any legal action against his Patreon account.  His decision to open a Patreon account is exception within the Doom community because of it's traditional openness and general 'share and share alike' collective mindset.  In other modding scenes,  I don't think it would be quite as alien to do so.  That snowballs into Youtube content creators, Soundcloud DJs and anyone else that generates a revenue stream through Patreon by modifying other people's intellectual property. That's a can of worms that Bethesda would probably avoid opening at all costs.

I'm reminded of when a certain someone tried monetizing a project of mine I (regretfully) gave to them. I complained of the possibility of this very thing, and was shot down. How about now, huh?

45 minutes ago, Ed said:

That snowballs into Youtube content creators, Soundcloud DJs and anyone else that generates a revenue stream through Patreon by modifying other people's intellectual property. That's a can of worms that Bethesda would probably avoid opening at all costs.

You honestly can't imagine Bethesda deciding that an easy revenue stream is to forcibly monetize and demand a cut of any Youtube videos showing Doom gameplay? I'm almost surprised they haven't done it already.

21 minutes ago, fraggle said:

You honestly can't imagine Bethesda deciding that an easy revenue stream is to forcibly monetize and demand a cut of any Youtube videos showing Doom gameplay? I'm almost surprised they haven't done it already.

Bethesda already has a pretty bad reputation among the vidya community and they know it. The farthest they have gone with anything is Creation Club and they know people dont like it. Forcible monetization would be a 100% terrible move on Bethesda's part. That is the reason they have not done it yet. Also, because Doom 4 is super well recived in the gameplay community on youtube, having that monetization would mean less Youtubers playing which equals less exposure. That would equal less sales.

15 minutes ago, FantasmeDel'Esprit54 said:

Bethesda already has a pretty bad reputation among the vidya community and they know it. The farthest they have gone with anything is Creation Club and they know people dont like it. Forcible monetization would be a 100% terrible move on Bethesda's part. That is the reason they have not done it yet. Also, because Doom 4 is super well recived in the gameplay community on youtube, having that monetization would mean less Youtubers playing which equals less exposure. That would equal less sales.

But you know what they say: ''Greed breaks the sack''. 

If Bethesda finishes throwing itself towards the dark side, serious errors will occur for all, they try to take advantage of everything, already they have made some strong errors in this, like the fiasco of the paid mods. They usually have the excuse that they try to give the deserved "prizes" to these players who strive to create new content for the game, however almost always are usually smoke curtains. If they gradually begin to eliminate the mods or contributions of the community outside their Creators Club or any other of their methods, I fear that we will have to witness an end too bitter.

It's good when a company has more contact with its fans to the point that they even try to give them prizes for their efforts, but when the prize goes '50 for you and 50 for me. '' Things change. I hope they will never do any of these things, they are a company that I have a lot of respect and affection for, but the power could change them, maybe I will go a lot adrift, but I hope they do not become an EA.

I hope that any modder or mapper out there, working passionately receive a good reward the way they deserve it, but do not have any kind of altercation for copyright claims or anything else, hopefully things will remain calm. Brutal Doom is my favorite mod of Doom, and I play it every day, see it a bad end or take the worst road, it would frustrate me.

We aren't even allowed to say we want money for mods for a video game but they can?

What is wrong with this world.

51 minutes ago, Anidrex_1009 said:

but when the prize goes '50 for you and 50 for me. '' Things change.

Why? Isn't a big chunk of the mod work (graphics, sounds, mechanics) already made by the game company? The mod author didn't make everything to power his mod. Shouldn't the company get a cut out of the sales, if work belonging to it is still in the mod?

4 minutes ago, printz said:

Why? Isn't a big chunk of the mod work (graphics, sounds, mechanics) already made by the game company? The mod author didn't make everything to power his mod. Shouldn't the company get a cut out of the sales, if work belonging to it is still in the mod?

Like, use Crayola crayons but your art drawings when being sold should give half the money to Crayola? I still think that it does not sound quite right, in addition, there are modders that really work almost from 0. The complete conversions can do this, of course, the code or the engine itself belongs to the company, but if they will allow their game to be modified by their enormous fanatic communities, it is right that they should obtain benefit by the work of the others? Maybe in that case the best thing would be to simply not allow your games to be modified. Well, thats what I think. 

Okay, Brutal Doom survived!

What makes my heart warm is that there wasn't any "well, he deserved the C&D, hyuhyuhyuh >:] " posts in this thread. You guys are really mature, and I didn't said that "ironically" or with sarcasm, I was genuine! Of course, you were worried about the entire Doom community, but still, there were a lot of opportunities for the comments like this one above.

I don't really have much to say, other than, if it went bad, I would have just said "oh well" and focus on my life right now. Modding scene isn't the one I have any sort of contact with, and which I cannot influence (although I played almost ALLL the gameplay mods and I surely await for more!). Still, made this post to thank you guys.

Dunno if the Crayola analogy is great... You buy those crayons and do it regularly to refill them.

Anyway I'm referring to this comparison: either make a game from scratch, doing everything by yourself or your employees/partners. Or you can just use the assets made by another company and do only what you like (such as levels). This is significantly less effort, part of it being solved by a commercial game company. If it were legal, people would prefer to just sell partial conversions instead of new games. 

1 hour ago, Nevander said:

We aren't even allowed to say we want money for mods for a video game but they can?

 

What is wrong with this world.

The difference is Nevander, that Bethesda own the RIGHTS to those games. sgtmark doesnt own the rights to doom.

I'm fairly ignorant in the world of law. Also different countries / states are different.

But by allowing one person / group to push into gray areas of trademark allow others to do the same and use that as an example to justify their actions? Hence lawyer's are often proactive in seeking out abuses, even small ones.

Or am I talking crap?

8 minutes ago, Chezza said:

I'm fairly ignorant in the world of law. Also different countries / states are different.

 

But by allowing one person / group to push into gray areas of trademark allow others to do the same and use that as an example to justify their actions? Hence lawyer's are often proactive in seeking out abuses, even small ones.

 

Or am I talking crap?

There's a reason why Bethesda is constantly going after other developers when they have game names somewhat similar to their own IPs, things like Scrolls by Mojang or that Pray to the Gods game.

My parents do the same thing at their grocery store; they don't allow anyone to solicit out front, not Salvation Army, not Girl Scouts, nothing, because otherwise they would legally have to allow panhandling or people trying to petition for the weirdest shit and annoying customers with wanting signatures.

45 minutes ago, Chezza said:

I'm fairly ignorant in the world of law. Also different countries / states are different.

 

But by allowing one person / group to push into gray areas of trademark allow others to do the same and use that as an example to justify their actions? Hence lawyer's are often proactive in seeking out abuses, even small ones.

 

Or am I talking crap?

Obligatory "I am not a lawyer," but: Yes, IP-holders are sometimes proactive about enforcing copyright claims to set precedent and protect either financial interests or image. Just as with everything else, sometimes it's overzealous, sometimes it's reasonable. Digital media (game-modding; wide-scale distribution of video edits, etc.) has brought with it a ton of cases with no actual legal precedent, so until someone actually drags a case all the way through the court system, a lot of this is somewhat murky water. It's pretty interesting stuff. (I'm of the opinion that copyright law is never inherently the enemy, by the way, as it exists for good reason. But you take each case as it comes. It's ... pretty subjective, at points.)

Anyway, glad nothing blew up in this case.

I'm not good at comparing shit but a digital artists selling their art that based from the original content (let's take fan art as a game mod here) and selling it is.... idk, perhaps wrong?  I can get it is if people commissioning modders to make a mod to their tastes.

Congrats to Mark! Very nice news.