(This post was originally a reply in this thread: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/100120)

The biggest delay in publishing seems to be checking the source of the 3D model.
How can normal users make qualified votes on the legal aspect?
On the 3D-file sharing sites, it seems there are mostly two kinds of models:
1) models ripped from other games.
2) models ripped from other games but nobody has yet figured it out.

Afterall, comparing 3D meshes is time-consuming. Some cars are featured in dozen of games.
I have a feeling that there is only a handful of users who actually check anything at all, rest just presses "thumbs up."

For example there is now a new mod with text:

Quote :

i make retopology of model, which i found somwhere on network

Overnight it already has 6x "thumbs up" for legal.
I do not want to single out that one mod/user, but really how is such text good enough for reviewers to check anything?
And who kind of review did the people do, who voted on it?

The best way to speed up the process would be if modders show how they created the 3D model.
It is easy to take screenshots and it is also not hard to record timelapse videos.

Then, there need to be more clear rules what is legal.
For example "retopology":
A ripped model is loaded into 3D-software and then the new model is created by tracing the polygons of the original model.
It might be somewhat legal if the original model is very low-poly and only used for its basic shape and the modeler turns it into a highly detailed model.

However, in the cases that I have seen,the new model is identical to the original, except for tiny irrelevant differences.
A few such mods are already published.
However, I am pretty sure this violates the terms of usage of any game.
The editing does not make the new model legal, and from technical side it is not needed either. The original ripped model would be usable as-is.
The only purpose is to hide that the model is ripped.
But then why upload a video of that? It makes no sense.
Maybe some people vote because they think: "Oh, there is a video of the creation process. That must mean that the mod is original work."

If I sneak a camera into a cinema and upload the recording then that is still illegal. Even if I make small edits like cropping out areas of the movie or mirroring it.
All that is just to make detection harder (for example by youtube algorithm)

I agree with everything you said.

We have some great mods, truly made from scratch or from a proper model with proper permission from the original creator. This is what we wanted to see and why we supported mods.

But some people are always just trying to figure out how to trick us into thinking their model is legal, when actually it's just ripped from another game or has been downloaded with "permission" from someone who illegally ripped the model then uploaded it to a file sharing website, claiming it as their own work.

It's mentally tiring to receive a constant barrage of people who are trying to trick us into accepting other people's work as their own. We knew this would happen but I didn't expect it to become a constant issue.

By the way, on the model with that "retopology" quote, I have asked the user for more information. Retopology is the latest popular trick to bypass our legality checks. As you say, either "real" retopology creating a brand new mesh but using some ripped model in a questionable way, or totally "fake" retopology, just getting a whole mesh and changing a few vertices or polygons.

iRacing has this "solved" for decades... solution? Trading Paints.

An "indie" site that magically has inbuilt support from the game.exe itself, thus the game downloads all needed assets from a "3rd party".

I (or anyone else) could, just as an example, upload all lfs skins/artwork to that site and race in iRacing with lfs skins (adapted to iracing car shapes of course)

I assume you mean this mod:https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/100105-DORITO-FD7
But it is not the only one.
I remember this one: https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2001326 It was initially published despite the video showing retopology.
Perhaps that made others think, that this approach was okay?

https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2010556#post2010556
(in my opinion, should not have been published either)

https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2013694#post2013694
"I used another model as a reference, so yes retopology."

Here is another WIP thread:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/100144-FK9-FWD-hatchback

...and so on. I see no use to post in every single thread.

I think not every modder does it in bad faith.
Some might honestly think that retopology is okay because "nothing of the original mesh remains" or "every polygon is changed compared to the original."
Most people never to think about licenses and in in theory it might sound like a clever idea. It might need an official post to explain it.
Maybe also explain what kind of WIP pictures work as proof.
Because I can also delete parts of a model and post them in reversed order.

Quote from KiDCoDEa :

iRacing has this "solved" for decades... solution? https://www.tradingpaints.com

That skin-sharing site still has legal terms of use, it is required to have them.
https://www.tradingpaints.com/page/Terms

Quote from Trading Paint terms :

You may not use Trading Paints to create or share anything that is unlawful, misleading, discriminatory or fraudulent, or that infringes any person’s or entity’s rights, including, but not limited to, intellectual property rights.

Thanks, i or anyone using that site clearly had no idea! You should counter-argue by missing the point even further, so i can have a truly nostalgic moment here.

meanwhile i'll go lap xfinity at darlington using a realworld branded paint while your poetic is being waxed.

From the DORITO-FD7 review thread:

Quote from Gutholz :

It is funny how 26 people honestly believe that this is legal.

To be fair, the votes were accumulated when it said:

Quote :

its made with retopo in blender 3.2.2

Which we found too vague and uninformative, so asked Rubie to change it.

It has now been changed to this:

Quote :

Retopology made, model taken from Assetto Corsa ( Japanese DLC )

Which I am finding it very hard to accept as legal. I expect the model was developed or adapted for Assetto Corsa, under license from Mazda and I don't see anything that says you can use the model as a template to create meshes for other games. I believe it is intended to be used for driving, in Assetto Corsa, and that's all.

Of course it would be different if the original developers give you permission to use it as a template for building your own mesh, but I find that extremely doubtful. Their own license probably doesn't allow them to give that permission, even if they wanted to (and I don't see why they would).

Quote from KiDCoDEa :

Thanks, i or anyone using that site clearly had no idea! You should counter-argue by missing the point even further, so i can have a truly nostalgic moment here.

meanwhile i'll go lap xfinity at darlington using a realworld branded paint while your poetic is being waxed.

I thought your point was to host ripped files on a third-party site, so that they would be "clean" to use.

But maybe I misunderstood, what is your point then?

The only point being missed here is that Scawen doesn't want LFS infested with stolen IP. Whether or not someone else has found a loophole that may or may not stand up in a court (re-topo/dubious 3rd party/whatever) is moot.

Quote from Scawen :

Which I am finding it very hard to accept as legal. I expect the model was developed or adapted for Assetto Corsa, under license from Mazda and I don't see anything that says you can use the model as a template to create meshes for other games. I believe it is intended to be used for driving, in Assetto Corsa, and that's all.

Of course it would be different if the original developers give you permission to use it as a template for building your own mesh, but I find that extremely doubtful. Their own license probably doesn't allow them to give that permission, even if they wanted to (and I don't see why they would).

What's the problem? The model that is taken as a layout is not changed or modified. That's the main thing. It is simply taken as a layout, and a new model is created based on this model, which will not have similarities with the original one. A good retopology has a maximum of 1% similarity, and that is by chance in order to keep the display correct. I believe that people should not be forbidden to do retopology. Of course, let the author indicate the original model and its source. But I remind you that for all models, whether they are copyrighted, there is no separate mark that it cannot be used as a source layout for modeling. It is very difficult for us to make models in the LFS. Creating models from scratch is great, but it has a lot of difficulties and takes a lot of time. I don't see anything wrong with people doing retopology. Let's talk about facts. As a result, the model that is made by retopology will not be similar to any model that exists in the world. Because the model turns out to be individual, the author builds it with his own hands from scratch. She won't be like the others. From this it follows that everything remains within the rules.

I think it's important to distinguish two steps one has to do in order to create a mod using retopology:

1. obtain a 3D model from a source
2. create a new mesh using that model as a reference

It is point 1 that is questionable here.

Doing retopology does indeed create a completely new mesh, which is OK in itself. However, when someone acquires a 3D model in a way that violates the license conditions of the source, then it seems to make the whole process illegal.

EDIT: I wrote this before seeing Flame's post. I agree with Flame's post also.

Legally, I think Gutholz describes it above: https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2014132#post2014132

For me, I can imagine simply from the point of view of the original developer. They paid for someone to model (or convert from CAD files) or laser scanning or *whatever* method they used, possibly paying the original car manufacturer for a license. One way or another, they spend a lot of time and money creating a high quality 3D model. I'm sure you agree, they did that so people could use it in their game, and they run a company with several employees and they need their income.

It is FAR EASIER to build a 3D model, if you use someone else's model as a template, and therefore it is a form of cheating and it's not a fair use of someone's model (from a moral viewpoint).

As for legality, I'll be convinced, if I hear your argument directly from Kunos Simulazioni. I invite you to get them to say it's fine to do a full retopology based on their model.

Quote from Flame CZE :

I think it's important to distinguish two steps one has to do in order to create a mod using retopology:

1. obtain a 3D model from a source
2. create a new mesh using that model as a reference

It is point 1 that is questionable here.

Doing retopology does indeed create a completely new mesh, which is OK in itself. However, when someone acquires a 3D model in a way that violates the license conditions of the source, then it seems to make the whole process illegal.

Then what's the point of doing retopology if you want to know that the original layout has permission for copyright use? In this case, just take the original model and upload it to the lfs, because it will have permissions to upload? It's a vicious circle that sounds like nonsense. You should understand that we take the ideal source models, they are usually prohibited for modification and editing, in particular, and for uploading to the LFS. As a result, we come to the conclusion that for retopology we need a model allowed for changes. BUT THIS IS NONSENSE. How can this be understood? After all, there are no "average" models. The model can either be used (has all permissions) or cannot be used (protected by strict copyright rules)

Quote from Foch_sho :

You should understand that we take the ideal source models, they are usually prohibited for modification and editing, in particular, and for uploading to the LFS. As a result, we come to the conclusion that for retopology we need a model allowed for changes. BUT THIS IS NONSENSE. How can this be understood? After all, there are no "average" models. The model can either be used (has all permissions) or cannot be used (protected by strict copyright rules)

It's the mere extraction of the model from the software that can be violating the terms & conditions of a game developer. I wasn't talking about prohibition of editing or modification.

There may be some game companies that allow extraction of ther 3D models (they may even provide them as plain unencrypted files) but disallow distribution to 3rd parties or modification. In that case, I'd say it would be OK to use them as a reference for retopology. But of course then the question is, how many of the big game developers actually allow even just extracting the game models from their software?

Quote from Gutholz :

If I sneak a camera into a cinema and upload the recording then that is still illegal. Even if I make small edits like cropping out areas of the movie or mirroring it.

Quote from Scawen :

I agree with everything you said.

If you agree with everything that weisenheimer said while the shape of a car is obviously copyrighted, how can precise recreation of a real model be legal at all without permission from the copyright holder even if car named different, but you can instantly recognize what car it really is?

Quote from Foch_sho :

Then what's the point of doing retopology if you want to know that the original layout has permission for copyright use?

There is no point in doing retopology or similiar edits, from legal point of view. It changes nothing about the legal status.
It only makes it harder to compare 3D meshes.
It is like uploading a copyrighted movie or music to youtube:
Sometimes people make edits (mirroring it, changing playback speed, adding black bars at top&bottom)
If you mirror a movie then also "every pixel is different" from the original. But good luck explaining to Hollywood that you created a new original movie instead of editing their work.

However, retopology itself is just a modeling technic and sometimes it can be legal.
For example you sculpt a car out of clay or wood and make a 3D-scan of it.
Or you make a 3D-scan of a real car. Or use software that creates 3D-files from video.
These 3D-scans are usually very rough and need to be cleaned up. Sometimes the scans are so bad, that they can not be cleaned up and are only used as reference pictures.
example:

There is nothing wrong with such retopology because they are based on 3D-files that the modders created themself. No on 3D-files taken from other games.

Quote from Egor K :

If you agree with everything that weisenheimer said while the shape of a car is obviously copyrighted, how can precise recreation of a real model be legal at all without permission from the copyright holder even if car named different, but you can instantly recognize what car it really is?

The shape of a car is not copyrighted, that is more to do with Intellectual Property. And we would of course respond to any reasonable request from a manufacturer who objects to a lookalike created as a tribute by one of our users. A real vehicle that inspires any LFS mod is always declared in the Intellectual Property declaration.

There is something different about:

1) someone creating a tribute to a real car and putting that in our game,

compared with:

2) usage of a model from another developer's game, to create a model to be used in our game.

Quote from Gutholz :

However, retopology itself is just a modeling technic and sometimes it can be legal.
For example you sculpt a car out of clay or wood and make a 3D-scan of it.
Or you make a 3D-scan of a real car. Or use software that creates 3D-files from video.
These 3D-scans are usually very rough and need to be cleaned up. Sometimes the scans are so bad, that they can not be cleaned up and are only used as reference pictures.

So, following your logic, the author of the model that I use as a model for uploading to LFS or for retopology should have the right to use a real car as a model? Doing ANY retopology, or making model from scratch, you end up with the same car, except for small differences in the mesh. So, we will come to the point that it will be necessary to ask permission to use the rights from car manufacturers? It turns out, the same film, according to the same script, but shot by me personally.

Quote :

However, retopology itself is just a modeling technic and sometimes it can be legal.
For example you sculpt a car out of clay or wood and make a 3D-scan of it.
Or you make a 3D-scan of a real car. Or use software that creates 3D-files from video.
These 3D-scans are usually very rough and need to be cleaned up. Sometimes the scans are so bad, that they can not be cleaned up and are only used as reference pictures.

You're talking outright nonsense. Let's be honest. We see an individual grid, we compare it with all similar models that are on the Internet, banned or allowed. We see that there are no coincidences. The mod is approved. Everyone likes everything. I don't see the point in complicating it. In addition, there is one big difficulty that will put the reviewers in a stupor. You will not distinguish retopology from creating a model from scratch. This is a fact. Retopology cannot be banned. Models created from scratch by coordinates are no different from retopology. It's just that one creation is made from a photo (oh my God, a photo can also be copyrighted, right) and the other is made from coordinates based on an existing model. You will come to nothing by banning retopology. Think about it, there is a way out of any forbidden situation. And clearly, when we see the individual grid created by hands. You will never find a similarity in someone else's or with a stolen model.

I currently have 2 fully original LFS editor made from scratch base vehicles published and a retopology in review that was made in blender, and I still make this below statement.

I would consider updating the editor to no longer allow the import of OBJ files period. Even if that means killing my retopology mod fine.

I'm not a programer but is there a way to force all new mods and updates to come from that updated editor as well, to force people to follow the rule? At this point I would rather see less mods go up for review than continue to stress this fully volunteer system any longer.

The pain from forcing everyone to use editor could be eased by maybe developing some additional features to go along with extrude and lathe, such as bevel. Really bevel alone would impove my workflow ten fold in LFS editor.

Thank you.

Nothing in the rules forbid the usage of "unknown" origin blueprints/templates/models.


With that mindset, almost every mod made with a template that was stolen from a vector website should be removed?

We could continue and assume that every blueprints taken from google images have an unknown origin or at least license that could block from reusing it? Should we block every mod until they can prove they own or have the correct license for the blueprints/templates used?


While the original model could be ripped or stolen, that's the author's problem in the sense he has hands on a model that could not have a license (the original maker could opposite him).

The retopology made from it is, at the end, 100% the work of the author (he made the final mesh himself) and doesn't have anything related to the original model as it doesn't contain any of the original mesh. Which doesn't infringe the current Vehicle Mod Submission Guidelines.


You can paint your own Mona Lisa, using the original as a model, and yet it's your own creation, based on a real thing.

What about the models obtained from the other sites such as Sketchfab?
What if they are retopology of an illegally downloaded model?
Shouldn't they get checked too to see if they are actually "legally" modelled and not retopology based on a model from a game or even made using illegally downloaded blueprints?

Quote from dornardo :

What about the models obtained from the other sites such as Sketchfab?
What if they are retopology of an illegally downloaded model?
Shouldn't they get checked too to see if they are actually "legally" modelled and not retopology based on a model from a game or even made using illegally downloaded blueprints?

+1.

Quote from dornardo :

What about the models obtained from the other sites such as Sketchfab?
What if they are retopology of an illegally downloaded model?
Shouldn't they get checked too to see if they are actually "legally" modelled and not retopology based on a model from a game or even made using illegally downloaded blueprints?

It's my understanding that most of the Sketchfab models are illegally ripped. Usually the uploader claims it is their own work. Our reviewers have spent a lot of time proving that the model has come from another game.

It's pretty simple really. The mods system is to create your own models in LFS. It's not a system to put cars from other games into LFS. Doing so, from most games, is not what their developers intended and you shouldn't do it, because by doing so you are breaking the terms you agreed to when you installed their game.

Those developers are unlikely to do anything to individuals who use their models for their own purposes but I am quite sure they would not be happy to see the model they paid for, flying around in someone else's game.

Quote from Kanade :

The retopology made from it is, at the end, 100% the work of the author (he made the final mesh himself) and doesn't have anything related to the original model as it doesn't contain any of the original mesh. Which doesn't infringe the current Vehicle Mod Submission Guidelines.

It's rubbish to say it's 100% their work. In that case, they shouldn't need the ripped mesh to use as a template.

Dear people, I've said it before. The LFS mods system is intended as a platform for creativity. It's not a repository for stolen goods. Why try to circumvent this? Your entire argument is trying to convince us that you should be able to rip models from other games and somehow put them in LFS. But that is plainly wrong. This retopology strategy reminds me of criminals who engage in money-laundering.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not calling anyone a criminal. Just noting the similarity between retopology of ripped models, and money-laundering.

Quote from Slashpca :

I currently have 2 fully original LFS editor made from scratch base vehicles published and a retopology in review that was made in blender, and I still make this below statement.

I would consider updating the editor to no longer allow the import of OBJ files period. Even if that means killing my retopology mod fine.

I'm not a programer but is there a way to force all new mods and updates to come from that updated editor as well, to force people to follow the rule? At this point I would rather see less mods go up for review than continue to stress this fully volunteer system any longer.

The pain from forcing everyone to use editor could be eased by maybe developing some additional features to go along with extrude and lathe, such as bevel. Really bevel alone would impove my workflow ten fold in LFS editor.

Thank you.

In one way of thinking, your idea is the only way! But it's not really practical as of course you know, the OBJ import has the very important function of allowing people to model in Blender (or other software). It's too much to force everyone to use the LFS modeller.

But, about that bevel function, as I understand you are experienced in Blender and LFS editor, could I ask you to describe how you think a bevel function could work in LFS? Can you imagine an interface that would work for it, given that we don't have an edge selection system?

If you have an idea for that or a way to point me in the right direction, please post it in the suggestions thread:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/95716-Mods-System-Suggestions

I might go through that thread at some point and separate it into editor suggestions and mods system suggestions.