To me retopology is just alternative for blueprints. Creator makes new mesh with completely different vertex positions etc... If it's illegal what about blueprints? Someone draws them...

I understand requiring license if someone gets model and just use tool for reducing vertex/fale count like Decimate Modifier in Blender.

Quote from Slashpca :

I would consider updating the editor to no longer allow the import of OBJ files period.

This will be equivalent of disabling the mods system altogether. It's not a proper solution.

I think the mods system is working OK, maybe a little slow, yes. Also if it turns out a mod is ripped, it can be taken down without further legal consequences...

LFS editor vs other is just like paint compared to photoshop. It's simple and takes much more time to do same things so almost nobody would make mod for LFS except next tweak mods.

Just to play devils advocate.

The workflow many games use to make high quality car models involve laser scanning a real vehicle. It's not a particularly artistic process, but a technical one. The geometry very closely resemble the real object (car) that have been scanned, and the 'personal touch' comes from their topology. That is essentially the only unique attribute their mesh have versous other models scanned from the same object.

A retopology disregard that attribute, and only utilize the geometry data of said model which again very closely resemble the geometry of the real car.

But of course, it is true that the creator of the original mesh have invested in the scanning technology/process.

A correct version of the tracing analogy in my opinion would be: You want to trace a painting, but don't have access to it. So you trace an already traced version of the painting instead because it yields better results than trying to hand draw the painting.

Either way, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. But what would be a good idea is a clear set of rules for what is allowed and what is not allowed in a pinned thread touching on the following things:

Retopology
Blueprints (which blueprints are okay to use)
Image-modeler (it's a powerful tool to make car models, but it's no longer attainable trough legal means)
Also, what about image licensing for modelling with Image Modeller.
Resemblance of real cars. Is there a limit to how close you can go.

These things might sound silly. But it's good to have a solid set of guidelines to refer to since it's time consuming to make mods whichever method is used.

Quote from Scawen :

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.

A platform for creativity. Do we understand that we are playing a driving simulator? We don't play sandwich simulator, we don't play ball simulator, we don't play tank battle simulator. We are playing a game where the car is the benchmark and the purpose of the whole LFS game. Based on your words, did you make an LFS editor so that people would do things unnecessary to this game? People are pleased to see real cars in the game, and not a piece of cardboard box on wheels. We were given restrictions in the form of websites, a whole group of strict reviewers was introduced in order to track down the stolen models. Good. We have discovered the only true way, it is retopology. Now you want to take that away too. This is a mistake. I will only support the words Kanade wrote earlier. After all, we proceed from the fact that there are no claims to LFS from big people who could accidentally discover stolen models. Retopology is similar to creating a mod from scratch, only faster. The retopology grid will never be similar to the original model from the Internet and from other games. Therefore, there can be no problems. I am very sorry that you come to such a decision.

P.S. We will ride on sandwiches and cardboard boxes.

Quote from Foch_sho :

We were given restrictions in the form of websites, a whole group of strict reviewers was introduced in order to track down the stolen models. Good. We have discovered the only true way, it is retopology. Now you want to take that away too.

I'll restate or "translate" what you said, how it appeared to us:

"We were given restrictions in the form of websites, a whole group of strict reviewers was introduced in order to track down the stolen models."
We explained the legal issues in the early days of mods and provided plenty of information about the rules, working with the community as we developed the system. Unfortunately this was abused by many users who ignored the rules entirely. Our small team of reviewers were forced to spend a huge amount of time investigating the origin of models that appeared to be ripped. Several users lied to us and provided faked "evidence" of the origin of their models. Some reviewers couldn't really continue when the workload became apparent. They were turned into policemen when all they wanted was to support the community.

"Good."
Not good at all.

"We have discovered the only true way, it is retopology."
We saw a new trend "retopology" where users apparently created their own mesh, using another mesh as a guide. This was seen as a grey area. We considered that it would be hard to stop such an approach so some were accepted. The original guys provided a video demonstrating the process, and listed the source of the model. But within weeks, this already dubious grey area had degenerated into blatant disregard. The word "retopology" became seen by some modders as a catch-all word that allowed them to disregard all rules or even express the origin of the source model. Not only that, other modders were not even building their own mesh. Their so-called retopology was just the original mesh with a few slightly adjusted vertices or triangles. Our reviewers were again forced to spend a lot of time demonstrating the origin of these models. Again, we received blatant lies and fake "WIP" screenshots.

"Now you want to take that away too."
Now we want to, again, make sure that our platform is a place for legitimate models, created either as ORIGINAL WORKS or reproduced WITH PERMISSION from the original creator.


Sorry that the above post doesn't seem very positive. In fact the mods system has been overall very positive for LFS! But I have to try to express the trouble that has gone on behind the scenes. It appears that some people think we are some annoying people who are hell-bent on trying to spoil your fun. Actually we are trying to provide an excellent experience, safe for all of us. Not some wild west lawless place where stolen goods can be flaunted with impunity. It's extremely frustrating and sometimes angering that a minority of mod creators try to work against us, obscure the truth or simply lie to us. It causes constant trouble and a huge amount of wasted time. We are not going to allow illegal mods to be used on our system. Our project and our way of making a living is too important to us.

The biggest problem for me isn't whether or not retopos are allowed. But it's just not made clear enough. I did take a look before starting my retopo project which included reading a list of banned model sources. I also asked in the LFS discord where I got the impression that retopos would be allowed. Especially considering there are retopos in the game already.

Then I found this whole discussion mostly contained in various mod review threads.

So what is needed is more clear communication, and more easily accessed guidelines which explain your stance on retopos and state that they are not allowed. It's a good way to stop alot of it. I wouldn't have started on my retopo project had this been the case for example.



Now, before I start on my next mod. I would like to know a few things which seems to have been indicated already:
What sort of blueprints are banned / allowed? If I find a blueprint that have been rendered from an unlicensed game model, does that fall under the same legal category as a retopo?

Do I have to video the whole modelling process to prove that I have not made a retopo in the future?

I'm not trying to be difficult. I just wanna know what I have to think about considering we invest our time into modding.

Quote from pärtan :

I'm not trying to be difficult. I just wanna know what I have to think about considering we invest our time into modding.

Thanks and I don't think you are trying to be difficult.

This conversation has come up because of recent questionable "retopologies" including failure to indicate the source, and also attempts to circumvent the review system by falsely claiming retopology.

Also we may have made a mistake to allow certain retopologies because they were based on meshes from other games. This does not appear to be allowed in the agreement between customers and the source game.

So we are in the middle of discussing this, mainly right here in public. We'll have to also discuss between reviewers and work out some clear guidelines.

LOL LFS is non-MOD-friendly....time flies by but the main line remains the same. It was and it still is.

From DORITO-FD7 thread:

Quote from Scawen :

...while you avoid giving us any information about the source

I remember the times when car-packs for MAX5 were downloaded as RAR archives for free and without any description, back in the 2004. Those sources are not existing anymore. If I tell you that I took them from XtremeImport.nl - it would make no sense.

Since then "Street Legal Redline" received numerous beautiful cars and tracks but LFS received a Burger mod.
Many of those who made mods for SLR now do their mods for AC, RF and other games but not LFS. And LFS servers are almost empty. I wonder why.

Now, the thoughts I can't let go:

-Isn't it the source model's author initiative to claim his model is ripped (if it is)?
-Isn't there a presumption of innocence before that fact is proven?
-Isn't it a crime for reviewers to open RIPPED models for comparison with mod models?
-Isn't the ripped model must be 100% match the mod's mesh by overlay to say it's ripped?(wich requires reviewers to steal a suspected source model for a comparison)
-Isn't there is a law (which i know from my IRL FRP bodykit production practice) that if there's more that 10% is changed - then copyright laws does not apply to this item?

P.S.
XRT has some Mitsubishi's intellectual property in it BTW. What we gonna do with it?
Should I ask NISSAN for permission to take pictures of their headlights at my local drift event to make texture out of it later?
Some rules are nonsense and you guys overcomplicated it. This is how i see it, sorry.

Quote from Scawen :

...

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.

So, if I'm using 3D editing software and photos from a car, how is that considered to be a legitimate source when I have not proved that the original image was not copyright protected?
Also if I am 3D scanning my own car, that is considered as a legitimate source, as I do not own any rights but the vehicle itself?!
This whole whirlpool about retopology is just sickening, even You guys (devs and reviews) haven't realized how inconsistent is the entire process.
Not to mention to change anything and everything on the fly is very far from a professional approach to any kind of system.

p.s.: even the licensing wasn't clear for most of you, although everything is written clearly about usage rights, variety of licences, deratives, etc...

Quote from Gutholz :

[i] there is only a handful of users who actually check anything at all, rest just presses "thumbs up."

Shortly given examples:

Xfg with new parts (8 hours work, legal models)
1-2 likes

lada 2107 (10work hours work, new legal model)
stock no mods 5like

Mazda rx-7 fc3s Rocketbunny bodykit for drift
(3Hours stolen model) 40+ likes ... Monkeybrain

Bmw e36 Rocketbunny bodykit, fully overhauled interrior
(1 hour, 2 illegal models) 100+ likes... Monkeybrain

As for me we as modders should be given something like extra place to send photos of proof that mine model is legal in comparition from another games example:

Bmw 3 series - was featured in many games from bad android games like some kinda parking sim. Between is Mon Bazou... to forza horizon 5, so there is 25+ models wich can be downloaded but illegal by their games EULA
https://www.mobygames.com/game-group/automobile-bmw-3-series

Mazda Rx-7 - same situation as with bmw. Alot of models but some are illegal
https://www.mobygames.com/game-group/automobile-mazda-rx-7

Enough with sport cars...

Ford Transit - same as bmw but in less quantity. From Npc car in forza in stock version to st version in that same game

Dacia Duster - well there is none to be known to have licensed game. But still there are 3d models of this car wich are bad quality but sometimes also good quality

That's why we gonna have big problems by choosing good known models of cars without knowing if this model was used by somebody big games. We need to research the proof not modeators

Maybe add "retopology" in upload forms?Need explain the source where you took.In my case, RTL 74 is created by photogrammetry.I made my own topology.I have not stollen a lot of hours of work from another modder...Maybe force modder to use WIP forum section?With pics, rendering,... For hidden car or private car, another wip forum can be created hidden for others users just for mod-reviewers.Another things, with private car is it allowed toselling a mod ???

Quote from Snoop.DriftEra :

-Isn't it the source model's author initiative to claim his model is ripped (if it is)?

You mean the publishers like Ubisoft, EA Games, Kunos etc? I imagine if their lawyers get active it will not be nice for LFS or the uploader. So that situation should be avoided as early as possible.
Beside that, apparently LFS devs do not want pirated content in the mod system whether it gets noticed by other companies or not.

Quote :

-Isn't there a presumption of innocence before that fact is proven?

No, that would make the whole review system unusable.
Modder: "Here is a finished model. I made this model."
Reviewer: "Ok, I will just assume he is telling the truth."
The whole idea is that reviewers check the legal status. If the modder does not provide any information about the model then nothing can be checked.
However, I believe in the beginning there often was benefit of the doubt in unclear cases but then it got abused.

Quote :

-Isn't it a crime for reviewers to open RIPPED models for comparison with mod models?

I am not 100% sure. They are not distributing the models beside screenshots. Uploading files is another matter. (Like up/downloading a whole to a filesharing site will get you in trouble but posting a few single screenshots will generally be ok.)

Quote :

-Isn't the ripped model must be 100% match the mod's mesh by overlay to say it's ripped?(wich requires reviewers to steal a suspected source model for a comparison)

No, a 100% match of the mesh is not required to identify a ripped model. It is trivial to move some polygons around, either by hand or by tools.
On the difference between publishing a ripped file and opening a file but not sharing it: See above.

Quote :

Isn't there is a law (which i know from my IRL FRP bodykit production practice) that if there's more that 10% is changed - then copyright laws does not apply to this item?

It depends on the licenses. There is also the case that any work based on the original is still under the same license. That means even if your new file is 99% different the original licenses and ownership rights would still apply just because it was based on something else.
Often ripped mods are so close to the original that it is hard to argue that they are a new work. (Even the retopo mods are often copying the polygons 1:1)

Quote :

P.S.
XRT has some Mitsubishi's intellectual property in it BTW. What we gonna do with it?
Should I ask NISSAN for permission to take pictures of their headlights at my local drift event to make texture out of it later?

I feel such questions are just trying to derail the discussion.
Is it really required to explain the difference between "Copying files from a copyrighted game" and "taking photo of a car headlight"?
Obviously the later is okay, as shown by hundreds of games that feature real-world vehicles with fake names.

1) It's hard to take seriously the suggestions that we should actually allow copyrighted models from other games to be stored on and distributed by our system, simply presuming innocence for every modder who claims it is original work.

2) Some people argue that retopology creates a new mesh, so it's legal even if obtained by illegal means. This is highly questionable.

3) Even if retopology of illegally ripped game models is allowed, these 'retopology' models are difficult to verify visually and when we have spent a considerable amount of time verifying them, several of them have turned out to be not retopology at all (I keep saying this).


I wonder how we could make it practical? Maybe on submitting a retopology, we should charge a fee for one or two hours of labour by a reviewer. Then he can identify whether the retopology is a genuine retopology (so only 50% illegal) or actually just the original model with a few changes (so 100% illegal)? Then we'd allow the 50% illegal ones (genuine retopology) onto the system and just hope other game developers never notice that we are distributing retopologies of stolen models that they originally developed?

Sounds good?

Maybe block modder if he try upload a ripped model from another game? after 5 models?

Retopology means polygon reduction, it's only a trendy word for an old technique. Retopology is not about reconstructing polys from an existing clean model. That would be simply called a reproduction, or a derivative.

In the case of LFS mod, 'retopology' as it is used, is a form of plagiarism, it is no gray area, it is just fully wrong when it comes to licenses that forbid reproductions or derivatives.

"Plagiarism is the representation of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work." - Wikipedia.


By the way, do you realize that any imported object wich has wheels in its mesh, needs them to be removed for making a mod in LFS, and as such, the mod will be a derivative work simply because the original mesh has been changed ?
Yes, it's very unlikely that an author gets angry from having his object's wheel remove to make a mod, but still, it's a breach of "no derivatives" licenses.
So if u want to be really clean, the only choices are private agreement or public domain / CC BY / CC0 and some other uncommon free licenses like "license art libre" (https://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/), wich explicitely allow reproductions and derivatives.


edit :
it is also wrong in LFS to forbid derivatives when original model is CC BY SA or equivalent.
As it is now, LFS is breaching the SA clause.
CC BY SA want us to name the author and share any derivative work with the same license, so derivatives must stay allowed in LFS, as the original license states.

Quote from turbofan :

In the case of LFS mod, 'retopology' as it is used, is a form of plagiarism, it is no gray area, it is just fully wrong when it comes to licenses that forbid reproductions or derivatives.

This is how I feel. I am coming round to think that retopology of any kind can only be allowed with the permission of the original creator or developer. I expect such permission is unlikely to be obtained from the developers of most other racing games.

It's impractical for us to provide a "free" service for mods, while having to perform extensive investigations on mod submissions. I don't think the unpaid reviewers will have an infinite amount of patience.

Quote from turbofan :

edit :
it is also wrong in LFS to forbid derivatives when original model is CC BY SA or equivalent.
As it is now, LFS is breaching the SA clause.
CC BY SA want us to name the author and share any derivative work with the same license, so derivatives must stay allowed in LFS, as the original license states.

We know about SA / share alike. If it's share alike, the same license is applied by the mods submission form. If a model was obtained with a SA license, the mod creator doesn't get a choice about the license they apply for subsequent derivatives.

If this is not the case, there must be a bug.

EDIT: So if you know of a mod where the original model has an SA license, but the LFS version of it forbids derivatives, please report it so we can look into how that has gone wrong.

Quote from turbofan :

By the way, do you realize that any imported object wich has wheels in its mesh, needs them to be removed for making a mod in LFS, and as such, the mod will be a derivative work simply because the original mesh has been changed ?
Yes, it's very unlikely that an author gets angry from having his object's wheel remove to make a mod, but still, it's a breach of "no derivatives" licenses.

That's why we don't allow source models with NoDerivs licenses.
https://en.lfsmanual.net/wiki/Vehicle_Mod_Licenses#CreativeCommons_Attribution-NoDerivs_.28BY-ND.29

The issue here is not retopology in itself, but the fact that the modder states it is his original work.
It would the same issue for an imported model under CC BY for example.
But it would be perfectly ok to "retopo" that same CC BY model, when the original author's name is provided.

In short : retopology can't be claimed an original work, a license must be provided as for the other imports.

-------

Am sorry that I can't find any BY SA mod with forbidden derivatives. I feel confused, I wouldn't write such an assertion only to bother people. I must have been mistaken, or idk what happened.

In the same idea of consistency, I would disallow licenses which have a NC and/or a ND equivalent clause.

disallow ND (no derivative) because of the removed wheels problem I wrote in my previous post, unless the modder keeps the wheels and sets an invisible material... but almost all imported models need some fixes, stitches, up axis rotation, etc, wich modify the original mesh, and thus breach the no derivative clause. It is impossible to handle geometry checks in the long run.

disallow NC (no commercial use) because a LFS mod is used in the commercial context of LFS, wich is a business that hosts and sells access to download the mods for use in the sim, and displays some ads from IRL companies (bmw...). (authorization from author is needed for commercial use)

It is a bit of a pity that this mod import story turns into a witch hunt :
- you are not legally required to check the validity of the licenses. You act with good faith when you simply trust the provided source license.
You can't be responsible of being misled by the uploaders/hosts. At worst you will be asked to remove the mod if infrigement is proven. No big deal.

- most people making mods are only expressing their passion, I doubt there is any intent to bypass the copyright rules, or make the reviewers work hard(er). People just don't know how copyrights work, they are creative and excited and try alternate ways to make mods faster, without documenting and learning about copyrights mechanics. They are not working against LFS, but FOR LFS. That's what I see and read online. Dont misunderstand.

Why not witch hunt pirate photoshop/3ds max/ users ? and the same copyright tracking on textures and blueprints ? that would be much more consistent.

A last thought about importing parts of copyrighted materials. In the case of music (hiphop and rap are great examples), it ok to sample, or "extract a quote" of copyrighted materials.
It should be same for mods : creating a whole mod from many parts of copyrighted works should be acceptable.

In the end, why not make it all simpler and just relax the witch hunt ? We will never be able to handle the copyright checks in the long run. If it was possible, the copyright issues on uploaded models in 3D meshes databases would be already insignificant; because stolen source material wouldn't be so much abundant for download in the first place : they would be easily filtered out by the repository website.

Quote from Scawen :

That's why we don't allow source models with NoDerivs licenses.
https://en.lfsmanual.net/wiki/Vehicle_Mod_Licenses#CreativeCommons_Attribution-NoDerivs_.28BY-ND.29

then let me refer you to this thread
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/97013-Model-sources---which-are-OK-to-use-and-which-are-not-accepted
i can read

"No derivatives allowed means that you cannot make any changes to the model and noone else can make any changes to the model you have submitted to LFS - applies only for CGTrader, 3dlancer, free3d and 3dcadbrowser websites with their Royalty free license"

"The list of OK sites for LFS mods:

Quote :
Sketchfab - Creative Commons licenses, except BY-ND and BY-NC-ND
CGTrader - Royalty free license, no derivatives allowed
3dlancer.net - with Royalty free license, no derivatives allowed
blendswap.com - Creative Commons licenses, except BY-ND and BY-NC-ND
free3d.com - Royalty free license, no derivatives allowed
3dcadbrowser.com - Royalty free license, no derivatives allowed
Automation game - CC BY-NC-SA "

why are those sites listed as ok sources when those specific licenses explictely forbid derivatives or commercial use ?

I dont want to continue write here again, am wasting time with this. Do what u think fair and good luck !

Quote from turbofan :

In the end, why not make it all simpler and just relax the witch hunt ? We will never be able to handle the copyright checks in the long run. If it was possible, the copyright issues on uploaded models in 3D meshes databases would be already insignificant; because stolen source material wouldn't be so much abundant for download in the first place : they would be easily filtered out by the repository website.

Well, it's not a witch hunt.

You are characterizing this incorrectly.

We were originally more trusting but we got several reports about mods ripped from other games. I suppose if you were in our position, you would simply ignore all such reports. Better pretend you don't know, I guess? But that's not how we operate. In fact we looked into it to verify the reports and found that indeed some models were ripped. Both cases: (1) modder knew that and was lying to us or (2) modder downloaded in good faith a ripped model on a file sharing site.

It is EXTREMELY HEARTBREAKING to remove mods that have already been uploaded and the modder has done a lot of work mapping and so on, especially if they have acted in good faith. So we got more on the ball about checking mods before accepting them.

So, please don't accuse us of witch hunting. The whole time we have acted in good faith towards our mod submitters and also to other game developers. We have tried to be as diligent and fair as possible. Volunteers have put in HUGE AMOUNTS OF UNPAID TIME into verifying the validity of mods before ever taking them down. The BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT has always been given.

Still, people are trying to find loopholes that allow them to upload mods from other games. It's just getting silly now.

Mods system is for:

1) ORIGINAL WORK
2) CONVERSIONS OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK WITH PERMISSION

That's all. It's not a way to get models from other games into LFS.

Quote from Scawen :

Mods system is for:

1) ORIGINAL WORK
2) CONVERSIONS OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK WITH PERMISSION

2) CONVERSIONS OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK WITH PERMISSION

What if the original author of a 3D Model is gone for 10+ years and the emails which he have left in the descriptions, credits in all of his works are no more active. ( This is confirmed from people from his team )

This model is pretty much.. not usable here, in LFS?

I mean. it won't work if we just credit the original author/s? The people from his team (which are still active by some miracle) said that it will be OK if I just leave credits in the description.

Quote from Scawen :

Well, it's not a witch hunt.

oh well, I wrote "TURNS INTO a witch hunt"
I didnt make u directly responsible for it (turns into)
I know your intent was not a witch hunt, but that what it looks like for many users : overdone and destroying modder's motivation.

file closed for me !

Quote from superlame :

2) CONVERSIONS OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK WITH PERMISSION

What if the original author of a 3D Model is gone for 10+ years and the emails which he have left in the descriptions, credits in all of his works are no more active. ( This is confirmed from people from his team )

This model is pretty much.. not usable here, in LFS?

I mean. it won't work if we just credit the original author/s? The people from his team (which are still active by some miracle) said that it will be OK if I just leave credits in the description.

It doesn't necessarily have to be individual permission from the author, to the modder. If the uploaded model (from a file sharing site) has one of the licenses that are allowed, that counts as permission. But this is not valid if the person who uploaded the model to the file sharing site, actually ripped the model and doesn't have the legal right to give that permission.

Quote from turbofan :

oh well, I wrote "TURNS INTO a witch hunt"
I didnt make u directly responsible for it (turns into)
I know your intent was not a witch hunt, but that what it looks like for many users : overdone and destroying modder's motivation.

file closed for me !

You also said "why not make it all simpler and just relax the witch hunt ?" so that means you are calling it a witch hunt.

Of course this would all be simpler if people could observe and respect the rules. In the end it is fairly simple and obvious.

REPEAT:

Mods system is for:

1) ORIGINAL WORK
2) CONVERSIONS OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK WITH PERMISSION (or suitable license)

That's all. It's not a way to get models from other games into LFS. It's not about finding supposed loopholes to allow you to get models from other games into LFS, despite the rules. We don't want ripped models on our system, or works derived from ripped models. I see this is very hard to accept for some people, but I don't think it is hard to understand.