There are no stated licenses there. It is a mod for a game and it is uploaded by the original mod maker, who is long gone.
There are no stated licenses there. It is a mod for a game and it is uploaded by the original mod maker, who is long gone.
I don't think I can comment much on this without context. But I agree if there is no copyright license stated and no way to contact the author for permission, then you can't use it legally. That's one reason we can't allow models from some of the file sharing sites. But I think it is a bit off-topic for this thread.
Presumption of innocence is needed to protect citizens from made-up administrative or penal charges, because they make a lot of harm to the society in general.
This is not the case when you accept something in the area of your responsibility. E.g. a stranger knocks at your door and asks to keep a bag for some days. You won't trust that person. Same case with LFS: it's other's content, but it's LFS devs who are liable for it. Makes all sense to be strict, rather than permissive.
You killed me with that one! Really good example! Agree.
But what I disagree is this:
I can rip a CUBE model out of LFS, GTA:SA, and model ONE myself. I can scale them all to the same shape and you'll never get an idea which is which.
Same to that I can create my own model, find out that the shape is wrong and fit it's mesh to a GTA:SA car for example. And when I upload it you'll tell me that i ripped it from GTA:SA, while I was just shaped it to another model, assuming that shape is better.
The lesser the polycount the easier for it to match other models.
The only reason I'm jumped into this holy war here is Rubies RX7 which had ABSOLUTELY different mesh. But if he lied about the way he modeled it it should be ok since noone would proof his mesh mach any other. He just used a 3D model as a 3D blueprint.
Added:
Also i want to add that some shapes can not be done in any other way. So two different models of same car from different authors may look the same in some places. Here's an example, that the edge can be orientet THAT way and NOT another.
What if I model my own car with retopology based on an illegal model and upload it to sketchfab with different username, wait for a few weeks so it isn't suspicious and try to use it for LFS?
Since sketchfab models get checked only to see if they are actually ripped from a game and not checked to see if they are retopos based on a ripped model, I can bypass the retopo checking system like this.
Or can I?
Since sketchfab models get checked only to see if they are actually ripped from a game and not checked to see if they are retopos based on a ripped model, I can bypass the retopo checking system like this.
Or can I?
Maybe that would work, but mesh is a mesh
Again you are just trying to find ways to steal models from other developers and bypass our legality checks.
This "retopo checking system" you mention, is an unpaid volunteer who gets that mod that looks like it comes from another game and does a detailed check, and doesn't receive any pay for it. Maybe you imagine some magical system where a computer somehow does this automatically?
You are treating us as if we are a huge company and you pay a monthly subscription, and we have a team of reviewers on a good salary, defending us from all the annoying customers. But that is not how we operate, and it's very sad that some people like to make an "us and them" type of situation.
You know we are a very tiny team, and because of that we have been able to change a single fee for a lifetime subscription? In my mind I'm part of the community. Yes of course I have a special position here but Eric and I gave up guaranteed high pay and corporate lifestyle over 20 years ago, to work on a project at our own pace. It does make me quite sad that some community members treat us, and the reviewers, like the enemy.
We said, something like "here is a new mods system - please make your own creations or work from legitimate sources and don't rip models from other games". It seems a fair request and we expect mod creators to work with us on that, not fight against it. Now there are people who are constantly trying to mess that up and break the trust and friendship. It's at the point now where this is often a major distraction from actual development. I had a nice day out yesterday to go on a bike ride with the family (last week of school holiday). I dreaded opening this thread to catch up.
Many creators have made super mods, either built from scratch or from legitimate sources. They have made cars inspired by one particular car or multiple cars, and worked to make them look good and be fun to drive. It's so great to see this and eventually give them approved status (again, with the help of community ratings). There is so much freedom to make great mods and it is really heartwarming to see that happening as intended. Let's keep working together to do that.
I was just saying that there are quiet a few ways to bypass the system. I do respect everyone on the team and the actions being taken about the situation. I understand the problems illegal models will create as well. I am sorry if I seemed like someone trying to abuse the system, only wanted to point out the other problems that might occur because of retopology and so on. 
I think in some ways the review system is too nice and tells the uploader too much. I mean you pointing out which exact illegal model was used, with a link to those ripped models, and how you spotted the rip... I can mostly compare to Race Department (big multi sim site) on which a reported mod would just be deleted with a short notice that it broke the rules, no detailed explanation, and repeat offenders get a ban really quick. Here the approached person basically is told how not to be spotted in the future, and other readers get links to rip sources.
On the exact issue of retopology, its probably best to ask a media lawyer what the exact laws in UK (or wherever your servers are located) are, as they can vary wildly per nation.
On the exact issue of retopology, its probably best to ask a media lawyer what the exact laws in UK (or wherever your servers are located) are, as they can vary wildly per nation.
Haha that's an interesting thought. We may be making the 'mistake' of being fully transparent and honest.
But there would be something quite sad about changing to an authoritarian regime. We are always honest and transparent, the idea being to stay friends with the community. I notice that this doesn't always work though as this whole mods system seems to have created too much anger and suspicion. It's confusing to me, as this is all about a sim that has one main purpose - to be fun.
Related to this, I did have a thought, that this is really not all about laws and what we can get away with. Yes, it is important not to be in the position where we could get sued by a developer or publisher, but that is actually beside the point.
I personally believe that our users should not be plagiarising models made by other developers, no matter what the exact laws are regarding different styles of reproduction (whether it is straight file conversion, 3D tracing or minor changes to pretend it's not from the original). And we should not be hosting such models. And I say that for straight moral reasons, regardless of specific laws in one country or another. As far as I know, sim developers have always had a good relationship. Certainly we haven't had any bad words with other sim developers. It's a small enough scene that we don't have to step on each other's toes. This is part of that.
I'm not at all saying that, you are not making mistakes, you are not guilty in any way, but people will exploit you being nice anywhere they can.
It's more about having some sort of anchor point, so that people can no longer twist your own words around till they fit their own needs.
I hope this does not sound patronising, it just that I have been in the sim modding scene for like 8 years now and have seen, read and meet a lot of people.
Thank you. It doesn't sound patronising.
So, changing rules and requirements on the fly, without truly propagating the nature of change and the background behind the decision, then banning modders because of the changed criteria...that is soooooo fun for everybody...
Well that didn't happen.
I realise we are in a post-truth society so I guess you can just make up whatever rubbish you want.
I realise we are in a post-truth society so I guess you can just make up whatever rubbish you want.
Controversial, but no surprise.
Example:
2022.09.02
"Also, i dont think that i deserve the ban that i recieved. I didnt fake wip photos, and i really did the retopology. Quad by quad. Ill attach some screenshots from 19.07.2022 (when i started the retopo) as a chance to redeem myself. Please lift my ban."
I am not sure what you are trying to say.
We are not talking about primitive cubes but about models with several thousand polygons. It feels more like a philosophical question to discuss cubes or how maybe two models are similar in certain places. I do not see how this contributes much to the discussion.
It is virtually impossible that by chance two people create the exact same mesh.
Why should lying be ok?
But let's leave morals aside.
Let us assume somebody lies to the forum: "Hey, I modeled this all by myself, from scratch." The mod system works because every forum member can review the quality and legality of a mod.
That means people will ask for some kind of proof, because they can only review something if there is something to review.
If the uploader does not provide anything then nothing can be checked, nobody can vote, and the mod stays forever in review.
It is not the reviewers job to search through hundreds of video games and compare meshes. Sometimes people have done that, to proof a point.
But if the reviewers do that then it means the uploader failed at convincing them.
---
That is actually a good question. What if a game has a viewer-mode like LFS and you take screenshots from all sides? What if you enable wire-mode and trace the mesh from the screnshots?
I have no idea but it might be better to stay away from such grey areas.
My opinion:
You have to somehow convince people that you actually created the model.
A video can work, nowadays it is easy to screencapture so it can never hurt.
WIP screenshots work, if they are the right kind.
You should show something that only the original modeler can show, not something that everybody can fake in a few seconds.
If the screenshots look like you just deleted parts of a ripped model and now you are posting them in reverse order, it will not convince people.
If you post a partly finished mesh in editor but there are no reference-sideview-photos then it might look as if you are just doing a retopo and have hidden the original mesh.
On other hand, look at these WIP pictures:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/1971286
We can follow how the model gets made: from a pencil drawing to a basic 2D-ish outline to a 3D model.
similiar:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/96594-DH-Chorus-Avante---%2794-%2798-Mira---Cuore-Replica-%5BRenamed%5D
The first pictures are a very blocky model (wheel arches are like 5 polygons) and then everything gets progressively smoother.
I don't agree with this, especially when dealing with cars. A car is a mass produced tangible object with a very specific geometry. For example, every single 1995 opel corsa (just as an example) will have exactly the same geometry and dimensions with the exception of panel fitment or potential damages.
This means that when you use the methods of large game studios which is to do a very detailed laser scan process, your mesh don't deviate from the real geometry. Thus it's no longer unique to that game studio. Anyone with access to decent photogrammetry or laser scanning would be able to reproduce a mesh that is indistinguishible from a retopology of the other games laser scanned mesh. Because they share the fact that they are both essentially just measured data from a real mass produced object.
The only unique aspect of such a model is its topology, which is completely disregarded in the retopology process. Think of it like doing a retopology on a raw laser scanned model but with extra (and controversial) steps. So in that sense I think the cube analogy isn't entirely off base.
With that being said, if the devs don't wanna allow this, that's up to them. Because the laser scanning job is unarguably something that costs money to do.
Exactly. Using screenshots of potential orthographic mesh views from games. Or high quality blueprints that are potentially based from ripped models falls under the same legal problems (or moral) as retopoing a model. It's something that might sound silly, but is worth thinking about.
This is problematic in some cases. For example if you have an old, blueprint made model that you're sitting on and want to turn into an LFS mod. This model could lack the "documentation" and you're back to taking someones word for it. In the case of my Civic EG model, I do have some documentation in the form of older blender files, but historically I have not thought about having to prove ownership of my model in the future so wip screenshots and videos are not to be found in this case.
The whole burden of proof thing that has come up here could essentially force you to having to start over and making new models for your LFS mod projects. I feel that this could potentially turn into a problem for my EG project. Of course I hope it's gonna be smooth. But putting 10, 20, 30, 40 hours into something with nothing but hopes that it's gonna go smoothly phrankly isn't good enough.
I think a solution to this could be to get reviewed earlier in the development process. Like as soon as you post the wip thread with whatever information you have about your mesh. Then get the green light to go from there.
Debatable, for example different scan resolution will give a different shape and different topology. Then the laser-scans might have absurd high polygon count that has to be reduced, making the models different etc.
But let's not get sidetracked. What matters in my opinion is that one can not say: "Oh yes, my model looks exactly like this one from that game. They laser-scanned the same vehicle as I did."
When someone has created a laser-scanned model then they can still post pictures of their work progress. eg The setup with the real-world vehicle and scanner hardware, the raw data, pictures of the clean-up process.
Yes, that is a problem and sadly some problems do not have a solution.
In a perfect world it would be possible to just take someone's word for it but we saw how that got abused.
Maybe in the future instead of "I found it on the internet for free" it will be "I found it on my old computer."
There should hopefully be any traces of the creation process. Old file versions, reference pictures, matching orthographic reference pictures included in the file etc. If there is literally nothing then... well, honestly sorry but bad luck.
And we have a very small community of an old loyal LFS fans. Now imagine LFS fanbase will grow to same number as AC or other sims? What yall gonna do then? Review every single mod manually.
I mean all these legal issues must be somehow optimized so everyone: LFS devs, Modders, OtherGameDevs can be ok with that.
The game mod scene was always based on model conversions and some parts are travel from mod to mod. I still see some of my parts made for SLRR back in a days in other games. And I ok with that since it's a digital world and you can't control all of it.
The cubes are an example of the shape limits. After that I showed my model in the lowest quality to show that it can NOT be made in other way that that. In other case it will look wrong and edgy. So, hypothetical, someone can create model with very similar mesh orientation, just because it represents the same car. That is exactly why I asked previously about 100% match by overlay. Because judging by screens may fake you. I saw some mods were wrongfully rejected by this reason even though the mesh wasn't 100% match.
Another example is Watanabe wheels that used on my mod. I made them 100% from scratch but every time I see Watanabes I check them for a mesh and many of them are look very similar, since the wheel polycount has a limit and many of them made the same way with minor differences.
Reviewing a mod is done very quick if modders upload some good WIP pictures or video.
Yes, hypothetical. I have not seen that so far. What I have seen is models 1:1 copied or with slightly edited meshes to hide the fact.
Can you show one such model that is proven original work and almost 100% matches a mesh from another source?
Hmm not really. The scan itself have no impact on the topology. The scan gives a very messy high poly mesh that then has a new topology imposed upon it. The scan data is something which very closely resemble the shape of the real, mass produced vehicle and so two different laser scans can be hard to tell apart. The retopology is technically the only artistic attribute of such a mesh. Thus second retopology could be considered a different interpretation of the original scan data.
Point is it makes the cube analogy somewhat accurate as it is also a shape you can reproduce in an identical manner for two separate parties.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that retopos should be allowed. I simply don't agree that the cube analogy is inaccurate in the case of laser scanned models.
And about the part where we should just suit ourself for not having prepared our 7 year old meshes for proof of ownership in the future. Just make me aware if I'm about to waste my time on modding before I'm done modding is my point. Because the level to which I have to redeem myself is very vague and abstract.
The LFS Modeller is nowhere near as good as eg. Blender, Max etc, there's no way the mods system would function with just that
We have made a decision on the retopology situation.
Full explanation and rule clarification
Decision on Retopology (discussion thread)
Thank you for the input on this thread which I will now close.
Full explanation and rule clarification
Decision on Retopology (discussion thread)
Thank you for the input on this thread which I will now close.
This thread is closed
Retopology of 3rd party models - rules & legal discussion
(73 posts, closed, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG