Answered Clarification of new policy rules?

PositiveResult

Well-known member
Featured Contributor
Messages
37
Reactions
846
Points
83
Patreon
PositiveResult
In the new piracy policy, there's one part that i want to understand better.

" Posting media in the media section that is an advertisement for paid content is prohibited. "

What counts as an advertisement? With some of my previous resources i had posted screenshots of the resources with the resource link, is this okay to do?
 
Can we use this thread for other clarifications of the new policy? The issue I see is that "Questionable" applies to a lot of older assets from well known contributors like @Molmark and perhaps others. Example below. Does this mean everybody who used those assets in PC is going to get clobbered? Should these assets get converted to a specific CC license, so this otherwise free content can be used? Why are they listed as Questionable in the first place? Just a confused soul scratching his head here.

 
Upvote 0
Can we use this thread for other clarifications of the new policy? The issue I see is that "Questionable" applies to a lot of older assets from well known contributors like @Molmark and perhaps others. Example below. Does this mean everybody who used those assets in PC is going to get clobbered? Should these assets get converted to a specific CC license, so this otherwise free content can be used? Why are they listed as Questionable in the first place? Just a confused soul scratching his head here.


If the license shows as "questionable" it means that whoever put the package together either had no idea what the license on that particular asset was, or knew that it was copyrighted. Vam doesn't have a "pirated" license. I know there are unofficial channels where copyrighted material is shared, and this is the license attached so users know not to use these assets on the hub.

You can't convert the license to some other cc license unless you know exactly where the asset originally came from and that the creator attached a cc license to it. Nobody but the original creator gets to give something a license.

And yes, anybody repacking or redistributing "questionable" assets (either paid or not) are violating copyright. Time to clean up your content!
 
Upvote 0
If it is paid content, then no. If it is free content, then yes.
To be clear i have no issue with the rule, it's a good thing not to have the media section full of low effort advertisements but does this mean you cant upload artwork including any paid items at all or just if it's intended as a advertisement?
 
Upvote 0
To be clear i have no issue with the rule, it's a good thing not to have the media section full of low effort advertisements but does this mean you cant upload artwork including any paid items at all or just if it's intended as a advertisement?
You an post artwork from paid content. Just not as a advertisement.
 
Upvote 0
If the license shows as "questionable" it means that whoever put the package together either had no idea what the license on that particular asset was, or knew that it was copyrighted. Vam doesn't have a "pirated" license. I know there are unofficial channels where copyrighted material is shared, and this is the license attached so users know not to use these assets on the hub.

You can't convert the license to some other cc license unless you know exactly where the asset originally came from and that the creator attached a cc license to it. Nobody but the original creator gets to give something a license.

And yes, anybody repacking or redistributing "questionable" assets (either paid or not) are violating copyright. Time to clean up your content!
I was asking about @Molmark 's asset, not something I or somebody else created that uses it. He created the Facecum asset, AFAIK. It has no dependencies of its own. I was asking why an original asset he created has the questionable flag on it. That asset has 30,000 downloads. It's hub hosted.
 
Upvote 0
I was asking about @Molmark 's asset, not something I or somebody else created that uses it. He created the Facecum asset, AFAIK. It has no dependencies of its own. I was asking why an original asset he created has the questionable flag on it. That asset has 30,000 downloads. It's hub hosted.
Hi! All my paid assets have "Questionable" licence, because I often get requests to use them in scenes from other authors and mostly agree. So tag "PC" would create more problems for dependencies (that's what I thought before).
But this raises even more questions, so I will use the PC license in the future.
And you can use all my content posted on the hub with free download as you like. Just give me a credits if you wish.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Hi! All my paid assets have "Questionable" licence, because I often get requests to use them in scenes from other authors and mostly agree. So tag "PC" would create more problems for dependencies (that's what I thought before).
But this raises even more questions, so I will use the PC license in the future.
And you can use all my content posted on the hub with free download as you like. Just give me a credits if you wish.
@Molmark Saying that we can use them free if they are on the hub does not resolve the license issue. The issue is with your back catalog of assets, not any new assets you create in the future. If you want people to be able to use them, with credit to you, then CC-BY or CC-BY-NC is the way to go. What we are asking is for you to change the license on your own assets so they can be used within the new policy that will not allow Questionable items to be used. Thanks for the assets, and thanks for commenting.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top Bottom