Feedback on proposed Paid content submission procedures.

[Nobis]

Today spend 10 hours just to learn how to avoid any NCs or NDs showing up before making a package.

Do not use any looks/assets/environment etc that has those involved in their creation, that's obvious, what was a surprise tho :

https://www.part.lt/perziura/913131d1c630d94531ff6d9ceba6f3e6739.png

Yup, changing male's stick's size brought ,, eye '' dependencies & etc. ,, An eye for an eye '' just got a new meaning.

 

[FluffyBunny]

What was the answer?

If I understand correctly, there's just a tickbox on the submission form where you state that that you have necessary permissions. Tbh I'm trying to read all this on my phone on a train, might be easier on a larger screen

 

[Shaper]

I plan a collaboration with another Paid content creator. I want to put his model as a dependencie into my scene so people have to download the model from his side.
This will be then marked red in the var health check. So is there a feature where we can communicate that these PC dependencies are allowed if it's a collaboration.

 

[FluffyBunny]

If everything is getting formal, what about a Hub section where creators can license their work?

 

[WolfmanVR]

Instead of uploading the actual VAR into the Health Check, how about we only upload the depend.txt file as a compromise? The depend file tells the HUB exactly what is needed for the VAR to work. Yes, someone could hack the depend file, but someone could also package very early (before adding PC/NC content) or hack the VAR file to remove PC content references. Where there is a will, there is a way. I'm sure numerous creators, like me, are concerned about being mandated to submit their VAR files into the HUB. Once we hit submit, we have no idea what happens to that file. While the stated rule is "we won't save it" today, that could easily change in the future...

 

[VAMIC]

I've been thinking about this for a bit and while it seems like a good idea to centralize metadata to all resources on the Hub, it would probably be better in the long run to just cease hosting paid content on here altogether and come up with a revenue sharing plan for all creators.

 

[SlimerJSpud]

I've been thinking about this for a bit and while it seems like a good idea to centralize metadata to all resources on the Hub, it would probably be better in the long run to just cease hosting paid content on here altogether and come up with a revenue sharing plan for all creators.

Paid content is not hosted here on the hub, only the advertisements. The proposed changes are mostly to ensure that paid products hosted elsewhere but advertised here follow hub policy for licensing.

 

[AshAuryn]

My understanding is...

1. Permission is given by the CC BY license. Not implied, but explicitly given in the license terms.

2. Yes I agree. In the case of CC BY content, you have permission to redistribute the content based on the license itself. "I have received permission from the original creator" includes receiving the permission through the license itself. That's why someone chooses CC BY in the first place - to give everyone the permissions defined in the license.

3. This was discussed above. I had the same concerns but as mentioned on this post by VaMDeV, "We do not expect every iteration of someone's WIP scene file, plugin, look or whatever to have to be uploaded to the hub for us to have a record of." However the exact details of the rule seem to be a work in progress.

@WolfmanVR Everlaster answered this perfectly. Thanks @everlaster !

 

[AshAuryn]

Instead of uploading the actual VAR into the Health Check, how about we only upload the depend.txt file as a compromise? The depend file tells the HUB exactly what is needed for the VAR to work. Yes, someone could hack the depend file, but someone could also package very early (before adding PC/NC content) or hack the VAR file to remove PC content references. Where there is a will, there is a way. I'm sure numerous creators, like me, are concerned about being mandated to submit their VAR files into the HUB. Once we hit submit, we have no idea what happens to that file. While the stated rule is "we won't save it" today, that could easily change in the future...

The var will be required. As for the trust, there are legal protections for what you're talking about. We never could, nor would, risk legal complications by mishandling your intellectual property. Not even the moderators or admins have access to the file. It is deleted before the form is ever submitted. The process is identical to attaching a file to the form and then clicking the "delete" icon. It is wiped from our server like it was never there.

A web developer or someone handy with ajax can confirm this for you in the ajax POST request from the network tab in your browser inspector. Ultimately though, again, the Hub offers free advertising to all of our creators as a thank you and a courtesy. We feel that what we are asking here is at most a minor inconvenience, and can help new and inexperienced creators not to violate licenses or misuse your content.

If someone is suspected of attempting to circumvent the system, then a quick check of their actual file on their Patreon in comparison to what they submitted on the Hub will tell the tale. It will be much easier to make decisions about whether to allow that person to continue at the Hub. Everyone who has been here a long time, who is a known creator, such as yourself, has nothing to worry about. If you're here asking questions, you're probably not the kind of user the form is designed for. In other words, we won't be looking at you Wolfman. Carry on.

 

[AshAuryn]

If I understand correctly, there's just a tickbox on the submission form where you state that that you have necessary permissions. Tbh I'm trying to read all this on my phone on a train, might be easier on a larger screen

Here are some screenshots from the beta in a development environment which may help to clarify some things. This is the paid resource form. "Permission" in this context means either the licenses you are using give explicit consent (such as FC or CC BY) or the creator has given you explicit permission.

Simple checkboxes just to let us know you have permission. The creators here will be able to see that they were used in this resource. If all goes well, in a future update those creators will receive a notification and be able to respond if needed. This means less policing by the moderation team, and less hassle for collaborators.

If your paid content is not a .var, there are only two acknowledgements to check and no file uploads are required:

We are pretty close to production, but we still value any feedback you guys have.

 

[AshAuryn]

I've been thinking about this for a bit and while it seems like a good idea to centralize metadata to all resources on the Hub, it would probably be better in the long run to just cease hosting paid content on here altogether and come up with a revenue sharing plan for all creators.

One of the reasons we will not be hosting paid content now or in the future is due to liability. The Hub is not willing to be responsible for hosting commercial content due to the risks. Better to let the experts, such as Patreon, deal with the money side of things. You can rest assured we have no desire to host or retain (even briefly) your paid content. That is why it is immediately removed from its temporary location after the scan, and never makes it to our repository. Even if your browser crashes or you close the window during the process, the files are deleted.

 

[WolfmanVR]

The var will be required. As for the trust, there are legal protections for what you're talking about. We never could, nor would, risk legal complications by mishandling your intellectual property. Not even the moderators or admins have access to the file. It is deleted before the form is ever submitted. The process is identical to attaching a file to the form and then clicking the "delete" icon. It is wiped from our server like it was never there.

A web developer or someone handy with ajax can confirm this for you in the ajax POST request from the network tab in your browser inspector. Ultimately though, again, the Hub offers free advertising to all of our creators as a thank you and a courtesy. We feel that what we are asking here is at most a minor inconvenience, and can help new and inexperienced creators not to violate licenses or misuse your content.

If someone is suspected of attempting to circumvent the system, then a quick check of their actual file on their Patreon in comparison to what they submitted on the Hub will tell the tale. It will be much easier to make decisions about whether to allow that person to continue at the Hub. Everyone who has been here a long time, who is a known creator, such as yourself, has nothing to worry about. If you're here asking questions, you're probably not the kind of user the form is designed for. In other words, we won't be looking at you Wolfman. Carry on.

Thanks, I appreciate the detailed response!

 

[VAMIC]

One of the reasons we will not be hosting paid content now or in the future is due to liability. The Hub is not willing to be responsible for hosting commercial content due to the risks. Better to let the experts, such as Patreon, deal with the money side of things. You can rest assured we have no desire to host or retain (even briefly) your paid content. That is why it is immediately removed from its temporary location after the scan, and never makes it to our repository. Even if your browser crashes or you close the window during the process, the files are deleted.

Yes, this is a good strategy under the current model which is why I'm advocating for eliminating commercial content altogether. In the scenario I propose, creators could have a Patreon where they would attract patrons who support their work, but downloads of content that would work in VAM would need to be authenticated as Hub hosted only. Key to this however would be a Spotify like model where creators could get a monthly share of all VAM profits based on number of downloads or some other metric. This would also necessitate heavier moderation to ensure the policies are being followed and probably a price increase or a licensing system for VAM like Adobe and other nightmares. In my view, because of the type of content uploaded, this model would turn off many current users and creators, but if the revenue sharing was fair (unlike most digital enterprises) it would offset those feelings sufficiently. Patreon was never meant to be a hosting service, but a place for patronage to support artists. Now it's essentially just a file sharing site where you subscribe to creators. The trade off to these likely unpopular ideas is more free content on the Hub, easier referencing and reutilization of resources and thus more creators creating and users using the app.

It's probably not prudent now to implement such a model because the active user base is manageable and the overall PCVR audience in the world is still pretty small, but some variation of this strategy is likely the only way possible in a future where VAM becomes what I think it can be, i.e. the God Engine for immersive media.

 

[Twerk vr]

Here a capture of the plugin DependencyViewer who analysis one of my scene. Who lead me 4 questions which correspond to the 4 dots noted on the screenshot.

Question 1) I have an agreement per message from AdamAnt to use his Lipsync plugin.

According to @AshAuryn 's message:
Simple checkboxes just to let us know you have permission. The creators here will be able to see that they were used in this resource. If all goes well, in a future update those creators will receive a notification and be able to respond if needed. This means less policing by the moderation team, and less hassle for collaborators.

Does this mean that @AdamAnt will receive a notification every time I update a content where it is in?
Or only when I upload new content? Just to make sure I will don't harass him with notifications

Question 2)Even if I absolutely have to remove Logic Bricks because it causes problems for VR users, the case of the PC EA interests me: PC EA is displayed in red but you can see that after the date of early access it becomes CC. So it won't be picked up by the "Health check"?

Question 3) So the case of CC content that contains NC, I still haven't understood. Here it's the Agasi Look that I'm using. He had used an NC skin from the talented @everlaster But even when I take off the skin of everlast because I want to do commercial. So now I am not being able to use the Agassi CC look for paid scene anymore? While it is labeled CC? I'm just asking the question of what to do in my case.

Question 4) So here there are two dependancies CC that i downloaded on the HUB but they are not in the hub anymore. (I don't know the reason they are not on the hub) But on my VAM I see they are CC. I don't think in the case of LUTs it's for NC dependencies reasons. What I have to do in that case?

My thougts about this paid content submission procedures:
I understand the value of more strict control, but I have to admit that it is not easy to understand all the cases. I still don't understand everything even though I've had VAM for 4 years so imagine the newbies.. But I'm here to understand. I naively thought that it would be enough to remove all dependencies other than CC in my Addons Packages to create properly, but it's unfortunately not that simple!
And what is sad it's that it may intimidates a lot of people to share their creations, for free or for a fee, because you have to respect complex rules (not complex in themselves but complex to set up in a scene). I think we have to be careful not to be rude with those who don't respect but rather educational. Because 90% of the people who don't respect licenses are people who haven't understood the complexity of possible links to dependencies, and violate licenses unintentionally, rather than people who have intended to steal content. Nevertheless, I think the rules are good. I think that what is missing is some tools or advices to make it easier for creators.

My suggestions to make it easier for creators to follow the rules:

=> I think that what would missing is an official guide, or even a complete training that we submit to all creators. Maybe there are ones, but if they do exists, you have to make deep reseaches to find them, and you cannot be sure that is still relevant. I'm talking about something that would be an official Guide for creator, something that it is physically not possible to miss if you share content.

=> The best of the best would be to have a program or a plugin, in which we put our .VAR and which by itself removes all dependencies with no appropriate licences. Then the plugins would make us a report of all the dependencies to no longer use and then we would just have to remove them from our addons packages and fix the scene if it caused noticeable changes! This way you don't even have to understand the all deeply, you click and it's compliant!


Little licences question :
It's about SA and ND:
If I share a Paid scene with a ND look or plugin and stay them unchanged: Is that ok?
If I share a Paid scene with a SA plugin : Is that ok?

 

[AshAuryn]

In response to user feedback, we will be modifying the checkbox that insists you upload a new copy of your .var anytime you make any changes. The new wording is here:

The .var file I am attaching to this form is identical to the version offered on my pay site. If I modify the file(s) by adding dependencies or third-party content, I will update my resource on the Hub and attach the new file to the update form. I further understand that as per Hub policies, I can only add or update 3 paid resources per week.

 

[AshAuryn]

Question 1) I have an agreement per message from AdamAnt to use his Lipsync plugin.

Does this mean that @AdamAnt will receive a notification every time I update a content where it is in?
Or only when I upload new content? Just to make sure I will don't harass him with notifications

The notification system has not been implemented yet. Once development begins I will have more answers. But I can tell you that after the user feedback we received regarding the dependency notifications, we will make the new Health Check notifications as non-intrusive as possible. Most likely, rather than a notification it will be a "reports" tab that the creator can choose to check at their leisure. If this is successful, we may retroactively modify the dependency notifications to this type of format.

Question 2)Even if I absolutely have to remove Logic Bricks because it causes problems for VR users, the case of the PC EA interests me: PC EA is displayed in red but you can see that after the date of early access it becomes CC. So it won't be picked up by the "Health check"?
View attachment 325278

The Hub systems automatically convert PC EA to the correct license. If the Health Check tells you that an item is PC EA, it is because the Early Access period has not ended, and therefore you cannot use it without permission.

Question 3) So the case of CC content that contains NC, I still haven't understood. Here it's the Agasi Look that I'm using. He had used an NC skin from the talented @everlaster But even when I take off the skin of everlast because I want to do commercial. So now I am not being able to use the Agassi CC look for paid scene anymore? While it is labeled CC? I'm just asking the question of what to do in my case.
View attachment 325270

We will be releasing a guide to explain this, but I will try to do it without pictures here.

There are two types of dependencies. "Direct", or "First Tier" dependencies, which are in your scene and are required for your scene to function. Then there are "Sub-dependencies", or "dependencies of your dependencies". These are not required for your scene to function, but may be required by some of the dependencies you have used.

VaM, which we refer to as "in-game", will download both "Direct" and "Sub" dependencies when you scan for missing packages (this is a common complaint among users). The reasoning behind this choice originally was to make sure that no package added to your "addon packages" folder would cause errors when a scene is loaded. If you load a scene that is missing sub-dependencies, VaM will warn you that those are missing and that there is a possibility that one of your "Direct" dependencies might not function without its "sub-dependency".

Or, in simpler terms, there are dependencies that make your scene work, and there are dependencies that are just there to make your dependencies work.

When we run a Health Check scan, issue warnings, remove content, or generally act as moderators -- we are only concerned with your "Direct" dependencies. These are the dependencies that are definitely being used and are essential to make your scene/preset/subscene function. The scan will only report on "Tier 1" dependencies.

In contrast, the "Dependencies" tab on the Hub will display both Tier 1 and Tier 2, 3 etc. With the coming update to the Hub, the "Dependencies" tab will now separate the displayed dependencies into "Direct" and "Sub" to help with understanding.

Question 4) So here there are two dependancies CC that i downloaded on the HUB but they are not in the hub anymore. (I don't know the reason they are not on the hub) But on my VAM I see they are CC. I don't think in the case of LUTs it's for NC dependencies reasons. What I have to do in that case?
View attachment 325275

Unless the content has been permanently removed due to a legal dispute, the record of the license still exists. The Health Check will still be able to fetch the proper license for that content if it was ever on the Hub. For content that is not on the Hub, we rely on the scan results of your file, or our own investigation, to determine the license. If the Health Check report gives you a clean report, then we would only investigate if it seemed there was deception involved.

It is also important to understand that licenses cannot be made more strict after they are issued. If a license is already "CC BY", the creator cannot then change it to "CC BY-NC".

=> I think that what would missing is an official guide, or even a complete training that we submit to all creators. Maybe there are ones, but if they do exists, you have to make deep reseaches to find them, and you cannot be sure that is still relevant. I'm talking about something that would be an official Guide for creator, something that it is physically not possible to miss if you share content.[/SIZE]

This is something that is planned for development.

=> The best of the best would be to have a program or a plugin, in which we put our .VAR and which by itself removes all dependencies with no appropriate licences. Then the plugins would make us a report of all the dependencies to no longer use and then we would just have to remove them from our addons packages and fix the scene if it caused noticeable changes! This way you don't even have to understand the all deeply, you click and it's compliant!

We will take this into consideration, although because of the complexity of licensing and packaging, I'm not sure how feasible this will be.

If I share a Paid scene with a ND look or plugin and stay them unchanged: Is that ok?

By definition, if it is unchanged then it can be shared.

If I share a Paid scene with a SA plugin : Is that ok?

We do not currently actively enforce CC BY-SA unless we have a complaint or a report from the creator. This is not because of any disrespect to the creator, but because the issue has been left unattended for so long that enforcing it now would be extremely complicated and likely cause upset for many users.

 

[FluffyBunny]

Instead of uploading the actual VAR into the Health Check, how about we only upload the depend.txt file as a compromise? The depend file tells the HUB exactly what is needed for the VAR to work. Yes, someone could hack the depend file, but someone could also package very early (before adding PC/NC content) or hack the VAR file to remove PC content references. Where there is a will, there is a way. I'm sure numerous creators, like me, are concerned about being mandated to submit their VAR files into the HUB. Once we hit submit, we have no idea what happens to that file. While the stated rule is "we won't save it" today, that could easily

Here are some screenshots from the beta in a development environment which may help to clarify some things. This is the paid resource form. "Permission" in this context means either the licenses you are using give explicit consent (such as FC or CC BY) or the creator has given you explicit permission.

View attachment 324969


Simple checkboxes just to let us know you have permission. The creators here will be able to see that they were used in this resource. If all goes well, in a future update those creators will receive a notification and be able to respond if needed. This means less policing by the moderation team, and less hassle for collaborators.

View attachment 324970


If your paid content is not a .var, there are only two acknowledgements to check and no file uploads are required:

View attachment 324971

We are pretty close to production, but we still value any feedback you guys have.

Thank you for clarifying!

 

[AshAuryn]

The feature is now live on the Hub.

 

[everlaster]

If I share a Paid scene with a SA plugin : Is that ok?

We do not currently actively enforce CC BY-SA unless we have a complaint or a report from the creator. This is not because of any disrespect to the creator, but because the issue has been left unattended for so long that enforcing it now would be extremely complicated and likely cause upset for many users.

Why wouldn't it be ok though?

 

[AshAuryn]

So, we're live. A few bugs I've noticed right off the bat, which we will fix in the coming day.

1. Auto-generated credits are including sub-dependencies when they shouldn't. EDIT: not a bug / not repeatable
2. The dependencies tab for paid resources isn't showing download links, and instead says "not on hub". EDIT: Gets corrected every hour, will be fixed in next update
3. The dependencies tab isn't converting PC EA licenses to the current license properly.

 

[Twerk vr]

Why wouldn't it be ok though?

It could have been possible to share this only with scene with the same licence. The SharedAlike restrictions are not clear to me.

 

[Twerk vr]

It could have been possible to share this only with scene with the same licence. The SharedAlike restrictions was not really clear to me.

 

[everlaster]

It could have been possible to share this only with scene with the same licence. The SharedAlike restrictions are not clear to me.

Official - VAR Licenses

There has been quite a lot of confusion and repeated violation of source licenses in (mostly paid) resources posted here on the Hub. Most resources posted on the Hub are using the CC (Creative Commons) licensing scheme. Here are some of the CC descriptors and their definitions: BY - must give...

hub.virtamate.com

Referencing a SA package (using as a dependency) does not require you to use the same license. It's only when you modify the SA licensed var that it matters

 

[AshAuryn]

Bugs that will be fixed in next update:

1. Attempting to post an update without a version change for a paid resource is giving the "Please complete all required fields" notification and not allowing the form to be completed (fix completed)
2. Dependency tab initially shows "Not on hub" but gets corrected every hour. (fix completed)
3. Credits table displaying improper formatting on some resources (Not a bug)
4. Some Patreon links might be showing up as "not a valid URL" (fix completed)

Tweaks for the next update:

1. Dependency Usage tab should not show if there are "0" results (fix completed)
2. If a creator references their own package in their dependencies, this should not be in the credits or pop up as a warning in the health check (unresolved)
3. "PC" license will no longer be auto-converted to "NC ND" on the Hub. As a result, "PC" licensed work will not be permitted to be uploaded to the "free" category without the creator properly changing the license. (fix completed)

 

[AshAuryn]

Official - VAR Licenses

There has been quite a lot of confusion and repeated violation of source licenses in (mostly paid) resources posted here on the Hub. Most resources posted on the Hub are using the CC (Creative Commons) licensing scheme. Here are some of the CC descriptors and their definitions: BY - must give...

hub.virtamate.com

Referencing a SA package (using as a dependency) does not require you to use the same license. It's only when you modify the SA licensed var that it matters

That is the stance we are taking as well.