Question Re-upload issue of modified clothing with license type FC

[bqbq]

Simple Blindfold - Clothing -

Simple Blindfold for general nightwear, BDSM or other use. Requires autoblinking to be disabled. The textures are plain so you can adjust the color to anything you like. Install the var, and remember to disable Auto blink, and any plugins that...

hub.virtamate.com

When using the original outfit, loading a different look caused a hole to appear in the eyes. It's a high-quality piece of clothing, so that was really unfortunate. So I fixed it.
However, with the recent rule changes, I'm hesitant to upload it. That got me wondering—

For example:
If you find a look that is CC BY, you cannot download it, rename it, and then upload it yourself.
If you want to customize a look by another creator, then load that look as a dependency, make your modifications, and upload your version with the original as a dependency.
In cases where content has been re-shared with edits, the moderation team will decide if it satisfies the minimum amount of creativity and quality to be considered "not a duplicate".

the rules mention 'CC BY', but does that also include 'FC'?

 

[atani]

FC is public domain, anyone can do whatever they want. This license is the ultimate gift, the creator gives away all rights.
CC BY is just a stone's throw away, has just one requirement, that you credit (mention) the creator.

With a CC BY look you can do all those things, you just have to mention who is the original creator, Do take a look at the Creative Commons website to learn more, I think you're overcomplicating things.

 

[LubaFoto]

On this conversation, if you want to change cc by nc to cc by, is it automatique just by uploading a new cc by var?

 

[atani]

On this conversation, if you want to change cc by nc to cc by, is it automatique just by uploading a new cc by var?

The resource should show the latest VAR license, even if previous VAR versions were different. The license applies to the version as an individual creative work I think.
Say v6 is CC BY-NC and V7 is CC BY, you could use commercially v7 but not v6.
Maybe @AshAuryn or @DJ can confirm if the above is correct.

 

[bqbq]

As far as I know, CC BY licenses are not an issue as long as the original author is properly credited — according to Creative Commons.
However, the Hub has imposed additional restrictions.

According to the announcement, the purpose is to prevent duplicate assets, which I find to be a fairly reasonable explanation.

I believe FC may also fall under this category.

That’s why I’m asking for clarification — is FC also restricted like CC BY due to this intention, or does FC continue to follow the original terms of Creative Commons without additional limitations?

I agree that this is making things more complicated.
But I also believe it’s right to address any ambiguity in the rules.

FC is public domain, anyone can do whatever they want. This license is the ultimate gift, the creator gives away all rights.
CC BY is just a stone's throw away, has just one requirement, that you credit (mention) the creator.

With a CC BY look you can do all those things, you just have to mention who is the original creator, Do take a look at the Creative Commons website to learn more, I think you're overcomplicating things.

 

[atani]

I understand now what you mean and the passage in the rules and relation with FC:

Similar to how you cannot share CC BY content if it violates our content standards (for example, no violence or gore), you also cannot share or repackage CC content if it creates a duplicate of content already available.

I assume it's this sentence in the new free policies.

According to CC license terms you can repackage, but on VAM content it's been frowned upon doing so as the dependencies system can handle this. Even though not mentioned, it would make sense to also not repackage FC content for the same reason. This may not be always possible or even desireable in some cases, easily discussed with the mod team if such a case comes about.

@AshAuryn @DJ
I would argue that the sentence could be changed to either include FC, as repackaging is the thing you want to prevent, or that the "cannot share or repackage" to not be a prohibition but asking not to repackage.

 

[bqbq]

Do you happen to know what criteria are used to determine whether something is considered a duplicate?
In my case, I usually work on fixing assets that don't function properly — for example, items that appear split into parts in VR, or clothing that doesn't align well with customized looks.

I also edit audio files packaged in asset bundles, either to reduce their file size or to manage random playback more effectively, like creating separate playlists.
I see this more as a matter of quality improvement rather than creativity.
Still, I wish there were some guidelines to help determine that distinction.

@bqbq
you mention "the rules" but not what in the rules is ambiguous or complicated.

FC taken from the forum policies:
FC = Free Content: Can distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon work, even commercially, No credit required.

• What it means: FC content is the most flexible VaM specific license. You can use it however you choose, even packaging it in your own var, and you are not required to give credit to the original author (although credit is always appreciated)

Regarding your questions that were answered but will do it again:

Yes, you can, as long as you credit the creator

Any change is a customization, if you include it in a scene exactly as was shared by the creator it's not a customization. If CC BY you can do any of them, as long as you credit of course.

This is fair I think. If you only change the hair from an uploaded look and upload it as a "reworked/inspired" look resource, that's not enough a change to be acceptable.

 

[atani]

Do you happen to know what criteria are used to determine whether something is considered a duplicate?
In my case, I usually work on fixing assets that don't function properly — for example, items that appear split into parts in VR, or clothing that doesn't align well with customized looks.

I also edit audio files packaged in asset bundles, either to reduce their file size or to manage random playback more effectively, like creating separate playlists.
I see this more as a matter of quality improvement rather than creativity.
Still, I wish there were some guidelines to help determine that distinction.

sorry, I published then I understood better your question, please read my changed post.

 

[atani]

On your new question, I don't know the criteria, I'm not a moderator. I think there's no fixed point and depends on the context and explanation of the changes.

 

[LubaFoto]

The resource should show the latest VAR license, even if previous VAR versions were different. The license applies to the version as an individual creative work I think.
Say v6 is CC BY-NC and V7 is CC BY, you could use commercially v7 but not v6.
Maybe @AshAuryn or @DJ can confirm if the above is correct.

I just put it to the test, yes it update by uploading a new .var licence.