to the patreon complaints

[pseudosane]

do it yourself. simple as that. but you cant can you? most with a patreon page have a good reason (it takes hours and hours) to make something competent.(please keep posting how it has to stop)

it wont. to those who want to learn, id be glad to help you.  and i wont do it through patreon. knowledge should be free. i myself am learning, but i know blender. 

[spoonsinger]

Was their a legitimate argument against fund raising to provide a service or product? I probably missed it, and arn't 'down with the kids'(*)

 

(*) I suspect that's probably a phrase which hasn't aged well.

[pseudosane]

i aged with the phrase then. cuz i get it. 

[Neptunian Sea]

13 hours ago, pseudosane said:

do it yourself. simple as that. but you cant can you? most with a patreon page have a good reason (it takes hours and hours) to make something competent.(please keep posting how it has to stop)

it wont. to those who want to learn, id be glad to help you.  and i wont do it through patreon. knowledge should be free. i myself am learning, but i know blender. 

 

That's not why people are getting upset. People are upset because these people are using this site as their marketing place, when the site is supposed to be a place to share free mods/animations/sims with The Sims community. A person will have 10 sims on Patreon but in order to not be removed from this site will post one sim for download while advertising those other 10 sims (often these sims will have CC not owned by the creator + you're technically not supposed to monetize these things because of EA's policy) on their Patreon. If these Patreon marketers want people to stop complaining, then use this site as a place to freely share your creations because in my honest and blunt opinion, these Patreon creators should not be getting paid for something as simple as downloading tons of CC and creating sims. Anyone can do that for free and they do. What is so great and unique about your sims that I have to pay $12 a month for them when I can get them for free/make them myself?

[Simsy McSimsface]

I agree with you in general, however:

10 hours ago, Neptunian Sea said:

you're technically not supposed to monetize these things because of EA's policy

I think this part is not technically true, as EA's TOS can only apply to relevant EA services (at the moment, that would be the official Sims forums and the Gallery).

Furthermore, EA has no jurisdiction over LoversLab or other 3rd party sites. And if the past 20 years taught us something, it's that while EA might officially communicate somethings like this, but the fact is that privately they do have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with people modding the Sims series (even for money) - and it would be insane if they'd do - as they're actually indirectly benefiting from it though increased sales and an extended product lifecycle.

[Neodarkside]

19 hours ago, Spam Police said:

I agree with you in general, however:

I think this part is not technically true, as EA's TOS can only apply to relevant EA services (at the moment, that would be the official Sims forums and the Gallery).

Furthermore, EA has no jurisdiction over LoversLab or other 3rd party sites. And if the past 20 years taught us something, it's that while EA might officially communicate somethings like this, but the fact is that privately they do have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with people modding the Sims series (even for money) - and it would be insane if they'd do - as they're actually indirectly benefiting from it though increased sales and an extended product lifecycle.

 

They rarely enforce it but I do believe they can strike down sites that are using a Pay model for their content. I believe TSR was one that they took action against. Memory is hazy that far back but I thought I read that EA forced TSR to drop their premium service, where certain content creators would be locked behind a pay service wall. EA is turning a blind eye at the whole thing probably because there is so much of it out there, but they could strike Loverslabs with a DMCA about all the Patreon links if they wanted to. Their TOS does say you cannot make money off their property and anything made in SIms 4 is their property.

 

On 6/9/2021 at 4:36 AM, pseudosane said:

do it yourself. simple as that. but you cant can you? most with a patreon page have a good reason (it takes hours and hours) to make something competent.(please keep posting how it has to stop)

it wont. to those who want to learn, id be glad to help you.  and i wont do it through patreon. knowledge should be free. i myself am learning, but i know blender. 

 

For people like me, I have little problem with the ones who make their own content and put it on Patreon, I'm more than happy to subscribe for animations or personal created clothing. Sims however isn't my thing, I prefer my own and most others idea of a nice looking Sim differs from mine. What I AM against is the Simmers who put Sims behind Patreon using other peoples content, which is probably 90% of the ones who use LL as their advertisement board. That is what I am annoyed with. I'm glad the update spam stopped, but still upset that many of them continue to post updates about their latest Sim they made using other creators works and making money off it. To me thats entirely wrong.

[Khlas]

A lot of people seems to misunderstand or interpret the EA TOS.
 

First, every company is going to have an EA similar TOS with statements that they own their products and all. Well, it’s called logic.

 

however, this TOS is not going to erase any laws. There are laws protecting some contents such as animations under the art and intellectual properties, also if you take something and you change it from A to Z, it can’t be EA property anymore according to some jurisprudence, at least in my country. 
 

if you take animations as example, they can be played using unity or blender, even others games. You don’t need the game to play them, they do not belong to EA in any way. You could argue the rigs used is made by EA but it’s not true, the rig itself can be used for any others models than the EA models, and EA does not use that rig anyway since they use Maya.

 

for CC content, it’s a bit more tricky. You have to prove that 1) you make art, OR 2) the assets you use are modified from A to Z. For 3D model, well if you made them from scratch, it also belongs to you and it’s not EA properties. You can take the mesh out of the game and use jt somewhere else.
 

those does not belongs to EA at all despite being maybe mentioned by their TOS. They can’t say « you can add your content on our game » then claims people works and art just because it’s their property (even if it’s not anyway), it’s not how things works. The company use this statement to protect their products but it’s limited by the laws.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Khlas

[Guest]

@Neodarkside EA is caring about their own meshes. If a CC creator creates a CC from scratch mesh (Creator's own mesh), they don't do anything to it. EA is also okay with Patreon, as long as it is 2-3 weeks early access (if creator uses their mesh) (see the simguru drake's forum comment here). They can't obligate you about releasing it in a limited period if it's creator's own mesh. Also, you can see another conversation between a CC Creator and Simguru Drake below:

 

 

And about The Sim Resource.. They have VIP membership since forever. And they also added "early access to VIP members" a few months ago. Simsdom also have a membership version like TSR one. If they are going to "DMCA STRIKE" to loverslab, then, they should start from TSR and SIMSDOM and such sites first.

 

2 hours ago, Neodarkside said:

Their TOS does say you cannot make money off their property and anything made in SIms 4 is their property.

 

Somewhat incorrect. As they clearly stated, if the creator made their own mesh, they don't do anything if it's not causing problem to their game's name.

 

Just sharing what i know.

Edited June 11, 2021 by pretty prince

[Khlas]

16 minutes ago, pretty prince said:

@Neodarkside EA is caring about their own meshes. If a CC creator creates a CC from scratch mesh (Creator's own mesh), they don't do anything to it. EA is also okay with Patreon, as long as it is 2-3 weeks early access (see the simguru drake's forum comment here). Also, you can see another conversation between a CC Creator and Simguru Drake below:

 

 

And about The Sim Resource.. They have VIP membership since forever. And they also added "early access to VIP members" a few months ago. Simsdom also have a membership version like TSR one. If they are going to "DMCA STRIKE" to loverslab, then, they should start from TSR and SIMSDOM and such sites first.

 

 

Somewhat incorrect. As they clearly stated, if the creator made their own mesh, they don't do anything if it's not causing problem to their game's name.

 

Just sharing what i know.

this is true. Also to add to the last statement, wickedwhims had to change his name (was wicked woohoo before) for this reason. It could cause issue for the game because the term woohoo seems to be part of a trademark and thus is intellectual property of EA.
 

Since it changes the name, even if it seems to have some collab with Maxis or whatever (could be wrong, but I know that the mod is known by the company), I think the mod belong to turbo driver since it’s a bunch of codes and scripts. Even if it has to be played with the game, the code has been made from scratch.

 

however, about the 2 to 3 weeks free release, I think they really can’t do anything about it if ever it happens. It’s probably just a community rule but it’s rarely applied by creators. 
 

anyway, you can’t states that you are ok with people creating contents for your game and then claim it because you want to. It just doesn’t work like this.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Khlas

[Neodarkside]

1 hour ago, pretty prince said:

@Neodarkside EA is caring about their own meshes. If a CC creator creates a CC from scratch mesh (Creator's own mesh), they don't do anything to it.

 

And about The Sim Resource.. They have VIP membership since forever. And they also added "early access to VIP members" a few months ago. Simsdom also have a membership version like TSR one. If they are going to "DMCA STRIKE" to loverslab, then, they should start from TSR and SIMSDOM and such sites first.

 

 

This was back in Sims 2 days, I could have sworn EA cracked down on TSR for having more of a Payment type where things were being locked behind a Paywall. About this time the ads got even worse because they couldn't rely on the payments anymore. Maybe it was another reason altogether or maybe not at all, again 10+ years ago my memory is hazy, I just remember reading about EA taking action for awhile.

 

Again, if its a user making their own content, I'm perfectly fine with them, free or patreon exclusive. If its good I'd even consider paying for a month or 2 at a time. Its the ones who take other peoples work to make their Sim and then paywall it is where I draw the line. I've seen many of them put "DO NOT UPLOAD TO PATREON" on their page and I've still seen many here that were originally on Patreon and now free downloadable.

[Jotunn25]

My opinion on that:

- It is absolutely fine if a talented creator takes money for his/her work.

- It is not ok to use the work of others to make money with (like for example free CC on paywalled sims).

 

I support some creators with my money, because I like the stuff they are doing.

If this encourages other talented creators to do stuff for Sims, that's perfect.

[2cool4u_1]

@Khlas What EA says is that anything made with the game is their property. You are right that animations / poses are completely the property of the creators and EA has no claim. You are also right that CC is more tricky because it depends on how much of it is EA's original piece, and how much is the creator's work in modifying it. That is up for interpretation, unless the creator made it from scratch, then it is definitively the creator's property. HOWEVER, pertaining to this thread regarding patreon links, sims are made using the game, and therefore, EA can lay claim to them. Anyone charging money for sims, lots, save files, or anything else made directly from the game, is in fact breaking the TOU and subjecting themselves to a potential lawsuit. Will EA care enough to spend thousands on a lawsuit for a couple hundred dollars? I doubt it, but they could if they wanted to.

[fish75]

I do not have an issue with people having a patreon.  However, my issue is the posts that are nothing more than an advertisement for said patreon.  If something is left as a patreon exclusive for a period of time but later released for free I have no issue with it. There are several people I support on Patreon because I like what they do and how they operate there patreon such as Little Doxy, I mention that one simply because I do support them. My issue with it is simply the posts that are nothing more than advertisements. Fortunately it would appear that something is being done about that, I simply cannot stand the posts that are nothing more than advertisements.  

[laurapalyna]

On 6/11/2021 at 7:27 AM, Khlas said:

Since it changes the name, even if it seems to have some collab with Maxis or whatever (could be wrong, but I know that the mod is known by the company), I think the mod belong to turbo driver since it’s a bunch of codes and scripts. Even if it has to be played with the game, the code has been made from scratch.

 

Lol no. I like Turbo and other modders but all mods rely on game code and without those scripts calls to EA created functions, whatever lines they added would be useless. Moreover, EA doesn't own non EA textures, animations or meshes but the moment they are made into packages and thus incorporate bits of EA's code (this is usually done in the background by SIms 4 Studio when creating the package), they are at least legally entitled to issue a cease and desist at the minimum if they so chose and could sue for copyright infringement for use of their IP. EA doesn't think it's worth it, CC and mods creators add more value to the game after all. But the fact that EA doesn't crack down should not be misconstrued as approval. People make base game compatible versions of DLC content all the time and EA doesn't do anything about that. I think we can all agree that EA most definitely doesn't condone the practice however.

[Khlas]

2 hours ago, laurapalyna said:

 

Lol no. I like Turbo and other modders but all mods rely on game code and without those scripts calls to EA created functions, whatever lines they added would be useless. Moreover, EA doesn't own non EA textures, animations or meshes but the moment they are made into packages and thus incorporate bits of EA's code (this is usually done in the background by SIms 4 Studio when creating the package), they are at least legally entitled to issue a cease and desist at the minimum if they so chose and could sue for copyright infringement for use of their IP. EA doesn't think it's worth it, CC and mods creators add more value to the game after all. But the fact that EA doesn't crack down should not be misconstrued as approval. People make base game compatible versions of DLC content all the time and EA doesn't do anything about that. I think we can all agree that EA most definitely doesn't condone the practice however.

they can’t because they are allowing users to modify their games using custom contents created. You can’t allow something then claims « oh no don’t do that it’s wrong ». They can only claims if it uses trademark or things like that. They condone the practice it’s writing in the same TOS. Please read it.
 

And again, making as a package will not magically make the things you create the property of EA, then you can do this with pretty much every mesh created from scratch, even things from others games that are not even from you, this will not make them EA properties at all.

 

using the juriprudenxe and laws :

 

1) .package does not modify your creation adding assets to make them property of EA. It just make it so it’s usable by the game.

 

2) You create the .package yourself using a program that is not even made by EA. 

3) you can detach the art from the package, so it’s not tied to the package itself but intangible property that is movable from the .package. Thus make the art a thing by itself. The .package is just the key to play it in game but again, you can use the art for others games, it does not need the sims to use them.

 

Also every lines of codes are useless without something to be tied to, but the codes itself is a creation. Even if you have to use something to make it works, you can’t use the codes and claims it as your own. However I’m not really familiar with scripts and all so I can’t really tell if you are wrong or not about this particular things. My statements are more for arts. But using the same analogy I think it’s possible to conclude that it’s not possible for EA to claims it either.

 

It’s not necessarily because you need to use a product from another in order to use the thing you created that the thing you create is not yours anymore, unless the thing you created can’t be detachable from the product itself.

as far as I know, you can remove wickedwhims from the game without making the product broken.
 

 

On the other hand, even if they could claims those they are not going to do that, it’s free publicity and attract players to play their games. But since they can’t even do that it’s a win win anyway.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2021 by Khlas

[simhead666]

On 6/10/2021 at 12:15 AM, Neptunian Sea said:

That's not why people are getting upset. People are upset because these people are using this site as their marketing place, when the site is supposed to be a place to share free mods/animations/sims with The Sims community.

 

This, exactly!

 

I have no issue with Patreon and support or have supported several creators...But ALL of them follow the three week rule, making ALL of their creations available free to the wider community, usually within three weeks.

 

I'm not going to name drop them, but they are some of the biggest contrbutors of CC in this area of the site.

[laurapalyna]

8 hours ago, Khlas said:

they can’t because they are allowing users to modify their games using custom contents created. You can’t allow something then claims « oh no don’t do that it’s wrong ». They can only claims if it uses trademark or things like that. They condone the practice it’s writing in the same TOS. Please read it.
 

And again, making as a package will not magically make the things you create the property of EA, then you can do this with pretty much every mesh created from scratch, even things from others games that are not even from you, this will not make them EA properties at all.

 

using the juriprudenxe and laws :

 

1) .package does not modify your creation adding assets to make them property of EA. It just make it so it’s usable by the game.

 

2) You create the .package yourself using a program that is not even made by EA. 

3) you can detach the art from the package, so it’s not tied to the package itself but intangible property that is movable from the .package. Thus make the art a thing by itself. The .package is just the key to play it in game but again, you can use the art for others games, it does not need the sims to use them.

 

Also every lines of codes are useless without something to be tied to, but the codes itself is a creation. Even if you have to use something to make it works, you can’t use the codes and claims it as your own. However I’m not really familiar with scripts and all so I can’t really tell if you are wrong or not about this particular things. My statements are more for arts. But using the same analogy I think it’s possible to conclude that it’s not possible for EA to claims it either.

 

It’s not necessarily because you need to use a product from another in order to use the thing you created that the thing you create is not yours anymore, unless the thing you created can’t be detachable from the product itself.

as far as I know, you can remove wickedwhims from the game without making the product broken.
 

 

On the other hand, even if they could claims those they are not going to do that, it’s free publicity and attract players to play their games. But since they can’t even do that it’s a win win anyway.

 

 

 

You seem to be under the impression that I make the claim that EA outright owns all CC but what I said was: "they are at least legally entitled to issue a cease and desist at the minimum if they so chose and could sue for copyright infringement for use of their IP". Creators own what they made themselves but not EA's coding which is included in a package so EA can tell any creators to stop using their code any time they want and sue them if they refuse. So it's not that those non EA assets are owned by EA, it's that EA only allows for use of their code under specific terms. Creators are of course free to respond by removing EA's code and selling just the 3d meshes or their python code without references to EA's code. As for script mods, to be usable in game, they must include references to EA's sims 4 libraries. Modders are free to remove those and sell their creations as is.

 

Meanwhile creators wouldn't be able to sue someone for IP infringement for sharing their packages and scripts because they must prove that they own the creation, not just part of it and package files aren't like PDF where Adobe lets users make their own using their program. EA explicitly via their TOS (which is the legal document regardless of what a singular simguru says) does not give that right to creators. I have seen people now extracting other people's meshes from packages files and selling them as "blender scenes" which is a different story.

 

Technically, you can't copyright a file format so a package file by itself is not copyrighted (game source code is though). What EA owns are patents for the methods used to render meshes in the game and the game engine itself. To use a patent, you need a license which is provided by EA in their TOS. By choosing to use EA's patent, creators agree to the terms of the license.

 

 

Quote

 

2. License

The EA Services are licensed to you, not sold. EA grants you a personal, limited, non-transferable, revocable and non-exclusive license to use the EA Services to which you have access for your non-commercial use, subject to your compliance with this Agreement. You may not access, copy, modify or distribute any EA Service, Content or Entitlements (as those terms are defined below), unless expressly authorized by EA or permitted by law. You may not reverse engineer or attempt to extract or otherwise use source code or other data from EA Services, unless expressly authorized by EA or permitted by law. EA or its licensors own and reserve all other rights, including all right, title and interest in the EA Services and associated intellectual property rights.

 

 

Now as to whether EA does in fact own all CC regardless of provenance, I suspect it might be tough for them to actually assert so in court. At the same time, as I said, they do outright own their IP and patents so they don't need to make that assertion when they can just legally tell the creator to stop using their stuff.

 

Interestingly, you mentioned that package files are made by a program not even made by EA. Note that per the license, EA does not actually allow for reverse engineering of their source code which was needed to make those programs. EA doesn't care to sue because as I said, it adds value to their game but the creators of S4S could not sue in court if someone made a clone of their programs and sold it because they didn't have a license to use EA's code in that way in the first place. Only EA could. Also, per the EULA of S4S: "b) use the Application to infringe on EA’s intellectual property rights."

 

Anyways, my point is, regardless of the gray area that is actual ownership, the legal remedy for creators who want to claim full uncontested ownership of their works without the hassle of EA's TOS is for them to share/sell their works as 3d meshes or code that doesn't include EA's own.

 

[Oops19]

8 hours ago, Khlas said:

1) .package does not modify your creation adding assets to make them property of EA. It just make it so it’s usable by the game.

I doubt that the above is true. EA owns the DBPF format and the code and uses both to sell DLCs.

 

When one creates a .package file using the format owned by EA and the knowledge of this format has been retrieved by reverse engineering one uses a very questionable tool. Whoever is using such a tool may automatically agree to the EA TOS and give nearly all rights to EA.
To avoid this one may sell "art" as art and let the users add it to their game files.

If one adds EA class imports to Python code then it's obvious that the creator used "questionable resources" or reverse engineered the game. In this case EA may consider the mod as "public domain".

[Khlas]

14 minutes ago, Oops19 said:

I doubt that the above is true. EA owns the DBPF format and the code and uses both to sell DLCs.

 

When one creates a .package file using the format owned by EA and the knowledge of this format has been retrieved by reverse engineering one uses a very questionable tool. Whoever is using such a tool may automatically agree to the EA TOS and give nearly all rights to EA.
To avoid this one may sell "art" as art and let the users add it to their game files.

If one adds EA class imports to Python code then it's obvious that the creator used "questionable resources" or reverse engineered the game. In this case EA may consider the mod as "public domain".

It still does not modify your art in any way. You can still remove your art from the package and use it. It’s not tied to the package when you add them on it. The format is maybe EA property but the art isn’t.

 

You can try to add a picture on a package, the picture will still be the same. In court you can argue that it’s detachable and you will probably win. But no one is going to go in court for that unless EA start to be crazy and claims things, which they’ll never do.

Edited June 13, 2021 by Khlas

[Oops19]

12 hours ago, Khlas said:

It still does not modify your art in any way. You can still remove your art from the package and use it. It’s not tied to the package when you add them on it. The format is maybe EA property but the art isn’t.

Of course one can still do with the art whatever one wants. Anyhow also EA and all licensees have very similar rights. It's not that one adds art or scripts by accident to EA specific formats.
EA will likely do nothing, anyhow it gives the users the right to share and use CC/mods without violating any copyright. If one adds an Intel(R) logo to CC the one is responsible if Intel does not like footage containing the image. The user using this material has received the right to use it - but one should still use the brain before using content which is obviously protected by other trademarks or copyrights.

[Excorsion]

On 6/11/2021 at 11:58 AM, Jotunn25 said:

My opinion on that:

- It is absolutely fine if a talented creator takes money for his/her work.

- It is not ok to use the work of others to make money with (like for example free CC on paywalled sims).

 

I support some creators with my money, because I like the stuff they are doing.

If this encourages other talented creators to do stuff for Sims, that's perfect.

 

Fist of all....been here a long time....I can tell you the admins at lab... will always and i mean every single time side with creators... but there is the problem.. they label sim spammers as creators....yes there are some creators who make sims and share them.... then there are people who take someone elses creation... butcher it.... slap some cc from another creator on it... and then charge money for it... they are not true creators... and should not be protect by the admins.... but they are...no one and i mean no one is saying turbo is wrong for having patreon... none is saying nisa is wrong for having patreon... why? because they are actually creating content....what we are mad about is...the bad apples who think they deserve something for nothing.... they spam the forums with sims they pulled from gallery and threw some cc on to make them look different...most times... if you download a couple of the sims from the same person... you can tell real quickly that they have stolen another creation.... in your gallery the original maker will be listed... and then you check another sim from the same person and there is a whole different name on the maker name will be different. too me if your too lazy to start fresh and then add cc with the creators permission then you should not be getting money for it... how do we stop it... by the staff actually watching what is put up and making sure it a true creation and not some fly by night sim spamming geek who is too lazy to punch a randomize button then adjust the sim model.

[kwanzaabot]

On 6/10/2021 at 9:15 AM, Neptunian Sea said:

 

That's not why people are getting upset. People are upset because these people are using this site as their marketing place, when the site is supposed to be a place to share free mods/animations/sims with The Sims community. A person will have 10 sims on Patreon but in order to not be removed from this site will post one sim for download while advertising those other 10 sims (often these sims will have CC not owned by the creator + you're technically not supposed to monetize these things because of EA's policy) on their Patreon. If these Patreon marketers want people to stop complaining, then use this site as a place to freely share your creations because in my honest and blunt opinion, these Patreon creators should not be getting paid for something as simple as downloading tons of CC and creating sims. Anyone can do that for free and they do. What is so great and unique about your sims that I have to pay $12 a month for them when I can get them for free/make them myself?

Fucking THIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[Fakenet]

Trying to sell your stuff on a website built on sharing stuff for free is just asking for complaints.

[ChinaTam]

Sharing is caring ?

[simhead666]

1 hour ago, ChinaTam said:

Sharing is caring ?

 

I thought that was just stealing random stuff?  ?