Avoid using UGC that explicitly indicate ripping, to VRC official post and so-on for a more active creator community as a minimum effort, even if it is inevitable that risky assets will be included in publicity images since VRC is based on UGC.
Now then, I think need to explain why I created this topic here.
Simply put, because as a world creator, I was extremely disappointed this morning. It would be good if you could look at the following tweet and think that there is a problem. a tweet of VRC
As the world author writes inside, the world where the images used in this post were taken is clear that a paid games 3D-model is being used.
I understand that it took a lot of effort to create that world, but to be honest, I cannot be convinced. It seems silly that I was organizing and checking assets to check the SDK checkbox.
And more than anything, I thought the timing was bad.
If you use a world that contains assets with obvious licensing issues, creators trying to be careful about licenses will be disappointed.
VRC behave like Leave alone or ratify expropriative world making may lead to atrophy of the creation community from the decrease in the number of original assets creators (In other words, the opposite of the cited article occurs.).
Required context: I’m not a lawyer or legal representative, and the information I’m giving below is not a binding agreement or policy, and is instead a summary. Please review all documentation linked carefully.
All users, when they upload content to VRChat, certify that they have the rights to upload said content. This is done via a checkbox agreement in the SDK. We trust that certification unless otherwise challenged. This is in accordance with the DMCA and other similar regulations and guidelines.
As part of those regulations and the protections afforded, content is not evaluated proactively for license adherence. We operate on a reactionary basis.
If you are a rights-holder or representative of a rights-holder and find your content in VRChat has been uploaded in violation of your terms, please refer to our Copyright page for further direction.
To me this thread was sounding like I’d visit the world page and there would be a declaration similar to “F14 model from Commander Keen”, but I’m not seeing anything like that on the tweet or world page.
Now, you may have misunderstood, but I am not criticizing the world itself.
I mean, I am criticizing VRC’s attitude of not paying any attention, one might even say it that not paying any respect, to the material of UGC.
As part of those regulations and the protections afforded, content is not evaluated proactively for license adherence. We operate on a reactionary basis.
So, in other words, I am posing a problem and criticizing quoted policy.
On a different note, on another occasion, I will also point out that there are unique problems with VRChat in the DMCA notice and takedown process.
There are legal implications here that limit VRChat’s ability to proactively look for license violations. In particular - if VRChat knows or suspects that a world is in violation, but don’t take it down, they could be liable for copyright infringement. And if they start looking for this kind of infringement for their PR posts, then if they later miss a world - any world, even ones they didn’t intend to tweet - they could also be held liable for the worlds they miss. The potential liability here would be huge, and would basically make operating VRChat impossible.
Thus, the only way to run a service like VRChat is to not look for infringement, ever. Because as soon as you look for infringement for some worlds, you have to look for it on all worlds, without ever missing any of it - which is not practically possible.
Finally, even if none of this were the case… VRChat has no way of knowing if the world author legitimately licensed their assets for use by the uploader, or what the terms of those licensing agreements might be. So even if it seems unlikely that the assets have been licensed, there is in fact precedent for game assets being licensed for legitimate worlds uploaded to VRChat (eg - The Secret Shop), and here again VRChat has to rely on the word of the uploader…
The potential liability here would be huge, and would basically make operating VRChat impossible.
I thought about that concern too.
However, it is practicable for officials not to quote highly questionable contents, isn’t it?
If there is a clear problem with the UGC you have selected from the countless UGCs, all you have to do is silently return it to the sea of ​​UGC and search other again.
Perhaps, but it has to be done in a plausibly deniable way. The moment you leave a written record saying “hey we think this is sus” is the moment you open yourself to liability. And, for the same reason, VRChat probably won’t be able to acknowledge any of these concerns.
I’m sure about what happened this time.
Anyway, what I’m saying is that VRChat should be more concerned about the community when VRChat act to influencing the UGC posted to itself.
This time I am criticizing from a different perspective from below, but in other scenes, it is also necessary to take care not to shine light on gray areas. Well, it seems that some authors are not care.