Non-Commercial donations

[Gun2SV 0]

I'm really confused about this, now say I used a non-commercial recourse in a game, and I put it up completely free; can I ask for donations?

And no the donations wouldn't really affect anything they're just.. donations.

[Traverse 144]

Depends very much on your specific circumstances, if you're worried you should probably get a lawyer to check it over for you.

 

It only counts as a donation if the donor knows full well they are going to get absolutely nothing in return for it. So it would have to be very, very clear to everyone that the donations are really, simply just that and that you are not tying the game you intend to put up in any way to the donations whatsoever. You'd need to be sure there is absolutely no way that anybody could possibly interpret it that way; that there is no promise to improve the quality if you get any donations, no possibility of a faster release date or that the game will be shelved depending on donation intake, no listing of donor names in a special thanks/credits etc. etc.

 

All this would depend very much on how you have set up your marketing and donation scheme, so again, best to have a professional check it over for you because it would very easy for someone to construe that you're promising the game (or its resources, which they may think were all made by you) for the donations, which would make them not donations.

 

And it doesn't matter whether YOU think/know it won't affect the game or its release - what matters is that nobody else could possibly misinterpret it that way too. Or at the very least, that a judge/jury couldn't interpret it that way if it came to court. Which is something that would need other people, preferably a lawyer, looking over it to really determine.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Traverse

[Gun2SV 0]

1 hour ago, Traverse said:

Depends very much on your specific circumstances, if you're worried you should probably get a lawyer to check it over for you.

 

It only counts as a donation if the donor knows full well they are going to get absolutely nothing in return for it. So it would have to be very, very clear to everyone that the donations are really, simply just that and that you are not tying the game you intend to put up in any way to the donations whatsoever. You'd need to be sure there is absolutely no way that anybody could possibly interpret it that way; that there is no promise to improve the quality if you get any donations, no possibility of a faster release date or that the game will be shelved depending on donation intake, no listing of donor names in a special thanks/credits etc. etc.

 

All this would depend very much on how you have set up your marketing and donation scheme, so again, best to have a professional check it over for you because it would very easy for someone to construe that you're promising the game (or its resources, which they may think were all made by you) for the donations, which would make them not donations.

 

And it doesn't matter whether YOU think/know it won't affect the game or its release - what matters is that nobody else could possibly misinterpret it that way too. Or at the very least, that a judge/jury couldn't interpret it that way if it came to court. Which is something that would need other people, preferably a lawyer, looking over it to really determine.

So I just want to make donations literally "donations" they don't affect anything at all. ill even put them in an other page or something. would that be okay?

[+ Takeo212 1,079]

Donations are still classified as "commercial" since you are still receiving money in support of a game that uses these resources. Whether the game itself is free to play, the concept of you are still receiving money in some way for a project using the materials still puts it in the same category.

 

Also, you say you'll release the game for free after receiving these donations - but that's just the reassurance of a stranger wanting our money. For all we know, you can stick a price tag on the game, or even just run off with donations in the end - but this is a different topic. Just be aware of this when setting up or asking for permissions.

 

However, due to this not officially being a commercial game (commercial being that you are selling a game), depending on some resource makers, you can try and ask them individually for permissions. I know alot of makers are more concerned about there resources being in one of those many, many steam games that gives RPGM and other engines bad reputations so asking them for a donation/kickstarter exception in exchange for a free game release might work - but not always.

 

I strongly suggest you don't use the non-commercial resources in your project until you get permissions to prevent any problems and back lash in future.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Takeo212

[Gun2SV 0]

1 hour ago, Takeo212 said:

Donations are still classified as "commercial" since you are still receiving money in support of a game that uses these resources. Whether the game itself is free to play, the concept of you are still receiving money in some way for a project using the materials still puts it in the same category.

 

Also, you say you'll release the game for free after receiving these donations - but that's just the reassurance of a stranger wanting our money. For all we know, you can stick a price tag on the game, or even just run off with donations in the end - but this is a different topic. Just be aware of this when setting up or asking for permissions.

 

However, due to this not officially being a commercial game (commercial being that you are selling a game), depending on some resource makers, you can try and ask them individually for permissions. I know alot of makers are more concerned about there resources being in one of those many, many steam games that gives RPGM and other engines bad reputations so asking them for a donation/kickstarter exception in exchange for a free game release might work - but not always.

 

I strongly suggest you don't use the non-commercial resources in your project until you get permissions to prevent any problems and back lash in future.

Thank you, and it would be okay if I use them without donations right?

[Traverse 144]

1 hour ago, Takeo212 said:

Donations are still classified as "commercial" since you are still receiving money in support of a game that uses these resources. Whether the game itself is free to play, the concept of you are still receiving money in some way for a project using the materials still puts it in the same category.

 

That "in support of a game" part is why you need somebody checking over your setup. If it's possible to construe that making a "donation" would support the game somehow, it's not a true donation. Still, it is possible to have a donation set up in a way where there's no reasonable expectation for support of the game when you donate.

 

Hypothetically, if someone happened to release a free RM game, but also had an old existing Patreon account that was completely unrelated to it and the only place he had ever advertised his Patreon was on Facebook and some random Youtube video beggings for subs (and is otherwise completely unconnected to his game), I don't think anyone would accuse him of receiving money in support of a game. Even if he happened to leave a link to his Facebook account in the game and some people clicked it, saw his Patreon and decided to donate.

 

On the other hand, if you have a Youtube video containing footage of the game and then put a link to your Patreon at the end of it, there's an easy implicit assumption that if someone donates, they're increasing your likelihood of producing a sequel, or more similar games, etc. and then the donor DOES get something in return from it. This is why I said if you're really keen on the donating, you need someone looking over your setup to make sure it's 100% unconnected to the game.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Traverse

[+ Takeo212 1,079]

@Gun2SV Yep, any non-commercial resources are free to you as long as you follow there terms and conditions.

 

@Traverse I'll write it this way then;

If you take money for a specific game that is using the non-commercial resources, such as kickstarter or gofundme, then it's considered commercial since your getting revenue from people for that games development.

 

If you take money for yourself, or for your personal being and/or team/group then you are allowed to take money as you, yourself are being paid/donated to. This is more of a support fund for the developer themself and can't be called out if they receive money for themselves/the team since it's not directly supporting that one particular game.

 

I suppose you can just claim donations as a "your helping me make a game in general" instead of "your helping make this particular game".

 

 

Honestly, I think most creators care mainly about you selling games rather than taking support money so long as the money is invested in the project and not for yourself.

 

But yea, Traverse is right. It comes down mainly to how you write and promote yourself. Take donations as a developer and you should be safe.

[Gun2SV 0]

@Takeo212 okay, I've got an another question please. if I downloaded a free tileset without  terms of usage on it, can I use it? like as in commercial use.

[+ Takeo212 1,079]

It's hard to say exactly though as each resource maker is different. Some don't care as much as others, so always safe to look into it.

If you can't find anything related to any terms, then it should be fine to use them though as long as you credit. Could always try contact the artist if their on a forum or something to be safe.

[Perang Cemen 188]

Lol that was my mistake in past

I make game for free by use someone non- commercial stuff, but donation are welcome.

after years or so the creator of resource email me and ask to remove all of his resource from my game due his resource must be used for free game, or a game that just free to play, no donation or stuff like that, and so I did remove it all, then I start it again from start.

But Hell yeah!

Now I use a free used for commercial resource from now on, to avoid these.

Just like @Takeo212 said, don't use any resource you find in internet without sure who the creator is, else you don't want to remove it from your game or something even worse they sue you for it.

 

[Kayzee 4,032]

Honestly if you ask me I would say that if it has any terms of use like that, don't use it for exactly this reason. Because most terms of use are not exactly clear on what is 'commercial' or not. It's become more and more vague as more people turn to alternative funding methods and such. So unless your game is completely detached from any money at all, someone  might find some way to use the terms of use to strong arm you somehow. And even if it is I could imagine some people trying it anyway.

 

If you ask me, frankly terms of use that have a non-commercial clause are shady. Because seriously, what are they for? To give away something if and only if the people using it don't make a profit off it makes no sense except as some kind of scam. What, you want to keep other people from 'profiting from your hard work'? Yeah, pull the other one, it's got bells on. The work you spend on something doesn't hang around in the ether. You spend it and it's gone. A thing's value has little to do with the work that was put into making it. That's why people sell things, so they can profit on the result they are offering, and also why we have things like commissions and donation systems, so people can profit on the work they do.

 

If you care about openness and accessibility, that's why we have copyleft systems like the GPL and some of the Creative Commons licenses. If you really want to go 'hey here is a thing for free, but if you make money off it you are a bad person because I helped you and I didn't get any', well that's just petty. On the other hand saying 'if we give this away to people who aren't serious enough to pay for it anyway we can get free advertisement and demand more money from the people who are'? Classic shady clause designed to trick gullible people. That sounds more like the intention behind clauses like this.

 

Though I am pretty sure most people just don't really think about it that much and just add them because it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Kayzee

[Traverse 144]

2 hours ago, Kayzee said:

On the other hand saying 'if we give this away to people who aren't serious enough to pay for it anyway we can get free advertisement and demand more money from the people who are'? Classic shady clause designed to trick gullible people. That sounds more like the intention behind clauses like this.

 

Wouldn't call it a trick so much as people just not wanting to say outright "we want a share of your profits". Because that kind of thing makes you sound greedy. So instead they just say "free for non-commercial only" heavily implying you need to negotiate payment for commercial use. In the same kind of way a restaurant says "we're closing soon" instead of directly telling you "get out". But you probably already realize that, of course.

 

I do think there is a benefit for "serious" developers using these free-for-non-commercial resources (as opposed to needing payment for any kind of use) in a sort of you-scratch-my-back deal where, yes, the resource maker DOES get free advertising, but if you're releasing your game for free then your game is ALSO basically advertising for yourself and your skills as a developer. So they get free advertising, but you also get to make and air your own free advertisement alongside theirs. That's if you're "seriously" trying to build a career as a developer and not just doing it as a hobby, which if you are... well there are also many hobbyists who find they aren't creatively confined by intellectual property rights anyway to begin with.

 

As I'm sure many people from the RM2k/3 era can attest.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Traverse

[Kayzee 4,032]

And how is fluffing around the issue because they don't want to sound greedy not a trick exactly? And I think it's a little bit of a different situation when someone informs you that a restaurant is closing in a polite tone. The non-commercial clause is more something like saying 'oh no we have a gas leek' to get people out at closing time. No actually it's like drilling a hole in a gas pipe and making a gas leak, then charging everyone extra for gas masks because somehow there is a leak in the building. I donno about you, but I rather eat at a place with no gas.

 

And sure you are right about the free advertisement, but everything you said is also true for totally free resources now isn't it? Except with free-for-non-commercial resources, it becomes a lot more complicated and we invite issues like this very topic.

 

And if hobbyists who find they weren't creatively confined by intellectual property rights we wouldn't have projects like AM2R get taken down.

[Traverse 144]

3 hours ago, Kayzee said:

And how is fluffing around the issue because they don't want to sound greedy not a trick exactly? And I think it's a little bit of a different situation when someone informs you that a restaurant is closing in a polite tone. The non-commercial clause is more something like saying 'oh no we have a gas leek' to get people out at closing time. No actually it's like drilling a hole in a gas pipe and making a gas leak, then charging everyone extra for gas masks because somehow there is a leak in the building. I donno about you, but I rather eat at a place with no gas.

 

And sure you are right about the free advertisement, but everything you said is also true for totally free resources now isn't it? Except with free-for-non-commercial resources, it becomes a lot more complicated and we invite issues like this very topic.

 

It's not a trick, because they're not trying to mislead or somehow hide that they want you to negotiate payment for commercial use. There's no deception involved (for most of them, there's always the odd shady exception). They're not holding anything over your head - unlike selling people gas masks in a gas-leak situation, there's no penalty or adverse consequence for choosing not to use their resources and they don't engineer any situation where there's negative consequences either. Unlike drilling a pipe to flood a room with gas, they aren't putting you in a situation where you have to use their resources or choke. The business equivalent would be having you sign a contract promising to exclusively use their resources, without telling you that you must pay more money to use their resources - that's an engineered lose-lose scenario to force you to either pay or be sued anyway.

 

But they don't do that.

 

If they actually wanted to deceive you, it would be much more effective to simply say nothing at all and hope people will use them without being aware that IP law in most countries gives the creator full rights by default. That their users won't realize that, without any mention of permission, the default stance is usually "illegal for anyone else to use". That would be more effective if you were actively trying to mislead.

 

Totally free resources CAN be used as free advertising for both sides - but if used in a commercial project, one side will clearly be profiting more than the other. In that case the resource maker gets free advertising but the game developer not only gets the advertising, but also actual money from selling their stuff too. That's the sort of relationship that I'm sure you can understand some people might consider unfair and exploitative.

 

Free only for non-commercial is what they would see as fair middle-ground where the user doesn't get to have more benefit than the resource maker gets.

 

3 hours ago, Kayzee said:

And if hobbyists who find they weren't creatively confined by intellectual property rights we wouldn't have projects like AM2R get taken down.

 

They're not. That's why that project even got started to begin with.

 

I think you missed this, but the keyword I'm using here is "creatively" unbound. As those guys found out, being "creatively" unbound is a much different issue from being "legally" unbound. You can have zero moral or creative qualms with something, as many old (and some new) RM developers had. And still get sued into debt hell for it.

 

Still doesn't stop many of those My Little Pony and Pokemon and other fan-games made by hobbyists popping up all over the place. Yeah, some get sued/C&Dd. Others don't. People keep doing it anyway.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Traverse

[Kayzee 4,032]

6 hours ago, Traverse said:

 

It's not a trick, because they're not trying to mislead or somehow hide that they want you to negotiate payment for commercial use. There's no deception involved (for most of them, there's always the odd shady exception). They're not holding anything over your head - unlike selling people gas masks in a gas-leak situation, there's no penalty or adverse consequence for choosing not to use their resources and they don't engineer any situation where there's negative consequences either. Unlike drilling a pipe to flood a room with gas, they aren't putting you in a situation where you have to use their resources or choke. The business equivalent would be having you sign a contract promising to exclusively use their resources, without telling you that you must pay more money to use their resources - that's an engineered lose-lose scenario to force you to either pay or be sued anyway.

 

But they don't do that.

 

If they actually wanted to deceive you, it would be much more effective to simply say nothing at all and hope people will use them without being aware that IP law in most countries gives the creator full rights by default. That their users won't realize that, without any mention of permission, the default stance is usually "illegal for anyone else to use". That would be more effective if you were actively trying to mislead.

 

Totally free resources CAN be used as free advertising for both sides - but if used in a commercial project, one side will clearly be profiting more than the other. In that case the resource maker gets free advertising but the game developer not only gets the advertising, but also actual money from selling their stuff too. That's the sort of relationship that I'm sure you can understand some people might consider unfair and exploitative.

 

Free only for non-commercial is what they would see as fair middle-ground where the user doesn't get to have more benefit than the resource maker gets.

 

Well you can always eat at another restaurant rather then buy a gas mask too. Which is a big reason restaurants don't do that besides it being as illegal as hell. Anyway yeah, it was sort of a extreme example that really doesn't fit. How about this example instead: Ever notice restaurants charge a ton for drinks even if the food is cheap? Isn't that exploitative? Luring you in with cheap food and charging tons for drinks is a bit shady in the same way luring you in with cheep or free resources but charging for commercial use is. No they aren't technically hiding anything, but it's still misdirection.

 

And the other argument? That's exactly what I called petty before. Your basically saying that because someone else was able to profit form something and you were not that you deserve something. And you know what? Maybe you do. But isn't that the very definition of, and I hate using this word, 'entitlement'? You call it a fair middle ground, I call it trying to have your cake and eat it too. And yeah, why wouldn't you try and have a cake and eat it too? That saying makes no goddamned sense. I understand why people do it. Plus, to be fair, I am not a big fan of commercial projects either. I also find them a tad shady and exploitative. But then I am a weirdo like that.

 

I myself have created more then a few scripts and I always make sure to not ever attach any type of terms and conditions to them, because I personally believe it would be hypocritical for me to do so. And fact is, if everyone did that there would still be quality resources around made by people who don't care what others do with them, so I don't think those terms and conditions are the least bit necessary to deal with. If someone makes a profit from it, that's fine. That is a personal belief of course, I don't expect others to agree. Plus I think of myself as more a hobbyist anyway. To me it isn't about the money. Others don't have that luxury I know.

 

And I may change my mind some day, if something I do gets really popular or something. But if I do, it will be because I am a selfish greedy person who isn't afraid to admit when I am being selfish and greedy. After all, that's half the reason I use free resources in the first place.

 

Quote

They're not. That's why that project even got started to begin with.

 

I think you missed this, but the keyword I'm using here is "creatively" unbound. As those guys found out, being "creatively" unbound is a much different issue from being "legally" unbound. You can have zero moral or creative qualms with something, as many old (and some new) RM developers had. And still get sued into debt hell for it.

 

Still doesn't stop many of those My Little Pony and Pokemon and other fan-games made by hobbyists popping up all over the place. Yeah, some get sued/C&Dd. Others don't. People keep doing it anyway.

 

Eh, I get your point, but at the same time you are almost making the argument that following the rules is only important for the people who get caught. Let's not go down that route anymore okay? The powers that be might get uncomfortable. Besides, I much rather work within the system to undermine it then ignore it. :3

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Kayzee