[CLOSED] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

Summary:

Steam game. Contains 173 images and is being sold.

[CLOSED] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

Doctor Cimmerian 05 Apr 2016 18:50

Since we got this forum now and this problem is still open, I'm posting the details here. First of all here's the link to the current documentation: http://05command.wikidot.com/licensing:daughter-of-shadows:an-scp-breach-event-game-on-st

Developer was contacted as outlined there and documented here: http://05command.wdfiles.com/local--files/licensing%3Adaughter-of-shadows%3Aan-scp-breach-event-game-on-st/thatonething.png

As you can see at the bottom of that exchange, he's asked a question, and it's one I'm not comfortable answering (though I'll let him know we're working on an answer) without a bit of discussion.

Specifically if a base game contains 173 (and is free), can a developer charge for DLC that does not contain 173? My best guess on this would be no, but I'm no expert.

Also, regardless of the answer on this, it won't be a closed issue until steam updates the page and switches the game to free.

Last edited on 14 Apr 2016 01:59 by Doctor Cimmerian Show more

Re: [OPEN] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

ProcyonLotor 05 Apr 2016 19:59

Specifically if a base game contains 173 (and is free), can a developer charge for DLC that does not contain 173? My best guess on this would be no, but I'm no expert.

No. SPEAKING SOLELY WITH REGARDS TO A TRADING CARD THAT WAS LINKED ELSEWHERE WITH REGARDS TO THIS: If money's changing hands here¹ it's commercial and is thus a violation of the usage rights allowed us by Kato. Trading card's got to go. See below for broader opinion.

Footnotes

1. There are exceptions of course, but none that are likely to apply in any situation we face.

Last edited on 05 Apr 2016 20:15 by ProcyonLotor Show more

Re: [OPEN] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

Decibelles 05 Apr 2016 20:05

But I think the developer here means actual DLC, not trading cards. Like, the DLC contains such-and-such SCPs, none of which contain 173. Are they allowed to charge for the DLC, or can they not because the base game has 173?

Re: [OPEN] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

ProcyonLotor 05 Apr 2016 20:13

This is a bit of an unexplored grey area, but I'm going to say that they may, so long as it does not contain SCP-173 in the pay section.

+ Reasoning

The game itself, containing SCP-173, may be thought of as a singular product. As this is free, the image rights are not violated. The DLC is not necessarily the same product, but is either a related product or a component of the same product system- the image license here is not concerned with the product system itself, but the singular licensed product, which, again, remains free.
However- and this is a hypothetical statement just to cover all our bases- if the DLC is something like a "full game unlock" instead of semi-independent material, that would be a violation, as that's not a separate product so much as a backdoor way of charging for the original one.

TLDR: DLC is acceptable so long as the game remains free and fully functional without its purchase, and said DLC does not itself use SCP-173's image.

Last edited on 05 Apr 2016 20:14 by ProcyonLotor Show more

Re: [OPEN] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

Crayne 06 Apr 2016 06:26

Knowing full well I'm late to the party, but isn't this something we should have asked Kato or a legal representative? If they get wind of it and don't agree, we're going to look bad.

Last edited on 06 Apr 2016 08:09 by Crayne Show more

Re: [OPEN] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

ProcyonLotor 06 Apr 2016 07:33

Not really- it's a fairly straightforward interpretation. It is what they agreed to- it would be very hard to make the argument that 173 here is being used for commercial purposes when absolutely everything touching on 173 here is free.

Re: [OPEN] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

Crayne 06 Apr 2016 08:12

Well, as you yourself stated, it's a grey area. I'm not disagreeing with you on the call itself, that's what I'd have said too.

Re: [OPEN] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

ProcyonLotor 06 Apr 2016 10:11

I mainly meant grey area as in "area where we have not addressed previously"- my apologies for any inelegant or unclear phrasing.

Re: [OPEN] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

Doctor Cimmerian 05 Apr 2016 23:02

Sending him a reply based on ProcyonLotor's decision on this. I'm also bringing up the trading cards (link here, for documentation purposes: http://www.steamcardexchange.net/index.php?gamepage-appid-449820 ). Will update post with more when I have it.

Last edited on 05 Apr 2016 23:02 by Doctor Cimmerian Show more

Re: [OPEN] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

Doctor Cimmerian 06 Apr 2016 09:30

Update: Developer got back to me, they have now also requested that steam take down the cards so he can take out the one with 173. They, and we, are just waiting on steam to respond.

Last edited on 06 Apr 2016 09:31 by Doctor Cimmerian Show more

Re: [OPEN] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

Vincent_Redgrave 06 Apr 2016 17:22

TBH, I wish I had been asked to weigh in on this new development before this course of action had been taken, considering anything with 173, the Mewts, or the Dragon Snails can cause us no end of headaches if it's not handled carefully enough. My personal opinion is that them going back and adding paid DLC to get money out of a product with 173 after agreeing to move it to unpaid in accordance with our agreement with Mr. Kato is a shitty move, unless the DLC is functional without downloading the main game. Of course, the game is probably functional without the DLC, but still, it seems kind of shady and ""I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU" *hovers finger in front of nose*"-y way of getting around our licensing agreement. How we can get this point across now without coming across as double-talking and backpedaling, or if we need to, I have no clue.

Thoughts?

Re: [OPEN] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

ProcyonLotor 06 Apr 2016 19:05

While I'd generally agree, "shitty move" is not incompatible with our agreement.

Re: [OPEN] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

Doctor Cimmerian 07 Apr 2016 00:55

The bigger issue is that if it's technically within the licensing agreement as it stands (and, after some thought, I think it certainly is within that agreement as long as nothing containing 173's likeness is, itself, sold) then all we can do is ask nicely and hope for the best.

I can go ask nicely right now if you think it's an appropriate course of action (I don't, myself, think it is though). Lemme know what y'all decide.

Re: [OPEN] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

Doctor Cimmerian 07 Apr 2016 10:06

It appears they're taking a 3rd option and have removed 173's image from the game. Now it's just the trading cards that have to be dealt with.

Re: [OPEN] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

Drewbear 07 Apr 2016 12:17

Honestly, this is probably the best possible outcome, mutually. They get to sell the game (if they still want to) and there's no issues with Licensing.

---

Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Re: [OPEN] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

ProcyonLotor 07 Apr 2016 12:33

Yep. Once the trading cards process we can call this one closed.

Re: [OPEN] Daughter of Shadows: An SCP Breach Event

Doctor Cimmerian 13 Apr 2016 10:11

New trading cards show the new version of 173 in the game that I've seen in screenshots. I believe this is all wrapped up, but I'll leave it to one of the team leaders to make that call before editing the thread title to closed. Link here: http://www.steamcardexchange.net/index.php?gamepage-appid-449820