Well, technically, it seems that it's perfectly okay to talk about recoloring them so long as you don't say that you like them. Or is Nouk now on everyone's shit list for discussing Peggy's UV maps?  

Considering how fervently you all defend the creative efforts of the most lowly of flood fillers, so long as they're giving their stuff away for free, the continued digs at GoS (and its free creators, and its many pirate members) seem both petty and personal, though what GoS has done to earn the enmity of the PMBD regulars is not at all clear. There was a thread a short time ago discussing what sort of activities or behaviors were turning people off of PMBD and thus potentially hurting the pirate cause, and I'm pretty confident that disparaging a popular free site and, by association, its many CC creators, does not create a positive impression.  

They're special, faffy artiste boxes. If my artistic vision/muse had required it, be assured that I would not hesitate to divide those faces into a glorious, fractalized mosaic of polylicious redundancy.

Also, about the it WORKS! part: If you don't have AL, the first version uploaded may cause problems; I had only one report of a possible issue, so I'm not sure it was actually the stairs causing the problem. In any case, I've redone the file so it is now really and truly basegame compatible.

Even though there is a staircase OMSP already available, these stairs don't match the existing stair profile at every tread, so I made my own set. The gargantuan OMSP set by Silent Lucidity at MTS2 probably also would fit most if not all of the stairs for people who have the ability to shift them with AL. I have way too many OMSPs myself, but I also have many surface objects that still don't have an appropriate OMSP, so I just want to be sure that everything I make that might require one, has one.

Oh, and thank you for the nice comments in this thread   I thought they turned out pretty cool myself.

I have seen Nightmare's assiness before, though it took a bit before I could recall exactly which ass he was (oh yeah, that guy - the Self-Aggrandizing Martyr for the Glorious Cause). If I'd connected the screenname with his history here, I probably would have just ignored his stupid FAQ link.

In any case, if it's seen as useful to have a list of paysites, I am not a good choice to maintain it long-term (flakiness, etc.), but I would definitely be willing to contribute to the building of the list.

Which is why I suggested that there be one in my initial post. If you'd actually read the few sentences I posted, I have a hard time seeing how you'd come up with it being paysite pimpage. I don't want to see a new thread for each new paysite, either. However, if you were to check back through the forum, you'd see that I posted in keeping with previous, non-contentious announcements of new paycrap vendors. Regardless of what valiant efforts you're making elsewhere, you have no authority here, the FAQ has no bearing on my post, and your peculiar insistence on arguing the superior value of your misinterpretation of my intent has nothing to do with fighting paysites and everything to do with your ego.

BTW, just because I don't post here much, you shouldn't assume that I'm clueless or a noob. I've been a member longer than the vast majority of people who hang out here, you have no idea of my history/involvement behind the scenes, and I am probably not the only person who is interested in destroying paysites who is not compelled to be social about it.

Well, I searched and did not find anything under either "architecture" and "architecture sims." Very few hits, and none of them pertaining to this particular site.

Also, I'd appreciate some edification as to the reason for the FAQ link. I've read the FAQ before, and I read it again, and there is nothing in there about lists of paysites or why they such lists are or are not appropriate for the phorum. The only thing that seems remotely related is the booty shopping list...but I don't want this shit. When I run across paycrap online (usually on non-US forums), I download it whether I want it or not because 1) it's paycrap and 2) someone else might want it, and I can provide it to the booty and/or SimsCave. If someone actually wants this set, they certainly should post it on the shopping list, but that person is not me.

Since a list of paysites doesn't exist, it's likely that no one but me would find it useful and/or no one wants to maintain it. Fine. It was a suggestion, nothing more.


Advertising? Maybe if I was trying out some sort of dubious reverse-psychology marketing ploy. Where do you see anything resembling a recommendation for the linked site?  I don't post here much, in part because of bullshit like this, but my own (free) site is linked in my sig and that's the only "advertising" I'm doing.

Architecture Simsl

The site has scarcely over 200 hits, but he's already got a donation pack with a $10 minimum "donation."

If there's a topic for new paysites, sorry - I couldn't find it. If there isn't such a topic, I'd like to suggest that there be one. I know that I'd find it rather useful to have a stickied post with a list of sites so that if I happen across some stupid payset laying around online, I'll be more likely to remember to nab it for the booty.

You can copyright your graphics and your text on a website, but you can't copyright methods of doing things or processes - like layouts and formatting, for instance. Copyright has to do with distribution rights, not creation. For instance, a computer users' manual will be copyright by the computer company, not by the technical writer(s) who actually did the work. That's because "work for hire" copyright goes to the employer/entity paying instead of the person who actually does the writing and graphics. It's also possible to sign over copyright to another party - various branches of publishing expect authors to retain copyright and others expect to have it signed over with (hopefully) additional wording that specifices the actual creator's right to be paid royalties on a work to which they no longer hold copyright. Current copyright law covers static works and doesn't translate well to dynamic works, which most websites are - they really need to come up with a method for attributing rights to dynamic works that isn't copyright or trademark or patent, since none of them apply entirely. Anyway, just as with the .package format, just because someone thinks they own something doesn't mean that they actually do.

As for your example, depending on the media source that fanfiction is based off of, you're talking about infringement on a copyright and/or trademark, and a fanfiction story can't be published for sale without the permission of those who hold the rights to what are presumably specific and identifiable characters. Obviously, though, the actual story portion isn't covered by those copyrights and trademarks, placing the work into a sort of limbo where all the plot, action and dialog are owned by one party, and the characters performing these actions and speaking the words are owned by another party. Change the names and whatever circumstances are necessary in that story, however, and you have magically removed the claims of all parties except the actual author, who then has copyright over the entire thing.

Fake edit: I see that your question is already answered. Have some redundancy! With a side of overkill!

Could you  still see her meshes - the build sets and stuff? As of now, if you search for "windkeeper," you get a ton of hits - but there are only a couple of her actual meshes, and those are just the ones based off of Echo's rug. The rest of it seems to be recolors and every instance of someone mentioning or thanking her in their upload text.

I hope it was her who did this - though I'd have to wonder what the hell took her so long?

Well, sure...but you did say this was 10 years ago   Over the last ~decade, intellectual property law (in the US, which is the only arena in which I have any knowledge) has come under scrutiny, especially in terms of online and digital application of laws that were written with the presumption that books are made of paper and music is scratched onto wax cylinders. I would think that most lawyers working in IP would be pretty up to date and would tend to discourage clients from going after small fry, especially if they're obviously fans of a product or brand and aren't making any money off the usage. Fans usually don't have any money to pay damages, and even if they did, it's difficult to prove any damage has occurred in most situations. I used to write fanfiction - this was about 5-6 years ago, so not all that recently - and never ran into any issues personally, nor did any of hundreds and hundreds of people of my acquaintance who did the same thing - and most of us included sexually explicit material that would definitely cause people to view a given brand differently if they were stupid enough to believe the work was officially tied to the show or book or whatever. It's not as if people writing fanfiction are hard to contact - you always make sure your email is prominent so that people can write to you to let you know how much they loved your trashy story - so if anyone had wished to make legal threats, it wouldn't have been difficult to do.

The only people I've ever heard of getting C&D letters were people writing Harry Potter porn - the argument from the HP side being that it's a series written for children, marketed to children, and if children getting online to search out some bit of Harry Potter trivia instead find some story where Harry is a ladyboy and Draco serves as his human ashtray, they are going to be confused, their parents are going to be pissed, and JK Rowling's brand will be devalued by the sleaze connection. As much as I hate it when people whine about how the internet should be regulated to "protect the children," I do see the point with the HP stuff. I haven't followed what's happened in fanfiction land since I stopped participating, but I do know that a lot of Harry Potter sites had to become members-only and/or ask for age verification to appease the HP legals at that time...but there are still hundreds of fanfiction sites and pages and pages of dubious wizard smut out there, and very little (if any) litigation taking place.

I got someone trying to start a fight in the comments to the "Ugly Dolls" posted on my site because I was violating copyright. Technically, I am/was violating copyright and trademark (the former for the name, the latter for the shape, the entirety representing the "character"). I actually informed the company of my violation myself because I thought someone there might find it amusing and the chances that they would do anything about it are incredibly minuscule. My intentions were good - a tribute to cute things that might even encourage people to spend money. Disney and the Harry Potter franchise have money to burn, so they might well go after free sites violating their copyrights, trademarks, etc., but most companies won't bother unless you're charging or you're devaluing their property. That's why the RetailSims Krispy Kreme set, Sasilia's Subway set, Sims Connection's Starbucks set, and several of Shino and KCR's name-brand furniture sets were either pulled or made free - all because they were charging, and some of them because they were total crap. The Harry Potter set at MTS2 is probably something that JK Rowling's people are aware of, but since it's not Harry/Draco torture porn, it's not harmful to her brand.

Even though I'm definitely violating the Ugly Doll people's ownership rights, I give appropriate attribution, I'm not charging, I haven't placed the download in the midst of porn ads, nor did I make them look so crappy that people would get a bad impression of what the actual things look like. No false claims, no financial gain, no devaluation. If they took me to court, it's likely that a judge would be annoyed with them for whining about free advertising. If they complained and asked me to take them down, I could change the name to Lumpy Dolls and change the character names and they'd have basically no case - trademark is harder to defend than copyright, and nudging a poly here and there would probably alter them enough to take them out of trademark territory anyway.

I'm not an IP lawyer, but I do know one who likes to talk about her work - and all the grey areas - and I did a ton of IP research when I was offered a contract that seemed...suspicious. Turns out they're all suspicious. Anyway, it's far less likely that free sites would be hassled for using copyrighted material unless there are serious taste and quality issues that are momentous enough to possibly affect brand value. It's not worth the court costs and the bad PR for companies to go through with it.

RSF staff are sort of gathering at Sims Cave - all of this info is from there. Apparently, Carol/Greeksgal (who owns the forum) doesn't agree with what the rest of the staff decided and deleted the entire thing. They've got a backup and are planning on opening back up under a new name.

You're welcome. Since I usually have 50-70,000 files in my game at any one time (currently trying to find the crash-causing problems in 80,000+, which is just as much fun as you might guess), I have personal incentive to keep the number of files required to be in the game low. I learned how to do master/slave at practically the same time I learned how to make a mesh, so it was easy for me to just make it all part of the same process from the very beginning. It's actually very easy, and I wish more creators would do it, too.

I'm glad you like them    

Okay, I'm not just glad. I'm squeefully thrilled to see my stuff in this thread.

At some point, after I've forgotten exactly how tedious it was to make all those meshes into package files, I'm planning to do another batch. I just did some of the ones that I like this time, but I still want to do a couple that were requested.

Does anyone know if there were any free creators besides Suza of Simply Styling invited to the creator's camp? She's the only one I've heard about, but it would seem rather strange for EA to invite just a single non-TSR creator out of all the hundreds of creators they could have approached. While I like the clutter Suza has been making over the last few months, I doubt she'd make my personal short list, if only because she hasn't been at it as long as some others. Also, do we know if all of the FAs were invited, or just a select few? And do we know which ones? I'm really curious to know who EA considers "the best" creators. I hope they do realize that quite a few of the FAs use other people's meshes and probably can't create anything more compelling than a box on their own. Or, no, I hope they don't realize it, at least not until they've paid for them all to fly out to camp.

I understand that Gothplague emptied out all her threads herself - everything disappeared while I was in the middle of downloading it yesterday afternoon - so it should be gone.