I hope you've done licensing research. You won't be able to monetize the final product if it contains SCP-173 or you could risk being sued. I think even the current Patreon distribution method might be a bit dubious.

Additionally, you won't be able to do anything (in a legal sense) if people decide to share, say, the patreon build because the CC license states that anyone is allowed to freely share your derivative work.

Be careful, my man.

That's ok. I'll finish this even if no one ever pays me another cent, if only to prove that I can. But I do appreciate the heads-up. Here's the link to the license for containment breach, from the blitz3d's github. Notice it allows use for commercial purposes, as long as I credit the original authors, and allow people to use my work commercially as well.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

zornor90 wrote:That's ok. I'll finish this even if no one ever pays me another cent, if only to prove that I can. But I do appreciate the heads-up. Here's the link to the license for containment breach, from the github. Notice it allows use for commercial purposes, as long as I credit the original authors, and allow people to use my work commercially as well.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

You are allowed to create derivative works based on the foundation and monetize them, yes, but SCP-173, SCP-111 and SCP-1926 in particular cannot be used commercially without permission from the original creators. In 173's case the creator seems very reluctant to let people use it and he stated he will take legal measures if it is used for commercial purposes.

And as I said before, even if you could monetize it and still include 173 you wouldn't have any legal recourse if people distributed it for free.


See this: http://www.scp-wiki.net/licensing-guide

Combine wrote:

zornor90 wrote:That's ok. I'll finish this even if no one ever pays me another cent, if only to prove that I can. But I do appreciate the heads-up. Here's the link to the license for containment breach, from the github. Notice it allows use for commercial purposes, as long as I credit the original authors, and allow people to use my work commercially as well.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

You are allowed to create derivative works based on the foundation and monetize them, yes, but SCP-173 in particular cannot be used commercially without permission from the original creator of the sculpture, but he seems very reluctant to let people use it and he stated he will take legal measures if it is used for commercial purposes.

And as I said before, even if you could monetize it and still include 173 you wouldn't have any legal recourse if people distributed it for free.


See this: http://www.scp-wiki.net/licensing-guide

Ohhhhhh. That's good to know, I didn't realize that the creator of SCP-173 had stated that. From the wiki, it looks like I'd have to create a very different model to allow me to monetize the game. And yeah, the patreon could be iffy depending on the creator's preference. Hmm. I'll have to ask him then.

Of course, even if I monetized the game on Steam, the only reason would be for workshop support. At that point, there would be two versions of the game: one with steam workshop support, available to purchase, and one without the workshop support, available for free; the workshop support being the only difference and the only reason to purchase the game on steam, really. The game will always be available for free in some form. I'll probably open-source it as well once I complete the port.

Regardless of monetization, the game will always be available for free; the patreon is only there to support development, not for people to purchase the game as such.

zornor90 wrote:

Combine wrote:

zornor90 wrote:That's ok. I'll finish this even if no one ever pays me another cent, if only to prove that I can. But I do appreciate the heads-up. Here's the link to the license for containment breach, from the github. Notice it allows use for commercial purposes, as long as I credit the original authors, and allow people to use my work commercially as well.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

You are allowed to create derivative works based on the foundation and monetize them, yes, but SCP-173 in particular cannot be used commercially without permission from the original creator of the sculpture, but he seems very reluctant to let people use it and he stated he will take legal measures if it is used for commercial purposes.

And as I said before, even if you could monetize it and still include 173 you wouldn't have any legal recourse if people distributed it for free.


See this: http://www.scp-wiki.net/licensing-guide

Ohhhhhh. That's good to know, I didn't realize that the creator of SCP-173 had stated that. From the wiki, it looks like I'd have to create a very different model to allow me to monetize the game. And yeah, the patreon could be iffy depending on the creator's preference. Hmm. I'll have to ask him then.

Of course, even if I monetized the game on Steam, the only reason would be for workshop support. At that point, there would be two versions of the game: one with steam workshop support, available to purchase, and one without the workshop support, available for free; the workshop support being the only difference and the only reason to purchase the game on steam, really. The game will always be available for free in some form. I'll probably open-source it as well once I complete the port.

Regardless of monetization, the game will always be available for free; the patreon is only there to support development, not for people to purchase the game as such.

As I said, the Patreon is a bit dubious but I think you're safe. I'm pretty sure The Long Version and the FAQ on the scp-wiki licensing guide should be all you need to know. I think it would still be illegal to monetize it in the way you suggested though. Likely the best thing you can do that's still in the clear is a way to donate through a website, unless you can figure out something else.

Combine wrote:

zornor90 wrote:

Combine wrote:
You are allowed to create derivative works based on the foundation and monetize them, yes, but SCP-173 in particular cannot be used commercially without permission from the original creator of the sculpture, but he seems very reluctant to let people use it and he stated he will take legal measures if it is used for commercial purposes.

And as I said before, even if you could monetize it and still include 173 you wouldn't have any legal recourse if people distributed it for free.


See this: http://www.scp-wiki.net/licensing-guide

Ohhhhhh. That's good to know, I didn't realize that the creator of SCP-173 had stated that. From the wiki, it looks like I'd have to create a very different model to allow me to monetize the game. And yeah, the patreon could be iffy depending on the creator's preference. Hmm. I'll have to ask him then.

Of course, even if I monetized the game on Steam, the only reason would be for workshop support. At that point, there would be two versions of the game: one with steam workshop support, available to purchase, and one without the workshop support, available for free; the workshop support being the only difference and the only reason to purchase the game on steam, really. The game will always be available for free in some form. I'll probably open-source it as well once I complete the port.

Regardless of monetization, the game will always be available for free; the patreon is only there to support development, not for people to purchase the game as such.

As I said, the Patreon is a bit dubious but I think you're safe. I'm pretty sure The Long Version and the FAQ on the scp-wiki licensing guide should be all you need to know. I think it would still be illegal to monetize it in the way you suggested though.

That's fair. I mean, we are a long way off from me even really considering that, haha. Once the game gets much closer to the state I have in mind, which is more than just a port of the original, but a real game with a lot more SCPs, levels, and other things, I'll have to look into licensing matters. And, if it turns out that monetizing it on Steam is illegal, then so be it. For the end user, their experience of the game won't be impacted at all.

I do appreciate the heads-up and the information, though!

zornor90 wrote:

Combine wrote:

zornor90 wrote:
Ohhhhhh. That's good to know, I didn't realize that the creator of SCP-173 had stated that. From the wiki, it looks like I'd have to create a very different model to allow me to monetize the game. And yeah, the patreon could be iffy depending on the creator's preference. Hmm. I'll have to ask him then.

Of course, even if I monetized the game on Steam, the only reason would be for workshop support. At that point, there would be two versions of the game: one with steam workshop support, available to purchase, and one without the workshop support, available for free; the workshop support being the only difference and the only reason to purchase the game on steam, really. The game will always be available for free in some form. I'll probably open-source it as well once I complete the port.

Regardless of monetization, the game will always be available for free; the patreon is only there to support development, not for people to purchase the game as such.

As I said, the Patreon is a bit dubious but I think you're safe. I'm pretty sure The Long Version and the FAQ on the scp-wiki licensing guide should be all you need to know. I think it would still be illegal to monetize it in the way you suggested though.

That's fair. I mean, we are a long way off from me even really considering that, haha. Once the game gets much closer to the state I have in mind, which is more than just a port of the original, but a real game with a lot more SCPs, levels, and other things, I'll have to look into licensing matters. And, if it turns out that monetizing it on Steam is illegal, then so be it. For the end user, their experience of the game won't be impacted at all.

I do appreciate the heads-up and the information, though!

It's not a problem. I'm glad I could help.

zornor90 wrote:even if I monetized the game on Steam, the only reason would be for workshop support.

Why would you require the game to be commercially released in order to have Workshop support?

CommanderMark wrote:

zornor90 wrote:even if I monetized the game on Steam, the only reason would be for workshop support.

Why would you require the game to be commercially released in order to have Workshop support?

Can free games have workshop support? I always assumed that only commercial games would get it, as valve would need to cover server costs, etc.

zornor90 wrote:Can free games have workshop support? I always assumed that only commercial games would get it, as valve would need to cover server costs, etc.

Yeah, why wouldn't they be?

Good example would be Synergy: