Link

Actually they remove illegal content that is picked up by their systems during the upload process, they don't allow copyrighted material to be uploaded without the permission of the copyright holder. If the video is not detected e.g. if someone raises the pitch on the audio and flips the video, then it goes live on YouTube for the public to see until the copyright owner raises a complaint to have it removed.

Indeed, in the same way Google handles YouTube content that isn't obviously copyrighted. A complaint is made to Google, Google raise it with the user, user takes action in one way or another, case resolved.

Uploaders won't come to any harm though. Instead of going directly to the uploader, the owner of the original content would submit a request through the staff following the procedures listed on the Rules page, this would then be resolved by JKHub's staff who would be the middle man between the dispute. If the content in question is found to be on our website without consent and the owner of the content wishes to have it taken down, then it will. Otherwise it will remain up. This is resolved without having to resort to any potential legal battles (However unlikely it might be that this would happen) where the person in the right always wins. Surely this is fair for both sides, is it not? Obviously I'm missing something though XD

Welcome to the hub

Any way, to address your points directly as Circa did as well: Ported models can go through however if it comes to light from the author of those files never gave you permission and wishes to have it taken down, then it will. The full responsibility and claim is on the uploader of the content, we work with both sides to ensure we can come to a resolution that suits the person in the right. This is figured out by the providing of evidence from the person making the claim. If it's strong, then that file will be taken down and the uploader will be informed of this. The Acknowledged Rules needs to stay to ensure that the person agrees they have read the rules we're talking about here. If someone makes a claim to us and the uploader of the file in question says he was ignorant of the rules, then the blame is then put on JKHub for not making these as clear as possible to be aware of. Any one who doesn't see the Rules page, will know one exists before hitting the submit button. The reason it is on the actual download page is to allow the person making the dispute to see that the uploader said he agreed to the rules... the person making the claim will more than likely not know how our website works so they won't know if the uploader had to agree to those rules or not beforehand. I used to agree with you about the readme removal, but when I thought about it in more detail it became clear that it is a smart thing to do to include one in your file. I've seen game file sites rip content from other websites without the uploaders knowledge... if a site did this to our files (It will eventually happen in all likelihood) then there would be no knowledge of whom it came from... just a pk3 in a zip file. This, again, is to protect the content holder/uploader. You have to think of this from the view of someone who has never submitted a file before. Is there something I'm missing here which is obvious to you/those who liked your post ? I'm honestly curious because I feel this really does cover the problem very well, I've done my best to explain the individual issues you have with this.

... You're kidding, right? The rules were re-written and make it clear that you can upload pretty much anything as long as it is a JK2/JK3 file. So if you uploaded a ported model, it would go through and if the company whose game you ported it from has a dispute against that, they can raise it and request to have it taken down. We can't check every file to ensure that it belongs to uploader. It is up to the uploader to get permission and the responsibility is entirely on them to clear that up. I don't know how many times I've repeated this. It now does exactly what you state you wanted from the porting discussion whilst giving content owners a clear way to get their content taken down if they wish to do so.

I would like to invite everyone who has shown interest to head on over to this area: http://jkhub.org/forum/94-ten-years-jedi-academy/ (You'll need to be logged in)

I went with 12, something about it seems very appealing... and besides I much prefer lighter layouts/backgrounds

Any news on this ? By the way, I'll be forming this very soon, it's my priority and I'll be PMing everyone interested privately soon.

I always slightly modify the zip title in order to avoid potentially overwriting duplicate files in Dropbox (It does not warn you before overwriting) to ensure users could always have a link to older versions of a file. I've renamed them back for you.

Truly beautiful, I adore maps of this theme and I adore attention to detail even more. This is really fantastic can'can't wait to see the final product if you do plan to add more.

The name is definitely memorable...*looks through emails* Ah yeah I emailed you a little over a year ago to see if JKHub could have permission to host your JKA files, but the mail bounced back unfortunately. @@Zappa_0 Are these yours? http://jediknight3.filefront.com/developer/Darth_Zappa;8357 Welcome back to the community and welcome to the hub

Approved

Should be better now

We simply cannot check every single file for copyright infringement, it's up to the author to check his/her files and credit those who he used content from (And ask permission themselves, unrelated to JKHub). If a report is made, and it is genuine, then we'll take swift and immediate action to take the file in question down. Any content that is obvious to us e.g. if Eez uploaded a map by Sith-J-Cull and claimed it as his own or if Futuza uploaded that well known ported Master Chief model, then we'd deny it immediately, otherwise we'll always do our best but things will definitely slip through at times... we make it clear that it's the uploaders responsibility to make sure this is all in order beforehand. As I said in the porting thread, this is how Google operates with YouTube content and I believe it is fair to both sides.

... Any way That looks very impressive Hopefully it'll show up in the Files area soon.

The readme was required before these changes o_o And as we said, if any content that is owned by the original author is reported (With supporting evidence) then it will be taken down, else, it stays up as we cannot verify if every file inside a .pk3 is legal or not. Fixed, although I simply entered "if reported" twice in error, so commas aren't needed

The readme is entirely up to the user as long as it contains information about the author including credits I should probably re-write that.

Welcome to the hub! I read that you model, got any examples to show off ?

Awesome, I'll get this organized soon should be awesome.

For the sake of not repeating myself, it's best reading my previous replies on the subject

T'was always my intention

You can go back and edit your files, you should have full rights over them unless anything changed whilst I was a staff last time By the way to sum the issue up in a sentence: Upload your files as normal, and if a request from another author whose work you've used makes a claim (With good evidence), your file will be taken down. This is the same approach Google has with YouTube content uploaded.