1. No. No PVP packs are legal that use either of the faithful packs. They are all mash ups of other peoples hard works. There is only one pack floating around for 'pvp' that uses all custom textures, or the ones they added. I don't recall what it is off the top of my head.
2. Asking that is going to just cause a chain reaction of people self promoting their own packs.
Well if there packs are good thats fine Im ok with people self promoting there packs if there good. and if they give full credit to faithful and they just added something like low fire and call it faithful edit low fire well then didn't you say yourself its legal?
Well if there packs are good thats fine Im ok with people self promoting there packs if there good. and if they give full credit to faithful and they just added something like low fire and call it faithful edit low fire well then didn't you say yourself its legal?
That's not how copyright works. If you take the latest Miley Cyrus song and boost the bass you can't legally redistribute it regardless of the credit you give. Same concept here. Changing one small aspect of a work does not make it a unique work, nor does it mean that you can steal whatever you want. This is the very ignorance and attitude that we resource pack artists are fighting against. Please don't perpetuate such lies, OK?
I'm hesitant to mention that packs I use on this thread simply because I don't want them to end up in a PvP remix somewhere. Any other self-promotion thread I'd be fine doing it... but PvP packs are so problematic that I don't want anything I love to be in any way associated with them. Yea... it's really that bad.
1. No. No PVP packs are legal that use either of the faithful packs. They are all mash ups of other peoples hard works. There is only one pack floating around for 'pvp' that uses all custom textures, or the ones they added. I don't recall what it is off the top of my head.
2. Asking that is going to just cause a chain reaction of people self promoting their own packs.
Yeah sorry but copyright really don't work that way. I would also HIGHLY advise against promoting people whom steal the hard works of others. Many youtubers are doing this and not only are they getting ad revenue (a.k.a getting PAID off other peoples works) but they are taking full credit for the works. No ones crediting anything, it is full on stealing textures and slapping their own name on it.
Even so credit alone is not enough.
From the top 100 Copyright Myths:
Myth #5:
"Changing something a percentage makes it mine."
Truth:
Many people believe the "myth" that if they change an existing work a percentage (10%, 30%, etc.), then they can legally use what ever it is they changed. Be advised: that is not the law.
One of the exclusive rights granted under copyright is the individual right of the copyright owner to create derivative works from their original copyrighted material.
Modifying or altering something is infringing upon the copyright owner's rights unless expressed permission is granted or the modification falls under fair use (which is highly unlikely).
Altering or modifying published works is strongly not recommended because most artists, writers, musicians, photographers, etc., can recognize their own work even through modifications.
Myth #8:
"As long as I note the author's name, I can use their content."
Truth:
Although you are being nice and giving credit where credit is due, you still need to ask the author's permission to use their works. The author may not want their works posted anywhere off their own site or they many not approve of your site as a venue for their work - that is their choice to make not yours. Always ask the owner if you can use their content before you use it.
Myth #10:
"It is legal to copy a work as long as I give the author full credit."
Truth:
Under the provisions of the Copyright Act, the copyright owner, and only the copyright owner, has the right to reproduce the work unless it comes under certain limited exceptions, such as “fair use” (see Myth #11). Simply giving credit or attribution, without having permission, is the same as stealing Joe's wallet and then saying, while using Joe’s money, “This came from Joe.” It’s still theft.
Myth #11:
"If I don’t charge for the work, it’s not a copyright violation."
Truth:
False. (See Myth #10). Some people believe that they are giving the copyright owner free advertising, and the owner should be grateful. But it is up to the owner, not you, whether he/she wishes their work displayed or published – and in what context.
Myth #12:
"Unless I copy the whole work, it is ‘fair use’ and thus not a violation of copyright."
Truth:
“Fair use” is the most abused concept in copyright law. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides that "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” Fair use generally is a short excerpt, usually attributed, used in connection with genuine criticism, parody, or teaching. Most of what people label as fair use - isn’t.
And lastly to make it fully clear:
USE
Copyright infringement occurs when intellectual property is used without permission or without following the stipulated "terms of use". Use is defined as the copying, distributing, adapting, or publicly displaying a work without the permission of the copyright holder.
PLAGIARIZE
To take the works of another person and attempt to pass them off as one's own. A plagiarist poses as the original creator of words or images that were originally created by someone else. [A plagiarist can also be a copyright violator by taking credit for work that is copyrighted]
INFRINGEMENT
The unlawful use, redistribution and/or exploitation of intellectual property that is protected by copyright, patent or trademark.
The four basic elements that can establish copyright infringement:
All of the work is exactly copied or reproduced
Part of the work is copied or reproduced
Reworking (or paraphrasing)
Copying the TOTAL concept, feel or essence of a work
Infringement can be punished by law including but not limited to recovery of monetary losses, punitive damages and/or misdemeanor or criminal prosecution.
1.Does anyone know any legal Faithful PvP Resource packs That are 1.like faithful 2.Legal 3.Low Fire
2.Also what are your favorite resource packs please tell me
3.If you have any of your own Packs that you created feel free to tell me about them aswell even if you don't like them the most
That is it and everyone that posts Thanks for the feedback.
-Godz
2. Asking that is going to just cause a chain reaction of people self promoting their own packs.
3. Ditto.
That's not how copyright works. If you take the latest Miley Cyrus song and boost the bass you can't legally redistribute it regardless of the credit you give. Same concept here. Changing one small aspect of a work does not make it a unique work, nor does it mean that you can steal whatever you want. This is the very ignorance and attitude that we resource pack artists are fighting against. Please don't perpetuate such lies, OK?
I'm hesitant to mention that packs I use on this thread simply because I don't want them to end up in a PvP remix somewhere. Any other self-promotion thread I'd be fine doing it... but PvP packs are so problematic that I don't want anything I love to be in any way associated with them. Yea... it's really that bad.
I believe it's called "SheePvP" by xxSheep?
Putting the CENDENT back in transcendent!
Even so credit alone is not enough.
From the top 100 Copyright Myths:
Myth #5:
"Changing something a percentage makes it mine."Truth:
Many people believe the "myth" that if they change an existing work a percentage (10%, 30%, etc.), then they can legally use what ever it is they changed. Be advised: that is not the law.One of the exclusive rights granted under copyright is the individual right of the copyright owner to create derivative works from their original copyrighted material.
Modifying or altering something is infringing upon the copyright owner's rights unless expressed permission is granted or the modification falls under fair use (which is highly unlikely).
Altering or modifying published works is strongly not recommended because most artists, writers, musicians, photographers, etc., can recognize their own work even through modifications.
Myth #8:
"As long as I note the author's name, I can use their content."Truth:
Although you are being nice and giving credit where credit is due, you still need to ask the author's permission to use their works. The author may not want their works posted anywhere off their own site or they many not approve of your site as a venue for their work - that is their choice to make not yours. Always ask the owner if you can use their content before you use it.Myth #10:
"It is legal to copy a work as long as I give the author full credit."Truth:
Under the provisions of the Copyright Act, the copyright owner, and only the copyright owner, has the right to reproduce the work unless it comes under certain limited exceptions, such as “fair use” (see Myth #11). Simply giving credit or attribution, without having permission, is the same as stealing Joe's wallet and then saying, while using Joe’s money, “This came from Joe.” It’s still theft.Myth #11:
"If I don’t charge for the work, it’s not a copyright violation."Truth:
False. (See Myth #10). Some people believe that they are giving the copyright owner free advertising, and the owner should be grateful. But it is up to the owner, not you, whether he/she wishes their work displayed or published – and in what context.Myth #12:
"Unless I copy the whole work, it is ‘fair use’ and thus not a violation of copyright."Truth:
“Fair use” is the most abused concept in copyright law. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides that "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” Fair use generally is a short excerpt, usually attributed, used in connection with genuine criticism, parody, or teaching. Most of what people label as fair use - isn’t.And lastly to make it fully clear:
USE
Copyright infringement occurs when intellectual property is used without permission or without following the stipulated "terms of use". Use is defined as the copying, distributing, adapting, or publicly displaying a work without the permission of the copyright holder.PLAGIARIZE
To take the works of another person and attempt to pass them off as one's own. A plagiarist poses as the original creator of words or images that were originally created by someone else. [A plagiarist can also be a copyright violator by taking credit for work that is copyrighted]INFRINGEMENT
The unlawful use, redistribution and/or exploitation of intellectual property that is protected by copyright, patent or trademark.The four basic elements that can establish copyright infringement: