We are already in a gray area and we are all aware of it. Featured Artist tracks are a good approach to using licensed content, but there are obviously still large portions being used that are not licensed. We have almost no regulations, especially when it comes to the use of graphics. I don't even want to talk about what content can be used. What matters to me is: How content can be used/changed/edited.

It is also clear to all of us that graphics for background and storyboard usage are cut and resized. Audio is also being cut and reformatted (in this case it's stated as cut version). It's common practice and is done to align with the RC (audio bitrate, image scaling).

This is where the question arises as to whether I can actively change content (audio and graphics). Can I edit audio files so that content is played in it that is not actually part of the song? Can I edit elements of an image, for example add or delete something, e.g. removing an artist's watermark and/or putting my own name on it?

Such topics are currently not regulated by the RC. Following rule is my proposal as how to handle content:

Using media is allowed, editing media is not allowed, exception: Restretching / Resizing / Reformatting.

What do you think of this suggestion? Do you think it belongs in the RC?

In my opinion, YES. We don't have the right to edit other people's content (exception is licensed songs or when asked for permission), so if we use media without permission, then these should remain unchanged and deserve to be credited properly.

> removing an artist's watermark and/or putting my own name on it

idk who is doing this tbh but this is straight plagiarism. However, removing the watermark but still crediting the artist isn't imo since artists should still be credited in the beatmap description.

i dont think editing pictures or audio is so much of a problem because thats just what remixers do which is generally covered under fair use I believe, and most artists are pretty openly okay with it anyways as long as proper credit is given (which BNs ensure it is)

so at the end of the day, im not sure what this specific RC change would be addressing

Using media is allowed, editing media is not allowed, exception: Restretching / Resizing / Reformatting.

this is so ambiguous still, how much editing is allowed? if u want create a rule at least make sure to define it well, cover all edge cases.

under ur current rule, i can change alpha channel of 1 pixel by 1% and its gonna DQ my map although no one can tell its changed by naked eye.

i think if u add this to RC, its gonna cause unnecessary drama over something so unimportant that's not even related to the actual map. i think its not worth the effort enforce this rule.

BN already ask mapper to put credits to artist/creator of the media they use in their map in desc.

everything has a cost, adding anything to RC is gonna drain BN life more. is this worth the cost, I really doubt it.

dunno who puts their name on someone else's graphic material to appropriate it (at least I haven't seen anything like that) but if that's the case it should be penalized. Now as far as artwork is concerned I think it's a bit unnecessary cus sometimes an artwork is edited to fit the map and not to appropriate it, this could even generate controversy in maps if a rule like this would be so strict.

As far as songs are concerned... I haven't read the RC in details but as long as it's a mashup or cut some things from the song or even extend it (maps that last 4:58 and want to extend it to 5min) I don't consider it so tragic since at the end of the day the real artist is being given credit.

In a few words I don't consider it so necessary to add something like this since the practice of the mentioned is not so abundant.

-White wrote:

> removing an artist's watermark and/or putting my own name on it

idk who is doing this tbh but this is straight plagiarism. However, removing the watermark but still crediting the artist isn't imo since artists should still be credited in the beatmap description.

i dont think editing pictures or audio is so much of a problem because thats just what remixers do which is generally covered under fair use I believe, and most artists are pretty openly okay with it anyways as long as proper credit is given (which BNs ensure it is)

so at the end of the day, im not sure what this specific RC change would be addressing

One specific case is whether it‘s okay to edit your/GD usernames onto a BG that is not yours.

Which I think shouldn‘t be due to it discrediting the original artwork creators and potentially implying it‘s someone else‘s work, even if it should be obvious what it means. In osu adding charter/mapper names is usually done by using storyboard elements, not by editing the background - at least that‘s my experience from standard mode.

Redundant since most artists who allows non-commercial visual content use often times have different allowances. If we want stricter regulation, we can reuse what Mappers' Guild do regarding visual contents, which requires the image to be allowed to use in osu! by the artist (explicit permission, public domain, Creative Commons, etc.).

It should be back to each artist's discretion whether they allow their visual contents to be altered by any means. Mappers and BNs are encouraged to ask the details about do's and don't to the artist, not following the osu! RC which may conflict with artist's given permission.

Pho wrote:

One specific case is whether it‘s okay to edit your/GD usernames onto a BG that is not yours.

Which I think shouldn‘t be due to it discrediting the original artwork creators and potentially implying it‘s someone else‘s work, even if it should be obvious what it means. In osu adding charter/mapper names is usually done by using storyboard elements, not by editing the background - at least that‘s my experience from standard mode.

I do agree that editing a name or otherwise implying that you might be the creator of the art is not okay, but if it's clear you are not, such as saying "Mapper: wafer" rather than just "wafer" I think it would be totally fine, as it would then be abundantly clear that wafer is not the artist's watermark but simply the mapper.

If someone actually transforms the art though, (such as making a mashup for a song compilation, for example) then I would argue that falls under the transformative doctrine of fair use and is totally fine, as long as they don't claim that they made the original images used in that mashup.

I partly agree with the sentiment of the proposal, which is to avoid bad faith actors from claiming ownership of the media they used unrightfully. To some extent this has already been done, such as in cases where the original artist(s) is fully uncredited. But we cannot outright restrict media from being edited nor prohibit good faith actors from being creative. If anything, personally, adding a personal touch is always nice to see. Art is derivative and transformative (explained by -White above).

Assuming you're talking about wafer's map, I do not think plastering one's names is equivalent to claiming ownership of the works.

However, it is our due diligence to ask for permission on the media we use, let it be audio, GFX, etc... This is already laid out in the Content usage permissions. Users are expected to have gained the rights, a license, or permission to use the content they upload. As for "Such topics are currently not regulated by the RC" this is precisely why this isn't mentioned in the RC as it's outside of its scope.

this isn't the job of RC. if necessary, it should be handled similar to usage rights. and I don't think anyone besides the ppl operating osu can determine if this is necessary

Well, shouldn't it be the RC's job to regulate what is allowed and what isn't? The question that is asked is to what extent media can be further processed without having the rights to do so (when it's not FA and a mapper doesn't have explicit permission to do so). I think this needs a rule, or at least a guideline. Checking such topics should be easy to verify for BNs with a simple Google Image search or by citing source/credit. What I'm interested in here is not a pixel-precise check, but rather whether the image corresponds to an original. I'm fully aware that restretching / resizing / reformatting needs to be done in many cases due to the RC, so the question is, can I go further then that?

As mentioned in the case above, it is also important to know what can be put on the background and what should be regulated via storyboard. Different example: Can I add a "krimek on the beat" to the audio file of a song when it's clearly not my song? Yes or No? Should I use hitsounds instead if I want to make it funny?

For all the audacity we have to use other people's works of art (images and music), we should at least respect the fact that these works are only processed further to a limited extent. Using media for beatmaps without major consequences is already borderline. The question is, can I process it further?

Changes to the way media is used/processed/edited etc... is outside of the scope of the Ranking Criteria. As said, this is covered by the Content usage permissions article.

But hypothetically, it would not be practical to have such a provision in the Ranking Criteria. How do you control what's a right modification or not? Why would such modifications need to be outlawed to begin with? What if the mapper had the proper license or rights to the background? Why would the edits need to be forced on the Storyboard? Point being this is not something that should be regulated in the Ranking Criteria.

Regardless of what modification is done to the media used, the mapper must have asked for the permission to use it as explained in the Content usage permissions. Whether something was modified or not matters not if the mapper didn't have permission for it to begin with. This is out of scope in the RC.

Let me try to answer the question you gave me and give more insight why I think it's useful.

The idea is to keep things fair when we mess with art, right? But we've got to make exceptions for stuff that already has the green light — like if there's explicit permission or artists who've given the go-ahead, FA for example. They shouldn't get caught in the restriction net.

The thing is, the current system kinda skips over checking how we play with art. As you stated above, RC doesn't cover what is written in the content usage permissions. That's where fitting it into the Ranking Criteria could help. If we make a friendly guide, not strict rules, it'd cover things like restretching, resizing and reformatting art while respecting the (eventually not) given permissions.

Here's the thing: most people don't really pay attention to content usage rules. But BNs, they're all about the Ranking Criteria. So, slipping this into the RC could get more eyes on it, making sure art gets the respect it deserves.

This guideline isn't just about preserving fair use, it's also about avoiding potential missteps within that gray area we are in. Think about it — It doesn't really limit us, does it? The community has always been super creative with the existing workarounds like storyboarding. So, why keep that door open, causing more problems? Let's address this topic clearly and transparently within the Ranking Criteria.

To add a question to this topic: What are the downsides of this RC addition? Neither do I think this causes more work, nor would this limit 99,9% of the beatmaps in the game.

*edit: Given the example of watermark(-ing) backgrounds, this is why I do believe it's our responsibility to not make this possible within the game and its community.

talked w/ krimek a bit about this and we'll address this in the RC rewrite for this area, while clarifying what this proposal was actually about because the discussion here totally didnt work out because people were talking about like 5 different things...