With all due respect, you missed the point of the topic.
It's not about how the original uploader feels about reuploading. It's the issue that everyone is affected negatively when there are too many re-uploads. I think better sorting and filtering options can help.
Quite frankly, we needed better sorting options for a while. This just seemed like an interesting way to open up such a discussion.
With all due respect, you missed the point of the topic.
It's not about how the original uploader feels about reuploading. It's the issue that everyone is affected negatively when there are too many re-uploads. I think better sorting and filtering options can help.
Quite frankly, we needed better sorting options for a while. This just seemed like an interesting way to open up such a discussion.
I agree with sorting that puts the original 'master-copy' at the top of the list and then reveals every COPIED version underneath - this will also make it easy to identify which people are clearly STEALING by simply re-uploading the original.
If I copy something then the Local Gallery knows who the original creator was (of the item that I duplicated).
THE QUESTION:
Does the Main Gallery also do this - does the Main Gallery also show an original creator's name and the re-uploader's name or just the re-uploader's name?
If the Main Gallery doesn't show the original creator's name, then that needs fixing as it does do this in the Local Gallery.
EDIT: The Main Gallery does show who an original creator is.
So, the Main Gallery can detect an original and copies of an original - the Main Gallery knows the upload times.
Result = we COULD filter by date to get to an ORIGINAL item - the Main Gallery COULD link to every off-shoot of the original - like branches off of a main trunk of a tree - it could track everything by date - it would be like a family tree coming off of the ORIGINAL item.
There are 6 of them on the Gallery - they don't all look alike - HOWEVER, 4 of them look VERY similar.
The 4 that are VERY similar are all tagged as being created by celaste but uploaded by someone else.
There are no notes or anything to say what is different between this and the original - the original creator is not mentioned; HOWEVER, the Gallery knows who the original creator is.
ALL 4 of the Cumberland Cottages, that look similar, are marked as created by celeste; however, none of the 6 Cumberland Cottages in the Gallery are by a celaste - they don't have an active upload of Cumberland Cottage????
So, did the original creator simply delete their own creation because people stole it? The original creator is on the Gallery - they have other things listed - but no Cumberland Cottage.
None of the 4 copies of the original mention the original - the re-uploaders haven't acknowledeged anything or mentioned how theirs differs from the original.
This is not the way it should be people - it really shouldn't.
To be honest...I don't care who the original creator is. Most people don't. I don't think I ever even look at the creator name...mostly I'm looking for something specific and want it quickly. Who created it is the last thing on my mind. Probably most people use the gallery that way. Unless I am at someone's dedicated website admiring their work, I don't give a fig about who the glory-grubbing creator is. The creators who I think actually deserve recognition are the ones that shell out money to run websites and don't go throwing tantrums about their work ending up on the gallery. Because this is a game with a huge community of customizers. People just need to get over it.
As you can see, I don't really care about re-uploaders, but the gallery itself needs more filters. Heck, just an "original" filter would be welcome apparently. But their three categories, most popular, newest, and popular now, are horrendous. First, because they overly influence the lots of the creators who had the game prior to release. It is almost impossible to match those lots and get anywhere near as popular. Second, there is just a lot of crap on the gallery. I get that some people are proud of their empty boxes...but there needs to be a way to filter out that noise. Third, search is paltry at best. Most of the time I can't even find anything without using a hashtag and even then it's hit or miss. Sometimes I will use the same hashtag in the same session and bring back different results. That's ridiculous. I get it...they're not Google. But at least try some algorithms.
Problem is, a lot of content creators do care. Simply saying "It's a game" doesn't change that there are people do put a lot of work into their uploads. You really can't deny this and it likely has a nontrivial effect on how people use the gallery.
I don't think it's wrong for me to reference it and this is simply my writing style. No need to get angry over it. But that's not even my point. I am just suggesting an improvement to the gallery search functions and providing justification for it.
I'm not angry. I think it is silly how some of the above posters are reacting to it.
My motto is - if you don't really want to share, then don't share. Simple as that. The terms of service for the game are very clear. If you share it, it is no longer yours. It becomes the property of EA/Maxis and, by distribution, the whole community's to do with as they please. For previous games, the community even went so far as to contact EA and their lawyers to find out where they stand. You know what we found out? That they don't care about people re-uploading or even sharing paid for content. So that's the whole of it. They turn a blind eye because this is supposed to be about sharing, not about glory.
To be honest...I don't care who the original creator is.
I don't give a fig about who the glory-grubbing creator is.
^ There you have it.
The various cliques and clans of the Simming world.
People should remember that next time they upload their masterpiece. You are not going to get any credit from THAT Simmer - they don't care - the venon is evident.
Technically-speaking - it would appear that EVERYTHING on the Gallery is MINE as well - I could just as well lay claim to EVERYTHING and re-upload. However, I am not in one of the cliques and clans of the Simming world.
So, I am not going to do it.
I respect the original creators - I do not belong to any of the various cliques and clans of the Simming world.
Isn't there a further problem here - unless I am mistaken?
People can download lots (for example) that are hosted on various Sim-related websites/forums - ie they are not on the Gallery. That person can then, or so it would appear, upload the lot onto the Gallery and become the creator.
Isn't there a further problem here - unless I am mistaken?
People can download lots (for example) that are hosted on various Sim-related websites/forums - ie they are not on the Gallery. That person can then, or so it would appear, upload the lot onto the Gallery and become the creator.
Is this true? If so, it's a bit harsh isn't it?
*cough*
and then some of you find it and re-upload it.
*cough*
Not sure what way is the best but feel that if you copy and redownload and the creator says to remove it then you should remove it out of common courtesy.
There's no glory in the gallery. It's a tool to share your builds on, without having to go to some third party site to do it. I've only bothered to get a few builds from others (as I prefer to make my own), but not once have I looked at how popular they or the builds were. I just got them cuz I liked them. *shrug*
You don't get money from it. You're not more likely to get recommended by Maxis on it by being more 'famous'. The only way 'glory' would matter is if you spam links to something like your YouTube or Twitch or blog or whatever and try to generate traffic that way, and if you do, well... too bad so sad you didn't get a million more followers? lol Because usually it's the other way around, and famous YouTubers and such link to their gallery builds.
I really doubt most people get builds because someone 'famous' made them, and not because they fit the person's preferences.
@plopppo2 - what part of EA owns everything on the gallery don't you understand. You agree to it in their terms of service. EA has no problem with simmers who reupload. So calling people thieves is ridiculous.
I thought of something that might help people who think others are stealing their work
and maybe help with uploads to
ea takes away all credit and no one will know who made what that way people wont reupload for credit
which I doubt a lot of people are doing anyway
@plopppo2 - what part of EA owns everything on the gallery don't you understand. You agree to it in their terms of service. EA has no problem with simmers who reupload. So calling people thieves is ridiculous.
I just wanted to chime in to point out that this is not entirely true; though EA has made no statement I'm aware of about re-uploading itself, they did take steps at one point to try to ensure that credit attribution goes to the original creator. So if nothing else, their actions demonstrate that it does matter to them. More likely is that they have few resources to devote to the gallery and so any issues related to it are considered a low priority, unless it is involves maintenance / making sure the gallery is online.
I can't remember now where the thread is, but there was a mega thread somewhere, pinned I thought, about the whole subject.
I'm not angry. I think it is silly how some of the above posters are reacting to it.
My motto is - if you don't really want to share, then don't share. Simple as that. The terms of service for the game are very clear. If you share it, it is no longer yours. It becomes the property of EA/Maxis and, by distribution, the whole community's to do with as they please. For previous games, the community even went so far as to contact EA and their lawyers to find out where they stand. You know what we found out? That they don't care about people re-uploading or even sharing paid for content. So that's the whole of it. They turn a blind eye because this is supposed to be about sharing, not about glory.
@plopppo2 - what part of EA owns everything on the gallery don't you understand. You agree to it in their terms of service. EA has no problem with simmers who reupload. So calling people thieves is ridiculous.
I just wanted to chime in to point out that this is not entirely true; though EA has made no statement I'm aware of about re-uploading itself, they did take steps at one point to try to ensure that credit attribution goes to the original creator. So if nothing else, their actions demonstrate that it does matter to them. More likely is that they have few resources to devote to the gallery and so any issues related to it are considered a low priority, unless it is involves maintenance / making sure the gallery is online.
I can't remember now where the thread is, but there was a mega thread somewhere, pinned I thought, about the whole subject.
letting people know that someone made something does not mean they think people are stealing when they reuploud
its just a kindness on there part
I'm not angry. I think it is silly how some of the above posters are reacting to it.
My motto is - if you don't really want to share, then don't share. Simple as that. The terms of service for the game are very clear. If you share it, it is no longer yours. It becomes the property of EA/Maxis and, by distribution, the whole community's to do with as they please. For previous games, the community even went so far as to contact EA and their lawyers to find out where they stand. You know what we found out? That they don't care about people re-uploading or even sharing paid for content. So that's the whole of it. They turn a blind eye because this is supposed to be about sharing, not about glory.
There's no glory in the gallery. It's a tool to share your builds on, without having to go to some third party site to do it.
Except the thing is, some these re-uploaders do so for the sole purpose of trying to take credit, and some creators do get upset about it.
Whether or not you or I think whether these actions or frustrations are justified, is completely irrelevant since at the end of the day, I'm not really talking about this "glory." It's about how sorting options need some rework and having an "Original only" checkbox will be nice for the reasons I outlined in my post. A lot of times these re-uploads are easily found when sorted by "Most Popular" and having them also show up in the "Popular Now" is redundant. You can't really deny that re-uploads are essentially the same lot.
Everyone would be better off. Original creators get noticed more easily (it's not unreasonable to think that some creators do take pride in their work), and people who want to download something get more variety (not unreasonable to think variety is good).
@plopppo2 - what part of EA owns everything on the gallery don't you understand. You agree to it in their terms of service. EA has no problem with simmers who reupload. So calling people thieves is ridiculous.
It's not unreasonable to see it as disrespectful though.
@plopppo2 - what part of EA owns everything on the gallery don't you understand. You agree to it in their terms of service. EA has no problem with simmers who reupload. So calling people thieves is ridiculous.
I just wanted to chime in to point out that this is not entirely true; though EA has made no statement I'm aware of about re-uploading itself, they did take steps at one point to try to ensure that credit attribution goes to the original creator. So if nothing else, their actions demonstrate that it does matter to them. More likely is that they have few resources to devote to the gallery and so any issues related to it are considered a low priority, unless it is involves maintenance / making sure the gallery is online.
I can't remember now where the thread is, but there was a mega thread somewhere, pinned I thought, about the whole subject.
I don't think that is what it means at all. They are giving credit because people complain. But I am one of the simmers who contacted EA lawyers back in TS2 days. While I was given a blanket statement about their terms of service, it was very clear that anything made within the game or using proprietary pieces of the game were EA's property. And were open game to the community. Even new meshes created by modders outside of the game. Because they cloned objects within the game, the meshes belong to EA. That's how it works. So if you build within the game, that is considered the work of EA and the community can do anything with it. They tried to give credit to the original creators as an act of Goodwill in my opinion.
They tried to give credit to the original creators as an act of Goodwill in my opinion.
But what's wrong with an extra bit of kindness and goodwill?
What's wrong creators having pride in their creations?
Are creators suddenly at fault because they decided to spend 10 hours on a lot (honestly this is can be a low estimate sometimes) and get annoyed when someone took 5 seconds to simply re-upload it?
If everyone simply followed the oft-repeated statement "If you don't want this to happen, don't upload to the gallery", then the gallery would be a ghost town.
I don't think any of these are entirely unreasonable. I don't want to get tangled up in this discussion (since again, wasn't the point I am trying to make) but it is something to think about.
some of you guys are dense as hell. Even bringing legal rights into this.. OP isn't talking about anything legal at all. All he actually asked for is people to be mindful of reuploads on the gallery. He didn't even demand for the problem to be solved by EA. What's difficult to understand about that? People like to be acknowledged for their creativity, that's human nature. It may not even be the desire to be acknowledged that fuels the anger about reuploading, some people would just like to see how others like what they made. You can be dismissive and say "don't like it? don't upload." but that's such an awful attitude to have. People put dozens of hours into their builds and share them for the rest of us to download in 2 seconds. As someone who does not enjoy building at all, i'm very grateful to those people, and that dismissive attitude is what already prevents a lot of amazing builders from sharing their work with the community.
@plopppo2 - what part of EA owns everything on the gallery don't you understand. You agree to it in their terms of service. EA has no problem with simmers who reupload. So calling people thieves is ridiculous.
I just wanted to chime in to point out that this is not entirely true; though EA has made no statement I'm aware of about re-uploading itself, they did take steps at one point to try to ensure that credit attribution goes to the original creator. So if nothing else, their actions demonstrate that it does matter to them. More likely is that they have few resources to devote to the gallery and so any issues related to it are considered a low priority, unless it is involves maintenance / making sure the gallery is online.
I can't remember now where the thread is, but there was a mega thread somewhere, pinned I thought, about the whole subject.
I don't think that is what it means at all. They are giving credit because people complain. But I am one of the simmers who contacted EA lawyers back in TS2 days. While I was given a blanket statement about their terms of service, it was very clear that anything made within the game or using proprietary pieces of the game were EA's property. And were open game to the community. Even new meshes created by modders outside of the game. Because they cloned objects within the game, the meshes belong to EA. That's how it works. So if you build within the game, that is considered the work of EA and the community can do anything with it. They tried to give credit to the original creators as an act of Goodwill in my opinion.
That's not the argument though. You implied that EA doesn't care; I pointed out that they clearly cared enough to do something in the past. Whether it was because of complaining, or as an act of goodwill, is irrelevant to the argument, as is copyright. The point is, they did something. So implying that they never would do anything and therefore don't care is factually misleading.
That's all.
Also, an aside on copyright: The whole reason that creative work, including companies like EA, are protected by copyright laws in the first place is because there are those who would, with full awareness and intent, try to profit off of their work. It's a protection against dishonest acts. So to use a "you don't own it" argument as some sort of rebuttal against the idea that knowingly and intentionally stealing credit for someone's work is wrong, is missing the point of where copyright laws came from to begin with. The fact that no one owns, for example, a home they make in TS4 build mode, just means they have no legal recourse if someone takes credit for the work. It changes nothing about the morality of the situation.
The copyright argument is a bit like someone saying that there's nothing wrong with insulting people as you please, since it's not against the law. There are all sorts of things that aren't against the law, but which we still say are wrong and not without reason (and conversely, there are laws that don't seem to be rooted in any kind of practical or moral reason). Insulting people, for example, can be destructive under certain circumstances, which is impractical for social cohesion. But that doesn't mean it's always a horrible thing to insult someone. Context is important.
And here's an example of practical reasons related to the situation: Say you have a guy named Bob. Bob buys TS4. Bob is a lover of all things architectural and has a lot of experience doing it in real life. Bob, in his off time, gets a hankering to see what he can make in TS4 and spends hours of his off time, over a period of weeks, piecing together something he's really proud of. When he's finally finished, Bob shares his work. It gets a few hits, but it's mostly lost in the shuffle. Bob is mostly ok with this; he's used to his designs being rejected or ignored from years of climbing up the ladder. It's a little disappointing, but he's ready to tackle the next project. Next week he's browsing the gallery looking for inspiration and he sees his own creation, with a bunch of attention and praise. For a moment, he's glistening with pride and then he realizes that it's not his post. Some guy named Tim put up his house without a single change to it and Tim is saying that he made it. Bob is an even-tempered guy and this is just a side hobby, so he doesn't get very upset. He knows it's still his work getting praised, ultimately. But it takes the wind out of his sails. He doesn't feel as enthusiastic about creating anymore. He tries to work on his next project, but he starts feeling listless, knowing that someone will probably take credit for it again. Bob drifts away from TS4 and finds another hobby. Or maybe Bob keeps creating, but he figures what he makes isn't going to get much attention anyway and he doesn't want people taking credit, so he stops sharing what he makes.
Is that every situation? No. The point is to illustrate the impact that stuff can have.
And one could outline a similar scenario concerning the issue that this thread is actually about: Works being lost in a swarm of re-uploads. A similar situation could occur, where Bob feels that no one is going to see what he shares anyway, so he either stops creating entirely or stops sharing his work. Neither is a result that is good for EA in retaining players and neither is a result that is good for those who are looking for original work to use in their games.
I think there are some good suggestions in this thread for ways to improve the situation, like what ploppo said about sorting and filtering.
Comments
With all due respect, you missed the point of the topic.
It's not about how the original uploader feels about reuploading. It's the issue that everyone is affected negatively when there are too many re-uploads. I think better sorting and filtering options can help.
Quite frankly, we needed better sorting options for a while. This just seemed like an interesting way to open up such a discussion.
I agree with sorting that puts the original 'master-copy' at the top of the list and then reveals every COPIED version underneath - this will also make it easy to identify which people are clearly STEALING by simply re-uploading the original.
HOWEVER, taking the exact same thing and re-uploading should be seen as an attempt to STEAL - ie STEAL the glory from the original builder.
If I copy something then the Local Gallery knows who the original creator was (of the item that I duplicated).
THE QUESTION:
Does the Main Gallery also do this - does the Main Gallery also show an original creator's name and the re-uploader's name or just the re-uploader's name?
If the Main Gallery doesn't show the original creator's name, then that needs fixing as it does do this in the Local Gallery.
EDIT:
The Main Gallery does show who an original creator is.
Result = we COULD filter by date to get to an ORIGINAL item - the Main Gallery COULD link to every off-shoot of the original - like branches off of a main trunk of a tree - it could track everything by date - it would be like a family tree coming off of the ORIGINAL item.
CUMBERLAND COTTAGE
There are 6 of them on the Gallery - they don't all look alike - HOWEVER, 4 of them look VERY similar.
The 4 that are VERY similar are all tagged as being created by celaste but uploaded by someone else.
There are no notes or anything to say what is different between this and the original - the original creator is not mentioned; HOWEVER, the Gallery knows who the original creator is.
ALL 4 of the Cumberland Cottages, that look similar, are marked as created by celeste; however, none of the 6 Cumberland Cottages in the Gallery are by a celaste - they don't have an active upload of Cumberland Cottage????
So, did the original creator simply delete their own creation because people stole it? The original creator is on the Gallery - they have other things listed - but no Cumberland Cottage.
None of the 4 copies of the original mention the original - the re-uploaders haven't acknowledeged anything or mentioned how theirs differs from the original.
This is not the way it should be people - it really shouldn't.
To be honest...I don't care who the original creator is. Most people don't. I don't think I ever even look at the creator name...mostly I'm looking for something specific and want it quickly. Who created it is the last thing on my mind. Probably most people use the gallery that way. Unless I am at someone's dedicated website admiring their work, I don't give a fig about who the glory-grubbing creator is. The creators who I think actually deserve recognition are the ones that shell out money to run websites and don't go throwing tantrums about their work ending up on the gallery. Because this is a game with a huge community of customizers. People just need to get over it.
As you can see, I don't really care about re-uploaders, but the gallery itself needs more filters. Heck, just an "original" filter would be welcome apparently. But their three categories, most popular, newest, and popular now, are horrendous. First, because they overly influence the lots of the creators who had the game prior to release. It is almost impossible to match those lots and get anywhere near as popular. Second, there is just a lot of crap on the gallery. I get that some people are proud of their empty boxes...but there needs to be a way to filter out that noise. Third, search is paltry at best. Most of the time I can't even find anything without using a hashtag and even then it's hit or miss. Sometimes I will use the same hashtag in the same session and bring back different results. That's ridiculous. I get it...they're not Google. But at least try some algorithms.
I don't think it's wrong for me to reference it and this is simply my writing style. No need to get angry over it. But that's not even my point. I am just suggesting an improvement to the gallery search functions and providing justification for it.
My motto is - if you don't really want to share, then don't share. Simple as that. The terms of service for the game are very clear. If you share it, it is no longer yours. It becomes the property of EA/Maxis and, by distribution, the whole community's to do with as they please. For previous games, the community even went so far as to contact EA and their lawyers to find out where they stand. You know what we found out? That they don't care about people re-uploading or even sharing paid for content. So that's the whole of it. They turn a blind eye because this is supposed to be about sharing, not about glory.
^ There you have it.
The various cliques and clans of the Simming world.
People should remember that next time they upload their masterpiece. You are not going to get any credit from THAT Simmer - they don't care - the venon is evident.
Technically-speaking - it would appear that EVERYTHING on the Gallery is MINE as well - I could just as well lay claim to EVERYTHING and re-upload. However, I am not in one of the cliques and clans of the Simming world.
So, I am not going to do it.
I respect the original creators - I do not belong to any of the various cliques and clans of the Simming world.
People can download lots (for example) that are hosted on various Sim-related websites/forums - ie they are not on the Gallery. That person can then, or so it would appear, upload the lot onto the Gallery and become the creator.
Is this true? If so, it's a bit harsh isn't it?
and then some of you find it and re-upload it.
*cough*
You don't get money from it. You're not more likely to get recommended by Maxis on it by being more 'famous'. The only way 'glory' would matter is if you spam links to something like your YouTube or Twitch or blog or whatever and try to generate traffic that way, and if you do, well... too bad so sad you didn't get a million more followers? lol Because usually it's the other way around, and famous YouTubers and such link to their gallery builds.
I really doubt most people get builds because someone 'famous' made them, and not because they fit the person's preferences.
and maybe help with uploads to
ea takes away all credit and no one will know who made what that way people wont reupload for credit
which I doubt a lot of people are doing anyway
I can't remember now where the thread is, but there was a mega thread somewhere, pinned I thought, about the whole subject.
this
letting people know that someone made something does not mean they think people are stealing when they reuploud
its just a kindness on there part
Except the thing is, some these re-uploaders do so for the sole purpose of trying to take credit, and some creators do get upset about it.
Whether or not you or I think whether these actions or frustrations are justified, is completely irrelevant since at the end of the day, I'm not really talking about this "glory." It's about how sorting options need some rework and having an "Original only" checkbox will be nice for the reasons I outlined in my post. A lot of times these re-uploads are easily found when sorted by "Most Popular" and having them also show up in the "Popular Now" is redundant. You can't really deny that re-uploads are essentially the same lot.
Everyone would be better off. Original creators get noticed more easily (it's not unreasonable to think that some creators do take pride in their work), and people who want to download something get more variety (not unreasonable to think variety is good).
TL;DR Not about promoting "glory", just variety
It's not unreasonable to see it as disrespectful though.
I don't think that is what it means at all. They are giving credit because people complain. But I am one of the simmers who contacted EA lawyers back in TS2 days. While I was given a blanket statement about their terms of service, it was very clear that anything made within the game or using proprietary pieces of the game were EA's property. And were open game to the community. Even new meshes created by modders outside of the game. Because they cloned objects within the game, the meshes belong to EA. That's how it works. So if you build within the game, that is considered the work of EA and the community can do anything with it. They tried to give credit to the original creators as an act of Goodwill in my opinion.
But what's wrong with an extra bit of kindness and goodwill?
What's wrong creators having pride in their creations?
Are creators suddenly at fault because they decided to spend 10 hours on a lot (honestly this is can be a low estimate sometimes) and get annoyed when someone took 5 seconds to simply re-upload it?
If everyone simply followed the oft-repeated statement "If you don't want this to happen, don't upload to the gallery", then the gallery would be a ghost town.
I don't think any of these are entirely unreasonable. I don't want to get tangled up in this discussion (since again, wasn't the point I am trying to make) but it is something to think about.
That's all.
Also, an aside on copyright: The whole reason that creative work, including companies like EA, are protected by copyright laws in the first place is because there are those who would, with full awareness and intent, try to profit off of their work. It's a protection against dishonest acts. So to use a "you don't own it" argument as some sort of rebuttal against the idea that knowingly and intentionally stealing credit for someone's work is wrong, is missing the point of where copyright laws came from to begin with. The fact that no one owns, for example, a home they make in TS4 build mode, just means they have no legal recourse if someone takes credit for the work. It changes nothing about the morality of the situation.
The copyright argument is a bit like someone saying that there's nothing wrong with insulting people as you please, since it's not against the law. There are all sorts of things that aren't against the law, but which we still say are wrong and not without reason (and conversely, there are laws that don't seem to be rooted in any kind of practical or moral reason). Insulting people, for example, can be destructive under certain circumstances, which is impractical for social cohesion. But that doesn't mean it's always a horrible thing to insult someone. Context is important.
And here's an example of practical reasons related to the situation: Say you have a guy named Bob. Bob buys TS4. Bob is a lover of all things architectural and has a lot of experience doing it in real life. Bob, in his off time, gets a hankering to see what he can make in TS4 and spends hours of his off time, over a period of weeks, piecing together something he's really proud of. When he's finally finished, Bob shares his work. It gets a few hits, but it's mostly lost in the shuffle. Bob is mostly ok with this; he's used to his designs being rejected or ignored from years of climbing up the ladder. It's a little disappointing, but he's ready to tackle the next project. Next week he's browsing the gallery looking for inspiration and he sees his own creation, with a bunch of attention and praise. For a moment, he's glistening with pride and then he realizes that it's not his post. Some guy named Tim put up his house without a single change to it and Tim is saying that he made it. Bob is an even-tempered guy and this is just a side hobby, so he doesn't get very upset. He knows it's still his work getting praised, ultimately. But it takes the wind out of his sails. He doesn't feel as enthusiastic about creating anymore. He tries to work on his next project, but he starts feeling listless, knowing that someone will probably take credit for it again. Bob drifts away from TS4 and finds another hobby. Or maybe Bob keeps creating, but he figures what he makes isn't going to get much attention anyway and he doesn't want people taking credit, so he stops sharing what he makes.
Is that every situation? No. The point is to illustrate the impact that stuff can have.
And one could outline a similar scenario concerning the issue that this thread is actually about: Works being lost in a swarm of re-uploads. A similar situation could occur, where Bob feels that no one is going to see what he shares anyway, so he either stops creating entirely or stops sharing his work. Neither is a result that is good for EA in retaining players and neither is a result that is good for those who are looking for original work to use in their games.
I think there are some good suggestions in this thread for ways to improve the situation, like what ploppo said about sorting and filtering.