I don't know if this is specifically in response to my [quoted] post, but I kind of feel like you ignored the point I was trying to make. Or, well, I'm not even trying to make a point with it--just trying to help people engaged in this debate see things in a bit of a different light.

I suppose I'll rephrase my few paragraphs of discussing the spirit of collaboration like this:

This issue is being debated as if each individual author is an independent entity with ownership. That's not necessarily wrong. But what if we're all on the same "development team" working to make a better Oblivion through modding?

I don't know if that's any more illuminating. Like I said, I'm not trying to make a point so much as shade the discussion a little differently.

Based on their existing policies (general non-intervention into modding unless someone violates their copyright or the copyright of those whose assets they used in Oblivion, someone attempts to use another's resources without permission, or someone attempts to sell a mod), I imagine their statement would probably be something along the lines of "As copyright holder, we hereby authorize {the creator of the mod} to decide whether or not you can use it. In the event that {the creator of the mod} cannot be contacted, we do not authorize such a use." This is as much covering their own butts (if the EULA does indeed not stand up in court, they really don't want to then be hit with a copyright violation suit because they made such an authorization) as anything else, but it's what I'd expect them to say (roughly; probably with a lot more legalese).

That assumes, of course, that they even respond. Most likely, they probably wouldn't.


That's an interesting perspective, and it harkens back (intentionally or not) to the Parlor vs. Cathedral debates that Wrye used to have (they're on his site somewhere, I'm pretty sure), but unfortunately this would absolutely be an "opt-in" kind of thing. For example, Wrye definitely agreed with you and has authorized his work to be used as such. Not all modders feel that way, and they very definitely have the right to not contribute their work in such a manner. Without knowing explicitly how someone feels, we have to assume that they intended for their rights to be observed, because to assume otherwise requires breaching their rights, which requires permission.

Probably a very accurate prediction. Either way it went.

A little bit off topic, but if that's the case how did http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=9769 get away with doing that for so long??

Exactly! Whether or not Bethesda has the right to all the mods, textures, meshes, scripts, sounds, voice acting, written stories etc... is a completely separate discussion and is completely unrelated to the issue at hand. For some reason, some people seem to believe that because Bethesda has some rights outlined in their Eula, that this entitles the public to do whatever they want with modder's work and disregard modder rights. That argument is invalid and illogical.

Pretty sure Frostcrag Reborn is a patch .esp that requires the original .esp to also be loaded. Bethesda's been extremely consistent that any mod that uses any assets from any of their games must be for, and require the installation of, the game from which those assets come. See their stickied thread on the issue.

It's not.



The mod replaces the official .esp. I always wondered why they didn't just esmify the DLC, but never really thought to bring it up.

Pretty sure that it's in violation of Bethesda's rules on such things. Maybe the dependency on DLCfrostcrag.bsa is sufficient?


To be clear: Bethesda absolutely has copyright to the vast majority of the things in Oblivion. All mods that redistribute any assets (meshes, textures, etc), even in modified form, are allowed only because Bethesda has given modders explicit permission to do so under certain conditions. The ESP file format itself might be proprietary and therefore also constitute a redistribution of Bethesda's assets; I'm not sure on the legalities there.

However, the rest of the mod (including the specific work done in the CS and saved into the .esp file-format; the format is theirs, but not the work) belongs to the author, and if we ignore for now the EULA, they have a copyright to that work. The mod as a whole, then, would require both Bethesda's and the modder's permission to redistribute; Bethesda has given theirs for modders in general (see the sticky thread for limitations on that permission), and the modder typically gives certain (but not complete) permissions when they upload it to Nexus or PES or TESA or whatever.

So it requires the official DLC...





You must have the assets from the DLC in order to play, in order to get the assets you must purchase the DLC. So it is not violating anything. DLCs are mods, basically this is overwriting the offical DLC the same way an updated and expanded version of my mod would overwrite the original ESP.

No idea, but they seem to be getting away with it, so it's questionable. Because if it's fine to upload an edited version of their .esp, where does it say it's must require a .bsa?? I really hope I don't get this mod banned :@

@ Meek, it says it requires it, but it only requires the .bsa and such. They still upload Bethesda's .esp (albeit and edited version).

Yeah I'm sure my opinions are informed by previously reading Wrye's site (having come here after he left that's unfortunately my only option! http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1012020-relz-item-interchange-thread-4/page__view__findpost__p__17157311). For anyone who's interested: http://wryemusings.com/Cathedral%20vs.%20Parlor.html

I mean, if it were up to me, anyone could edit and release anyone else's work (in a sane and organized manner of course). But I know that's my personal feeling about it, and to project that on anyone else and decide everything's up for grabs is wrong. You'll always be correct about this!

But I do wish there was some kind of universal appreciation for the spirit of collaboration I was talking about. Maybe it's wrong to say someone who abandons their work without giving or deny permission for others to pick it up or the isolation of Waalx is disrespectful to that spirit. Maybe that's not the right word. But I think the spirit of collaboration has to mean something. Then again maybe I'm just a crazy Cathedralist. http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1175181-ampolx%C2%B4s-great-textures/page__st__20__p__17364601#entry17364601 :teehee:

I'm pretty sure it's OK: you're allowed to upload modified versions of Bethesda's assets (retextures must do so all the time, for example), provided that the mod is intended for and somehow requires the game that asset is from. Frostcrag Reborn requires the Frostcrag DLC by requiring the BSA; it's an unusual case but I'm pretty sure it's allowed.

But again, note that it is only allowed because Bethesda has given us permission to do so. They would be well within their rights to deny us that permission.

That can lead to a slippery slope. Take this for example. Someone does a mesh replacer for all the meshes in the Frostcrag DLC. Someone else does a texture replacer. And Frostcrag Reborn essentially replaces the esp. All three mods separately require the official DLC, but if you used all three you'd still get some form of the DLC, without having to pay for it. You wouldn't get the sounds, but you'd still get the dialogue. How would that play out??

I have respect for the author of that list as a modder and person......*sigh* That list is so biast that it is painful to read. The author clearly favors what he calls 'cathedral' style modding and that is fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, he blatently overlooks so many important points in his efforts to put across his point that what he calls 'parlor' modding is so bad and those that do it are bad, that it is not an accurate representation of the modding community or modders. Rather it is a dis-service to modders and fosters a very limited attitude. Creativity is best not limited, or categorized...it is what it is. The most creative minds are eccentric...let them be or stifle that creativity to the cost of everyone.

In other words let people relax, have fun, enjoy and be creative in an environment where they know their rights to their own creativity are respected, without backlash or judgement.

See, when I hear those words, what comes to mind is a lot of stuff related to the cathedralist view. Because when I create something, I'm proud of my work, but once I decide I'm finished, anyone can do whatever they want with it. So that's what's relaxing to me, and I'd feel like I was stifling creativity to say someone can't build on my work.

I'm not arguing this as any point, just offering up my own person opinion. I know there are people out there who wouldn't want to create something if they knew it was going to be picked up and modified later. I'm just illustrating how wonderful and diverse we all are I guess!!!! :teehee:

I do have plenty of lefty hippie tendencies though :teehee: I'M NOT A COLLECTIVIST!!!! *hides from Arthmoor*

I have tried to argue with reason for why I don't think continuing work on abandonded mods is unfair. I respect that you disagree and can see why, but I think the kind of argument you use here show lack of respect for me and others who disagree with you. I'm not sure what to pick, so I guess I'm both arrogant and speak nonsense :confused:

When I see arguments that needs to go so far from the reality of the discussion to find a comparision, I generally think it's a good indication that you don't have too much of a point. I'm not seing how we take anything tangible away from the original modder. If continuing work on his mod meant that he lost access to his work if he ever wanted to come back (like your neighbour lose access to his car), then this comparision would make a little sense, but it doesn't, so I don't at all see how this at all related to what we're discussing?

Remind me again, what do I lose if I leave the community for a year, and when coming back see that someone has fixed problems with or added new features to Enhanced Economy or one of my other mods, and uploaded it with full description of what he's done and with full credits? Maybe I would lose some of my ego by seeing that my mod wasn't perfect, but that's all...

That is brilliant cause it works for you and is what makes you creative. :thumbsup:



:huh: ...okaaaay... *looks at rest of forum and shouts*.....'Does anyone speak french here, or...um...maybe it is bulgarian?'



Maybe you would, but I can guarantee you that another modder would have a totally different viewpoint and feel they have lost something else.

Ultimately I say, this is like real life. Do what you want but have the common curtesy to ask permission before doing anything with something that belongs to someone else. As a community we thrive on integrity and respect, otherwise we wouldn't be much of a community at all.

The thing is, some people would be really bothered by it. It doesn't matter that you or I might encourage such work, or even that we might think someone who would be upset has a terribly fragile ego and doesn't play well with others. The most important rule of getting along as a community is respecting the feelings of others in the community that we might disagree with, even if they might seem irrational or selfish. As long as they're not hurting anyone via their attitudes, there's really nothing anyone can say to get around it, unfortunately. And in a situation where the feelings of the individual can't be known, the best thing to do is to be as accommodating as possible, and in this case it means leaving their work alone.

And I very seriously doubt a claim from a modder for copyright violations would get anywhere at all. What would be the punitive damages since no mod is allowed to even be sold?


Now you're taking what I said out of context. "The modder does not care" was not exactly the point being said by me, but you seemed to concentrate on it.

Regardless, you're still assuming intention if you assume they didn't want their mod messed with. Where is the difference in assuming they don't care and do care? It's still assumption, and one is just as wrong as the other. My point was not whether using an abandoned mod without consent is wrong, it's about the author's intentions and the assumption of it, the point being it's still assumption. Anyways, that argument is really becoming pointless. I think we can both agree that you can't truly assume an author's intention correctly. What you are saying, and is what is generally accepted, is that you can only play it safe and say "no intention stated = no re-using mod."


Then why bother bringing up copyright laws other than to point out guidelines in what modder's should follow? I guess that's what you're saying here.


In all honesty, I think all of this is being taken way too far. Some of you act like people just constantly go out of their way to steal another's work when in actuality that rarely happens. Not only that, how are you going to monitor other websites from this junk? I have explicit uploading directions in my readme legal sections not to do it without permission, yet I've found multiple websites where they are uploaded anyways.

I think we as a community generally respect one another's work here and at the more popular uploading websites. And if there's an inkling of a doubt, that work is pulled and either fixed or just completely done away with publicly. Besides that, most people credit other's work pretty strictly, some even going out of their way and linking to the original author's mod upload. I know I strictly credit other's work myself as does many others, and if it's not done, it's asked of by the mod author.

Maybe a better anology is writing a book/short story. You're never going to publish it. You emailed a draft to a large group of friends/put it on a book/short story forum, but never really got round to finishing it. And thus you forgot about it for a month/year/X amount of undetermined time. Does that mean I can take your story and do whatever I want with it, so long as I write a read-me saying what I've done?? If that were me, I'd be pretty pissed if someone decided to just finish my story, even if I could still have the original copy, and even if they'd written down exactly what they changed.

This is how a lot of people feel about their mods (or at least I do).

Seems we have a degree of misunderstanding here.

The line I was drawing is not between modders but rather assets.

This isn't ment as disrespect in any way to the many talented scripters within this community.Although I have no releases within this community (Just one very minor credit) I do none the less bare the mental scars of many hours spent scripting in the CS for personal projects.

As the OP was about fixing errors within a mod that had seemingly been abandoned I was asserting that creating a fixed .esp, and releaseing ONLY a fixed .esp, which is still wholey reliant on the original mod being present within the game should be okay The key point being that the original mod is still required and that any assets within that original mod are not redistributed along with a fixed .esp .


If the original modder should return and fix the errors themselves and release an updated version then the alternative 'fixed' .esp would become redundent.
I was also putting forward the argument that creating a mod that hooks into the assests of another mod should be fine so long as the assets it is using are not redistributed with the new .esp but rather the mod containing those assets is listed as a requirement. You may well disagree,thats cool its a forum after all.

I belive i may have slightly misinterpreted the tone of your post,if this is the case I apologize for the subsequent tone of mine.

If I didn't misinterprete the tone of your post then :meh: :rofl:

Caxton.

No it is not. One of these has a very possible backlash and that same one of these involves using someone's work without their permission.

You are not assuming if you do not use someone's work, you are taking it at face value. The author has not stated 'usage rights' allowing usage of the mod by other modders, therefore there are 'NO usage rights' allowing usage of the mod. Plain and simple.

We are looking at this the wrong way, thinking that a lack of 'usage rights' means that such right is implied. We should be looking at it as, the lack of 'usage rights' means there are NO 'usage rights' unless otherwise stated.

The difference is that if they do care, and someone messes with their mod, then they might get angry/hurt/upset/feel violated about it. If no-one messes with it, then you can't get angry/hurt/upset/feel violated that no-one messed with your stuff. They might feel gratitude if you do improve it, but that doesn't offset the fact they might get hurt by it.

I don't know if there's a general consensus about this, but I'm curious if people agree that a "fixes patch" falls outside of the definition of modifying someone's previous work. Might have already been answered, but I see a difference between that and just diving into someone's mod and doing whatever you want with it.

When I mentioned software being able to have objective flaws before, it had to do with this. You can't take Mickey Mouse and draw a moustache on him and call it your own, of course, but there also isn't anything objectively "wrong" with Mickey Mouse as he was created, and the same isn't always true when it comes to software. So if someone releases a patch that fixes only the objective bugs a mod has, is that trampling on the author's rights? (probably intended for DragoonWraith)

It's stuff like that that makes me frown on the references to copyright law and capitalism.

Also I lied and I'm totally a collectivist. Cheese for everyone! Or cheese for no one. There's no in between! :teehee:

I think that one can only ever be based on opinion. If it were me (and it has been) I always try and get in contact with the original author, to see if I can use their mod as a requirement for mine. If I don't get an answer, I don't make the mod, simple as. One example is I'm making a village in Hammerfell, which uses the unique landscapes Colovian Highlands.esp as a base. The original author hasn't posted in the forums in a very long time, but I PM'd him and who-ever is in charge of the UL project (I forget who), and waited for a response. Both responses said that's fine, and implied I didn't really need to ask, but both replies were adamant that I should not change/redistribute the original xulColovianHighlands.esp in any way.