Arthmoor-

My point was illustrated by StarX who said that the group behaved a certain way based on a set of standards that they self imposed.

Of course a mod maker has every recourse to the law and should take them (even if just moderator intervention at Nexus).

What I was replying to and what I think the issue is that gets people here so worked up is the group norms have shifted.

Said another way - I don't drive 65. It may be the law - but do you do it? What I don't do is drive 95 - why? because that is crazy in the land I live in and will piss the people on the road off more than I care to deal with. People here in California typically exceed the speed limit all the time - this isn't Illinois or the east coast. But it is the fastest driver that gets the ticket.

So the issue to me is - yes the law is real and it is there as an option, but what are the group norms and how will the group react? In that I see no consensus. I don't think there will be.

I realize that it may not be the wisest cours of action on my part, but being the nitpicker that I am, I'll point out that the legality of it has no bearing on this issue.
As Oblivion legally belongs to Bethesda Softworks, it is their final legal say of what goes and what not.
And arguably let us not forget that there are Open Source projects and software on the market, GNU, GPL, commercial GPL etc.
Some of the modders here do use such third party software, alghoritms and research papers in their modding.

I agree with Psymon that it is more of an ethics problem and a group reaction and shun policy.
Afterall nobody interdicts anyone to upload on dshare, megaupload and such.

So we have 3 separate issues here:

1. Legality. That is a non-issue as it is not covered by any law other than the copyrhight and intellectual property laws, and than it will more likely be decided in favor of Bethesda as ultimate owners of all Oblivion resources.

2. Ethical, Common Sense and Community practices and public shun:
Here it is were the 2 sides have drawn battle lines and trenches. Let me point out that while i personally find it extremly annoying to for example have to manually TES4EDIT Clean all plugins, I understand the rationale of not uploading replacement ESPs. I may not like it but I agree with it.

3. What is the impact on our community and game experience.
Well here is the tricky part:
a. for mods that are actively worked on, and or have strict, explicit perimission policy, they must be respected by the entire community. And I do believe that this is an unanimous opinion or it should be.

b. for seamingly dead mods or absent modders:
here we have a HUGE inequity. Because savvy modders, can and will modify/fix/patch them for their own use. The others have to either use the flawed or unplayable version or simply not use it.

However, the bottom line is that only us as a community, under the benevolent supervision of Bethesda, can and should address this issue. However as there are currrently 2 sides that will never reconcile we have now a conundrum that will probably be solved in the favor of the strictest faction, for the simple fact that this was the status quo before and it will be in the future.

But in the end I really advocate for use of formalized "modding licenses" in the gist of Wrye and I urge all the community to make a united front such that any and all future mods presented on Nexus, TESA or PES should have clearly shown permision section and guidelines as to what happens to their work when they become inactive (in terms of period, methods of contacting, etc).

Umm yeah - wow - what he said.


I hope that the status quo does not win.

yup - I'm on their side. :wavey:

I think it not so great (lame) that progress is ground down by these rules. Yes - make sure that efforts are made and yes do abide by the wishes of the contacted modder, but if after no contact and no written permission. C'mon.

What if people promise to remove the mod if the OM (Original Modder - trademark) returns and has an issue?

Would it be entrapment if they did?

Yes, really. One has to rely upon something. Maybe it's naive, but the truth is that there are really no alternatives. If someone tries to pickpocket me in the street I can either punch him in the face or go to the police. If someone runs off with your mod, what are you gonna do? Drag someone from a foreign country to the court? No, we depend on the community to step forward and react and hope that it helps. Of course it would be great if every modder included a proper license, including an absence clausule, but if that isn't the case it should still be treated in such a way that the modder's rights are respected.

You make it sound like we're discussing if it's ok to just grab any mod and start tampering with that, even if the modder is currently active - but that's of course not what we're discussing!

What we're discussing is when you have effectively abandoned Oblivion modding, and not answered/noticed any attempts at contacting you. As others have said, if such a modder comes back and demands that any work based on his mods are removed, that wish has to be followed. So what we really cannot disagree on, is the situation where the modder has completely left the Oblivion modding scene (for good, or for a pretty long time), and any attempt at contacting him has failed.


In that situation I really don't see any harm at all in the community allowing a new modder to improve the abandoned work - of course with the restriction that the continued work will have to be removed if the original modder comes back and demands it. I just don't see any real problem with this.

Just to add a few words here...

Regardless of the legality of EULA's or copywrite, THIS community is based on respecting peoples work and their right to do want they want with their own work. As it should be. This is why so many people upload mods for TES games, because it's modding community protects their rights to their own hard work. We are one of the best, if not the best and longest lasting modding community out there.

This respect is enforced by the community and pretty much ALL the file hosting sites and therefore this makes this the 'standard proceedure'.

When a modder's work is stolen the community ralies, we have all seen this over and over. When an illegal compilation emerges, we rally. When something is uploaded without the author's permission, the file sites take that file down so fast. When there are claims of stolen work or work used without permission, it is investigated.

It is pretty darn clear cut, regardless of legalities, TES community has 'laws' of it's own and these 'rules/laws' are enforced and therefore are the norm. Most modders upload their work because of those 'laws' and if those 'laws' were not in place, a lot less modders would upload at all.

Check out some of the other modding communities that have been drained of modders because of the behaviour regarding their work, by other modders, file sites, community members etc.... We are pretty darn lucky and I suspect that this respect for all members is the reason why Elder Scrolls modding is still so vibrant.

You cannot make assumptions about what the modder was thinking when they uploaded their mod, in order to convince yourself that what you are doing is right. You have to take it at face value, unless the author states specifically that modifying and reuploading is okay, permission is not given. You cannot go to older mods and stake a claim because the author has moved on or is assumed to have moved on, unless it is stated that it is okay. I can pretty much guaranteee the majority of these modders will be popping back in for Skyrim.

I think it is inline with the community and it's spirit that unless the author states specifically that it is okay to alter and reupload a mod...don't do it. Move on an build your own mod. That way there is no question, no grey areas, no need for such a thread.....

Agree - why is it that this case (what the original poster started the topic with) is drawn out and construed as mod theft.

How often does this really happen?

I have seen plenty that Arthmoor and others have defended his work (good for him) from several different repackaging and mod content lifting. That is not cool.
And I've seen modders not give credit. Again not cool.
And I've seen mod packs where mods are packaged without permission. I agree ... not cool.

But how often has it really happened that a mod maker has returned and said "Whoa - that is not acceptable! I demand you remove your version of my mod."

This slippery slope of fear over mod misappropriation seems way out of proportion.

Strong words like stolen ... theft. Do they really fit what the OP was asking about?

If one places trust in a community to enforce laws that one perceives as the right - what if the group changes their mind? A group dedicated to altering a game and respecting boundaries while pushing the game to do more - explore more. But if no one answers their mail for a year - better not think about it? I dunno - I still think that if a person is too lazy to do more than trust that group norms stay the same they shouldn't be surprised that it is not like that all the time. Times change.

I think BTB is a good thing for morrowind.

Except that the legalities are all one has to fall back on in the event of a mod with no license given. The EULA simply says anything you generate with the CS belongs to Bethesda. It says nothing beyond that regarding distribution other than that you are not allowed to charge money for it. It also cannot extend that coverage to something you generate outside of the CS. Meshes, textures, and audio files etc. So long as they're not derived from what shipped with the game.

GPL licensed software is entirely irrelevant to any of this btw. Using GPL licensed utilities to make a mod does not invalidate the copyright on the material.

The way I see it, if we're not willing to comply with the legal end of things, morality comes in to play, and once people begin to justify "well, it's abandoned, nobody will care" it's a slippery slope from there to "to hell with you, I'm releasing new versions of your stuff". As Meek points out, this leads to the withering and death of your modding community once everyone has gone down that slope.

If it sounded like that, it wasn't what I meant. Most of the people here have a good track record. But still: the problem is that once you start making exceptions it will not stop at the "inactive" mods.



This leaves too much room for free interpretation. Phrases like "a pretty long time" or "any attempt to contact him" can be bend in such a way that it will always be good enough for someone to justify it's actions. The rules should be strict: you either have permission or not. A while ago people started discussing the use of WAC resources without Waalx permission. He was gone for over a year or so, but when he recently came back he released a massive BETA version of his mod.

Just to play devil's advocate - what if they don't care?

Those that do care will let it be known.

You really think that if someone took up re-releasing mods with improvements that this will result in more and more people doing it? then the next thing we know mud is being thrown everywhere and everyone leaves with hurt feelings?

Even if the person takes care and agrees to remove mods if asked? Does good works and is respectful?

I don't think so.

StarX-

Waalx also admitted to monitoring his own forum and just choosing not to answer.

I totally agree with that!

That is why I am entirely against repackaging (even if it would easier for consumer of mods) in any form of meshes, textures and any other resources (including ESM files). However stricto senso, any replacement ESPs belong to Bethesda, as per EULA. So from a legal point of view they have the final say.

However you missed my point. (Entirely understandable because you are a very dedicated and opinionated modder, please carry on the good work)

What I am saying is that please, Let's not revert to legality claims as to a basis for our own policing of modder behavior..
I will be the first to defend anybody's rights to property of any sort. However I do think that we as a community should be more civil in our language and also try to be more open minded.

Strictly for the case in point (release of ESP replacement), my own private opinion: is that as long as every reasonable effort is made to contact the author, if all you are doing is fixing a replacement ESP than it should be allowed, with proper credits, change log, etc. It is my opinion that as it is legally the property of Bethesda (as by definition an ESP is generated with CS), than there is no legal breach in that.

On the point of resources, though I am of the strictest mind. I.E if no permission details are stated, assume that it is forbidden.

Hope that clarifies my POV.

As I wrote in the reply to StarX, you make it sound like we're discussing if it's ok to just grab any mod and start tampering with that, even if the modder is currently active - but that's of course not what we're discussing!

I don't get why several of you need to argue against something we're all against, when the topic is a mod that has been abandoned by the modder, and there's no response after proper attempt at contact. Illegal compilations, etc. is a completely different matter, isn't it?


I just plain disagree here that it is so important to modders than none touches their mods after they have left the modding scene. Every single modder I have contacted for permission to use his work, has granted me permission, and most have clearly stated that they're happy that they work see use. I fully understand that this is important to some modders, but those modders have the choice to write this in their readme's, or, if they come back to Oblivion modding, to demand that any such mods are taken down.

I just don't believe that modders would leave the scene out of fear that someone may update their work sometime in the future. Not if their explicit wishes are followed.

I'll simply stop you right there. This is precisely why copyright law isn't based on what-ifs and maybes. A what-if requires a presumption of intent. That's not something you can legally assume and is certainly not something that should be morally assumed either.

@TheNiceOne:

Just because every single modder you contacted gave permission doesn't mean you can generalize that to mean ALL modders will either give permission or not care. All it takes is one modder who DOES care to show up angry and start a crapstorm over it. Such things tend to lead to people getting banned and if it became a large enough problem, to a potential mass exodus. So yes, it is entirely possible that an infectious issue like this could lead to modders retreating from the community in fear. Which is precisely why we can't let it get to that point.

Legally you can't without permission (at least that's the law in my country, I'm guessing almost the same everywhere else). Legally it doesn't matter if you're fixing it or releasing the same version. What matters is that you release it openly, available for everyone. That is not allowed (at least in my country's law... lol).
There is one rule in my country though that allows one you release examples of "computer programs", which there have been made "necessary" changes to, in order to use the program for its intended purpose. I don't think fixing a mod goes under this. Doubt it classifies as a computer program, and doubt it classifies as necessary for its ended purpose to clean it.

Logically, you should can? I mean, if it's only a fix that makes things better. I doubt the author would be mad at you and sue you for making his/her mod better by fixing it in a new version.

By stopping me right there (well stopping your answer) you remain at the level of law (quite the legal eagle) and not delving into the morality portion of it.

I really doubt your slippery slope anolysis (did you even see my post before writing yours).

Let me give a case in point. I've been dallying with Morrowind lately (ultimately trying to figure out how to make Oblivion feel new again) and in http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1060141-mod-recommendations-for-new-players/ I see reference to a http://btb2.free.fr/morrowind.html. He appears to be doing just what you fear - editing and releasing improved versions of mods.

While his online manner is (how do they say it in LA ...) interesting, he does quality work. Does not lie and say it is his work, outlines what the changes are and why, always offers the link to original mod next to his version, etc.
But I'm fairly certain he is not always obtaining permission.

This has led http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1147087-ok-ive-ignored-the-better-music-system-mod-for-long-enough/ that illustrate what is being feared here (same link Pseron posted).

The result?

No slide into chaos. In fact his guide appears to be well respected and often referenced.

The end of the world has not happened (that was supposed to have occurred yesterday apparently).

My opinion on this is too nuanced and indecisive I suppose to come down on either "side," because I agree with respecting modders' rights but at the same time, well--

What has impressed me most about what I've been exposed to of the TES modding community is the incredible amount of collaboration. Yes, plenty of people make things individually but there are also many modding projects that wouldn't be as amazing as they are today without numerous people contributing their various talents, whether working simultaneously and in conjunction or in the case of mods that have been "handed off" from one retiring modder to another active one.

I think respect for this spirit of collaboration is really important, and to me it's what makes the modding community really special. But I think respect has to come from both sides of this equation. Forget legality and "rules" for a moment. It's disrespectful to a modder to take their work, modify it, and then make that modification widely available without getting the approval of the original author. But I think it's also disrespectful to the spirit of collaboration to create something and then close it off to the rest of the community. It's their choice, and it's their right to do so. But I think such choices limit the possible amount of "good" that can come out of the community.

Since it's been mentioned, I'll give a short example--Waalx. He's done incredible work. The massive amount of time he's put into his projects is greatly appreciate by me and many others. And while it's not "wrong" and it's his choice to do so, I feel his decision to isolate himself and his work from the greater community is disrespectful to the spirit of collaboration.

Further, I think for an author to abandon their work and the community without giving their approval or disapproval of further outside modification to their work is disrespectful to that spirit. Granted, there are outside forces that might prevent someone from being able to continue participating, but for someone to just disappear without any word shows disrespect. Once again, it isn't "wrong" or "bad" but it brings us to situations like this where someone basically just wants to do good for the community and isn't able to because there wasn't any respect shown to the spirit of collaboration.

Just my thoughts on some of the deeper feelings underlying this discussion, I guess. I could also go into detail about how I think software in this case shouldn't be equated with Mickey Mouse in terms of artists' rights, because software can have objective flaws and it's much more of a "living product," but I think we as a society are still pretty confused about the ethics surrounding these issues and it's a much larger debate. I think debating copyright law and its application probably isn't going to be useful here.

I didn't mean to say that, but rather to say argue that I disagree with Meek's generalization that modders would leave the community if this was allowed. I have been here long enough to see that there are all kind of personalities here, so of course there will be individuals who would be mad if anyone tampered with their mods even after ample attempts at contacting them has failed, and with proper credits.

I don't believe it. This is speculation (both your and mine view) so I will not say that you are wrong - but I don't believe it will go that far if people sometimes do what we're discussing, but otherwise behaves correctly. The only real crapstorm I have witnessed during my years of Oblivion modding was that with you-know-who, and that was for other reasons.

My opinion is that as long as we are respectful towards each others, things will work out well.

...and I consider it respectful to contact a modder for permission to use/correct his work - and if he has abandoned the modding community, to continue work on this mod, with clear statements about credits, etc. and with the intention of respecting the original modder's wishes if he was to come back.


I understand that some of you think the only respectful thing is to not update the mod at all in such a situation, but I just disagree with that view.

It depends on what they said in their readme.

Otherwise, you shouldn't risk it.

For what is worth I second that.

However i have a hypothetical (as in I don't know of any way to do it) case to present:

If one were to make a replacement ESP for their own use and there was some way to generate a diference file (or map) that would than be applied using some 3d party utility to the original so that everyone could download the original and the diferences map and then patch it to generate the modified file (just like Pyffied Patches).

Would that constitute a breach of "Mod copyright etiquette"?,

Just how far are we willing to go with restrictions? Isn't there a middle ground to be found?

To those saying that "we're talking about something completely different here", that's not true; it's just shades of grey. The argument many are making is that if one shade of grey is considered acceptable it provides an excuse for people to re-release other stuff under similarly "grey" circumstances. What counts as "all reasonable attempts to contact the author"? How long do you have to wait for a response? What if the person lies and doesn't bother at all? Then how do you separate genuine bug fixes from things that "should be different". That's why the status quo is "white" or nothing.

To those who say that "people getting upset and leaving" is just speculation, maybe you haven't seen this happen in other creative game-related communities before, but I have, and I expect others have too. I left those communites behind (well they kinda self-destructed anyway, but those are other stories). It does happen, just because it hasn't happened here doesn't mean it wouldn't happen in the "right" circumstances.

Vac

It is said that scientists stand on the shoulders of giants. In the modding community we stand on each others toes (In other words, we recreate rather than build on top of).

No, no, the thought couldn't be further from my mind. I was under the impression, given Greenwarden's statement on how the topic could be discussed and given how the topic has expanded to encompass the entire topic of mods and rights, that we were discussing this issue in it's entirety.



Not really a different matter, I wouldn't think. Illegal compilations, theft of assets, revamping and redistributing mods all falls under the topic of 'using someone elses mod'. Granted some are on a different level then others, but they all fall into the 'modders rights' category which this thread has developed into.




I don't think any of us can assume what any particular modder is thinking and we cannot assume they will not be returning without an express statement from them stating so. For instance, one of my community's modder's reappeared only a few days ago after leaving in 2007. Would he have been angry IF someone had taken his mod and redistributed, revamped, compiled etc... probably not but he might have been upset and not said so. That said, I am not about to put words in his mouth and make assumptions on what he is thinking. He may have intended to come back all along and pick up his work again. We can't make assumptions on what anyone is thinking and we cannot base actions on assumptions or use assumption to justify an action. Not when it involves other peoples work.

But it boils down to this...

What we are looking at is a grey area. Some are not certain whether this is the right or wrong thing to do and we can only make assumptions on individual modders and how they might feel and react. The person who started this thread was unsure, in doubt that it is the right thing to do and that is the whole reason why they started this thread.

A good rule of thumb and one that will ensure harmony in our community is...when in doubt...don't. Where there is doubt....don't. It is the safer option and the path that ensures peace, rather then the path that assumes there will be peace.

Edit....Just one more thing...

There are some that believe very strongly that if usage is not clearly stated by the modder, then the mod is public properly and free for anyone to do what they want. The problem with this is that modders are not informed of such a thing when they upload their mods. There is no agreement they have to agree to or rule written on Nexus or other sites that warns that this is the case. Therefore modders are not aware before they upload, so this cannot be fairly or correctly applied to any past or present mod.

A few statements of fact:

1. Legally, all mod authors have a basic, intrinsic copyright to their mods. Yes, I know, EULA, blah blah — the concept of a EULA is of dubious legal quality in the first place, and many lawyers I know are extremely dubious that clicking "I agree" in a computer program will ever be accepted in a court of law as an express waiving of rights. A copyright is not something that must be claimed or registered — you have one automatically by virtue of having created a work. None of us is ever going to go to court over this, so the legal minutiae really aren't that important. The concept of the copyright, however, is.

2. A copyright is exactly that — a right. It is something modern society deems creators to have automatically and unquestionably. It is not something that can be abridged without permission by the copyright-holder, any more than a property-holder's rights can be abridged without his permission. You wouldn't presume to be entitled to borrow someone's car under any circumstances; that would be an egregious violation of his rights as owner of the car. Copyright is similar, and if anything, even more personal.

3. A copyright gives the holder exclusive rights to dictate when, where, how, and by whom the copyrighted material will be reproduced or transmitted. By uploading the mod to Nexus, for example, they expressly consent to Nexus reproducing and distributing their mod to its members for their personal use. That is the only thing they inherently agree to; they may even, should they wish, reserve the right to remove that consent and cease distribution. This is how copyright works for all creative work — music, film, painting, etc. etc. Mods are merely a different medium, but are certainly no less a creative work.

4. The community has, for all of its history (and I think I am in a reasonable position to talk about its history, at least for Oblivion; I cannot speak to the apparent changes in the Morrowind community since I've left there, as Illtempered and Pseron Wyrd talk about — though I find those anecdotes deeply troubling, as that was not the case when I was active in that community), protected the copyrights of modders, EULA or not. As I've already pointed out, the EULA is probably meaningless, but even if it is not meaningless, this community has always given to modders those rights expected of a copyright holder. This is a matter of simple respect — the creator of any artistic right gets a copyright to the work, and a modder should be treated no differently.

5. Rights are not things you can remove by community vote. This is a basic fact, a foundation of American law and that (to the best of my knowledge) of most modern countries. The American Constitution protects the rights of its citizens (including, to a certain degree, the copyright), and that's why its government includes the Judicial Branch and Supreme Court. I don't have direct knowledge of other countries, but my understanding that this is also true for almost all of them (with some notable exceptions like, from what I understand, China; Communism does not recognize individual property rights, and copyright is effectively the same as those).

6. In contrast, rights can only be waived by the right-holder, and everyone else needs their express permission to do so. This is a basic feature of all rights — without this property, it wasn't a right in the first place.

7. Silence is not consent. I don't care what we're talking about, that is never true.

8. The default assumption is, unless otherwise specified, that a right-holder intends to reserve all of his rights. The phrase "All rights reserved" is a reminder, but not necessary — that is the default position. This is true in law, in society, and has been true on this forum and on reputable mod download sites. It doesn't matter what those rights are, they're always reserved unless explicitly waived.

9. For more information on why this is so, please read any decent account of copyright law. There are lots of problems with copyright law, but few, if any, serious contributors to the discussion suggest that it ought to be abolished entirely.

10. While something like Public Domain is a reasonable concept, and might be applied to our community if (and only if) this fact were universally understood and made clear to all new modders. That is the sort of thing where their rights are abridged for the good of the community, and such a thing is only acceptable if everyone involved was aware of it beforehand. I can think of no way for such a thing to occur, however. Good luck getting either Bethesda or the major download sites to alter their policies and start getting involved in this; that's about the only way to make sure that the rule is clear to everyone (i.e. a sticky here, a blurb before every upload, etc.), but neither Beth nor Nexus/PES/TESA/etc. is likely to do so because that involves abridging modders' copyrights in a way that is not supported by law. Those sites are very unlikely to take such a position, since it could get them in real-world legal trouble.

11. Just to briefly bring this away from the realm of theory, I can absolutely think of modders who would be greatly offended if they came back today (after years of silence) and found their mods being edited and redistributed without their consent. I won't name names, but these are definitely real people. I don't know off-hand if they have specified this in their readmes, but they need not have to. Assuming, for the sake of example, that one has not stated so in his readme, assuming that his basic rights will be respected and that long-standing community consensus will not be overturned and his mod affected ex post facto, who are we to violate his rights and valid expectations regarding his property? Those mods were not uploaded with the understanding that they would become Public Domain any earlier than any other form of artistic expression (70 years after their death, IIRC).

Until there is legal precedent that actually states that a EULA holds no water, they are effectively the law. Basically, what it boils down to is, if you use the CS to put something into the game, and release it publicly, it now belongs to bethesda. (from a strictly legal standpoint, you will note, that beth has NEVER exercised that right, and the roaring silence from them on this issue speaks volumes.)

That said......

It is more about ethics, or, common courtesy, that folks don't grab some authors work, alter it as they see fit, and then re-release it, without some variety of consent from the original author. Seems this stance has been adopted by most of the popular download sites, and the practice of doing so will get you banned at a fair number of them. Sure, there are notable exceptions to the rule..... (FileFront anyone?) But, there almost invariably are exceptions to any rule.

Best practice? If the author does not SPECIFICALLY state his/her/their intentions in the Readme, or whathaveyou, then assume that you MUST have permission to do anything with that body of work. Doesn't matter how long they have been gone, or the unlikelihood of their return.

That is one interpretation, yes, but it's a bit dubious to me. They've likely never exercised that right because it would involve going to court where the EULA would be challenged, and likely struck down. (or such is my understanding; I am not a lawyer) To assume that it is valid until it gets struck down ignores the fact (I think it's a fact, but the laws around this are extremely murky) that it would be and the thing is basically unenforceable.

Of course, you're absolutely right when you say it's more about ethics. I do believe that I did point that out. The legal details are less important than the concept of copyright, which is what I was getting at. Sorry if I was long-winded or unclear, heh.