Firstly, the legal aspect. Are you likely to get prosecuted? Most often you cant be, secondly would anyone waste their money going after you and thirdly what would the penalty be? I think that reduces risk to zero pretty much, and absolute zero in most countries. Secondly is it ethical? Well, not really to release a mod under another name and claim the work as your own. Its not nice and youre unlikely to get much kudos for it. If the author cant be contacted and you have done everything reasonable, plus the mod is not finished and you are willing to do the work to finish it whilst giving full credit to the original author for their work, doesnt sound unethical to me. Now if the author returned and said, "hands off matey" its a bit of a toothless tiger legally, but ethically you'd look like a stinker.

Lets look at my own mod for instance. If I suddenly got bored of it and packed it in, then I found a year later in my inbox a question from someone asking to do the rest of the work but still credit me, would I be bothered? Not in the least, I would be flattered someone had taken the bother to do something with it. Heck I'd love it, I'd get to play my mod and explore things and places I didnt make and didnt know the solution to. Then I'd probably pile in with more effort to work as a team. If however that person was putting the mod out as their own and claiming the ownership of the hundreds of meshes etc I'd made. Well I'd be furious and hammer them on every forum. I could possibly prosecute, but that would be precious and daft. Lex non curat de minimis.

If I found some of my stuff in another mod without someone crediting me and I contacted them and they said they had tried to ask, made every effort and were desperate. I'd tell them not to worry, Ive been there and making the same thing over again is an absolute pain. Modders are generally more generous and more charitable than folk give them credit for.

back in the beginning of Mesogea I rounded up loads of mods with free to use but credit me conditions on them. After years of work I made a right old boo boo and lost the read me file where I had listed them. I worked like heckers to get all the details in the read me again but I am sure there will be the odd article in there that I will have missed in the credit list. So I stuck an end bit to the credits stating "If your work has been included in this mod and you find you are not credited please contact me as the omission was not intentional but owing to a genuine error on my part. I will ensure that full specific credit is then given and included in all updates. Thank you for your understanding."

Now if someone said point blank they didnt want their work included in another mod, I wouldnt have bothered with it in the first place.

Just be reasonable and ensure you give credits (and dont delete old files without reading them, especially when they just say "new document" on them. ooops.

(emphasis mine)

To be frank, none of this is relevant: these are your personal preferences, but you can't speak for all modders. You have a right to not be happy with the situations presented; you simply also have the right to ignore your own rights. But you don't have the right to ignore anyone else's rights any more than they have the right to ignore yours.


True, but again, you cannot assume that they don't want their rights respected. That's unfair and also extremely inethical.

I agree that most modders would not mind giving permission if asked, and plenty of modders indicate this in their readme. Probably most of those who don't probably wouldn't mind, but you cannot assume that any particular one wouldn't because some will.

I'm sure that in most, if not all mods these days, there is content from third parties, i.e. some content was not created by the mod author or Bethesda, but it came from another mod, whether it's meshes, textures, script code or something else.

So let me throw out another question to the community. If fixing a mod meant removing ALL the author's original work, leaving only the Bethesda and third-party content, and replacing it with new material that was either created by the "fixer" or by other third-party content, is that then OK? Or is the concept of the mod a piece that can't be removed? If we go down that direction, then anyone who has an idea for a mod can deny anyone else the right to make it.

I certainly agree with this.

I'm a bit confused: why would you do that rather than work from scratch (or from the same Bethesda or third-party assets)? If you're stripping out all of the author's original work, why are you even starting with it?

As for concepts, I definitely think there is more than enough room in the community for multiple people to work on similar concepts; I don't think people can call "dibs" on a concept. Of course, it depends on how specifically you're matching them, but for the most part I think credit is reasonable and fair, but even if the original modder objects I don't think they have much ground to stand on.

I believe typically using another's work, even if none of that work remains in the finished product, counts as "using it" for the sake of copyright law (and therefore you would need permission to do so), but I don't think that's really necessary here. If it's all your work, then it's all your work. No one can stop you from distributing your own work, only their own work. I do believe in opening mods up to learn how they were done, and using that knowledge in the future.

I also believe in documenting it, but that's a story for another day.

Jeez. Had I known there would be this much trouble, I'd have stuck to http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1192165-relz-fcom-convergence-and-ufcom/page__view__findpost__p__17735340 However, I have received the blessing of the author, ergo this thread is now consummatum. (I've been on a Latin binge lately)

I have to disagree that the current NEXUS defaults hurt the community and believe that the default should always be the strictest possible - If a modder wants to amend that they merely have to make the needed change if they do not then by default their work should be fully protected so that they are able to release the work.

While I always allow rerrelease of my work I can see how it can be frustrating to others that their work is reused\modified without their knowledge or permission -- A small personal example :

A few years back a fellow modder contacted me after I had released the Ghost Rider Helmet mod asking if it would be possible to make a couple rings with the flame effect added so that they could have flaming hands for personal use -- I made the requested Item and uploaded them to Rapidshare for them to download and posted a link in a PM -- After the modder posted several screenshots on the forums he was contacted by a few others for a copy of them and I had told him that it was fine to redistribute them to those that requested -- Several months past and eventually one of those people asked Alienslof to remove the rings and make a few different colored versions -- which was done then after more screens began appearing several people asked for them to be released in one of his\her mods and they were released (without her knowing that the original item had been made by someone else) and thus where the original version had come from was never mentioned.

While AS felt she was helping the community by releasing them after modifying my work - I can see where it could make someone upset having their work rereleased by someone else with no mention of the original work. Personally I have no problem with it since it provides more variety for my game as well but knowing the amount of work that is involved in creating a mod I can understand when others have similar events happen and just decide to never release anything else or Stop helping others with small requests (ie. I know Nico also stopped fulfilling requests for items when one of his items made to fill a private request on the forum was rereleased without any mention of where it came from without permission). So I have to feel that the default needs to provide the strictest possible interpretation to avoid discouraging people from sharing their work in the first place !!

Glad to hear that!

I'd think that most modders who are adamant or even remotely concerned about any alterations or reuploading of their work would flat out state it in their readmes/descriptions.

I'm all for modder's rights and even include a strict set of rules with my mods, but I'm also one of those who sees if it's not stated in the readme/descript, then it's implied okay for use. Otherwise the author doesn't care if it is used. Contact should definately be tried however. And credits should be an automatic given regardless. It's just absolutely wrong to take complete credit for any work, permission given or not.

And about Beth's not having legs to stand on for copyright, the same goes for a person using said rights. I can't see a judge agreeing that the EULA's statements as not holding ground at all and would actually favor a plantiff. And as someone also stated, who the heck is actually going to take any of this to court? There's no money in it.

Just adding my two septims. :whistling:

No such implication exists, or has ever existed.


It is wrong to assume this; that is far from the only conceivable reason they might not have indicated it. The most likely reason is that they didn't think it was necessary, that they assumed some default value in the absence of any declaration. Some of them may have (incorrectly) assumed that the default was that it could be re-used, but for any who assumed (correctly) that the default was that it could not, we need to honor their rights.

But I disagree that we're ignoring another modder's rights if:
* No mentioning of permission (either way) is given in the readme
* I do my best to get contact, but get no reply (1 month should be a reasonable amount)
* I give full credit and state the facts
* I am prepared to accept the modder's wishes if he turns up again.

Legally, the EULA probably makes this OK, and morally I and others have tried to argue why we think it is OK. I have no problem with seeing that others may think different, but I disagree that this is black/white.

Disagree. First, I disagree with your assumption that this is not to respect their rights, and secondly I disagree with it bein unfair or inethical.

Why is it unfair or unethical? Because the modder might possibly take offense if he ever noticed? It's a lot of completely ethical and fair things that people take offense to. Yes, the modders have put lot of work into their mods, but as long as the continuation are done as listed above, I simply fail to see what's unfair or unethical about it.

It seems only right and proper that as a community we try to protect unique meshes and/or textures created by individuals from being reused without permission or being passed off as anothers work. However, I can't agree that scripting in the oblivion engine can be treated the same way.I find it hard to accept that anyone can express ownership of a script.
If an error within a mod can be corrected with an alternative .esp and said .esp can be redistributed with the original mod remaining as the only source of any unique meshes and/or textures and thus a requirement , I fail to see any reasonable argument for preventing it.
furthermore,if an .esp is released that radicaly alters the way a mod works but still requires the original mod to be present how does that differ from modding Oblivion,Its simply modding a mod isn't it?

As a creative community don't you have a duty to make sure you don't stifle creativity with dreconian rules?

Seems to me every mod available to this community has been made off the back of someone else's work, namely gamesas's.
I guess its fortunate for all of us that gamesas don't get quite so precious about their game as some people do about mods that have been released to the community.

Just my opinion.

Caxton.

The creator of any artistic work has complete and exclusive rights to dictate how, when, where, and by whom their work will be reproduced or transmitted. This right is known as the copyright. By taking their work, modifying it, and redistributing it, all without permission, you are violating their exclusive right to do that. This is unethical (since it's inherently an issue of respect for their property rights), probably illegal, and definitely disrespectful.

The copyright exists. This is a fact. The EULA probably doesn't matter, and in any case we as a community should not be hiding behind a legalistic loophole to justify ignoring the rights of our artists. And given that the copyright exists, redistributing without permission is a violation of that copyright.

This stuff matters. This is not a game or just for fun, this is a matter of a creator's rights as pertains his own work. It is his right to control the products of his own effort. This is the basis for the entire capitalist system.


The primary justification put forth for doing so is "they probably won't mind": you cannot ignore the rights of others because you think they probably won't mind!

As for other arguments: Public Domain doesn't apply (we have no specific rules for that, so we'd have to fall back on the usual rule which is 70 years after the death of artist; i.e. not going to come into play), and uploading the mod does not waive any rights whatsoever: it is explicitly permission to the site to distribute the mod for the personal use of its members, and nothing else. All other rights are assumed reserved. The default setting of the permissions field on TES Nexus supports this fact.

Exactly. I released quite a few mods for Morrowind before I realized that usage permission was even necessary. It simply didn't occur to me.



Sorry but this is actually somewhat rude and not valid. If it were true then those writing books would have no grounds for copywrite dispute, or those making music. Given that every single book was made off the back of the chap who invented the papyrus and all music owes itself to the bloke who first banged two rocks together in a somewhat discernable beat.

Sorry, it just doesn't hold water. While I am grateful to Bethesda and recognise athat I am using their CS that they released for my use, together with the game I paid money for, I am not about to give up all rights to my work and imaginative creation to the public, due to it.

I beg to differ, several uploading sites have and used to say just that. If it was not stated in readme/descriptions, then it is implied. I can name one particularly, very popular site now that did at one time state that for a long time.

And it's wrong for you to assume the opposite of what I said in regards for author's intent. How can you even say that I'm wrong? Unless you are the modder yourself, you can't. Nor can I. What you trying to say is that your opinion is right and mine is wrong. But they're really both only opinions on the author's intent. In my experience with modders that are "silent" most don't care or ever did care if their work was used without their knowledge. There wasn't ever a time I did actually come across someone who did care. Sure that doesn't mean all modders are that way, but unless you are the modder, how would you ever know what intention was?

Now don't get me wrong here. I'm absolutely in no way advocating flat out stealing or taking full credits. I do however agree to what TNO states.

EDIT: EULA does apply. It states what is considered rights for the user. How can that be overlooked?

Once again someone goes all out to justify certain behaviour. I make textures. So in your eyes that gives me more rights than someone that makes scripts or builds a mod purely in the CS? No, of course not! Oblivion mods would be pretty boring if it wasn't for some amazing scripters, who poured in just as many hours/days/weeks/months into their work as I did. I really find this attitude
disrepectfull to scripters and others that don't directly use new meshes or textures.

I'm not even going into the part about modders making their mods over the back of gamesas....

Probably irrelevant, since the OP has been answered... but for others who are considering modifying another's work without permission, there is one other consideration that has not been mentioned. There is a loophole which is/has been used with regard to contacting the original author of a mod, and that is disregard (or ignoring) the possibility that upon leaving the community, the modder has bequeathed full permission or control to another. The original work may still be available online, while ongoing authorized work (and support) is available through another link. So if you attempt to contact the original author from the first link, you will get no response... until you release your fixed or altered version--and then all h*** breaks loose. Turns out the mod is not 'abandoned' after all. These agreements are not always done publicly; but you cannot automatically assume that because the original author of the mod has not been seen for years that you are free to do with it as you wish.

No disrespect was ment to anyone.
I am well aware of the effort that goes into writing scripts and indeed in creating any mod.However, scripting is the manipulation of code which is unique to this game. The same cannot be said for unique textures or meshes.
It is gamesass position that anything created within the CS remains their property this dosn't extend to unique meshes or textures created externaly using third party software.So yes, strickly speaking, you do have more rights over your work.
Whether mods would be boring or not is irrelivent within the bounds of this disscusion.

gamesas created the game,without their work there would be no mods,that is a statement of fact.

As you seem to want to attack me and accuse me of condoning some unspecified kind of 'behaviour' perhapse you'd like to address why 'modding a mod' in the manner I layed out is any different to modding oblivion!
Unique meshes and/or textures should never be redistributed by anyone without the express permission of the creator,making an alternative .esp that requires the original mod to be downloaded and installed is no different than modding oblivion,
The game is still required in order for the mod to work,if the same is true of a 'modded mod' ie. the original mod is a requirement,how is that any different?

Caxton

Then why do you not do so? I am unaware of any site that did so. I know for a fact that both TES Nexus and PES have never done so.

Furthermore, then that would be the case for mods uploaded under those provisions. That is not true of most mods.


It is wrong to assume that they do not want their rights honored. It is right to assume they do. They have rights, and ignoring them is wrong. You are wrong. And not merely incorrect, but if you engage in these activities, I mean morally wrong.

It is not my opinion that modders have rights. That is a fact. Whether or not they choose to enforce those rights is up to the individual modder, but they must always explicitly state that you have permission to abridge their rights in any situation.


Because it probably has no legal weight whatsoever, and because copyright as a concept is one that this community has always and always should honor, regardless of the details of the legal reality. The act of creating anything gives you a copyright to it. That's a fact; you don't need to claim it, register it, or declare it: it is yours, automatically and exclusively. This is true of all forms of artistic creation, from which modders should not be excluded.

The only thing the EULA really does (and all it is intended to do) is remove the modder's right to sell his work. All other rights are most definitely retained by the modder, even considering the EULA. Consider Bethesda's actions on this: moderators here enforce modder's rights in the form of locking threads where someone attempts to pass off another's work as his own, but locks threads that attempt to sell mods. Even in terms of selling mods, the EULA is of dubious legal weight, but Bethesda's historical actions have shown that even taken at face value, the only thing it is intended to prevent is the sale of mods. The EULA may say that Bethesda has these rights (which it has no real right to claim), but they very obviously support the modder exercising all of those rights aside from that of sale.


There really is nothing to debate. People do not lose their rights to their work just because they move on, or do not speak. This is not a matter of opinion or up for discussion. Silence is not consent.

People can dissent all they want, but DragoonWraith is going to continue to be correct by default about the proper way to approach modifying someone else's work.

However I think discussing copyright law, capitalism, and absolute morality is a kind of "abstractification error" and completely ignores the context here, which is the modding community.

I think debating it on that level is going to continue to be an argument going in circles, so therefore I'm going to be an arrogant [censored] and quote my previous post:



Any thoughts?

I think the rest of us have absolutely no right to criticize a modder's choice with regards to their own works. Denigrating someone because they choose to exercise their rights denigrates those rights themselves.

And the reason that I am committing the "abstraction error" you're describing is because I want to destroy people's misconceptions that this community is in any way different or special when it comes to copyright. It is not. Mods are not the community's. They are the work of the person or people who made them, and all rights to them, on a philosophical as well as legal level, are exclusively their own.

Mods are shared with you because of the generosity of the modder. Demanding more from them in the form of ignoring the rights they have reserved is the height of ingrateful entitlement.

I will not name sites because I think that is inappropriate. I will say though, that the site has been named several times in this thread.



No, you are wrong. You missed the entire point there. I said nothing about rights or having rights. I said you DO NOT know an author's intentions. Please re-read that again. You can not possibly know an author's intention unless you are the author yourself. That is fact.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the EULA state that any work related to a gamesas game is the sole property of gamesas? I think that's were the real debate lies therein. Does a modder really have copyright? Or does gamesas.

It doesn't matter and Beths position has nothing to do with it. Even when it's their property that still doesn't give someone the right to just take a plugin, alter it however they see fit and upload it without permission. Maybe I do have more rights over my work, technically speaking, but for the sake of a healthy modding community each aspect of modding should be treated equally.You are not allowed to modify Beth's esp's directly either and upload it to the public.... So no difference there....



I never said anything about this, my "attack" was purely based on the first part if you read my post. Where you clearly draw a line between one group of modders and the other.

Then I'm ignoring the point. I will restate that even if this was the case, it would only apply to those mods uploaded on that site while that policy was in place and displayed.

And probably not even then, because it's very dubious for a site to declare that it has copyright of anything uploaded to it. That would likely not stand up in a court of law any more than the EULA would.


The author's intention cannot be assumed to be anything other than to reserve the rights that he has. Only in the presence of express permission to ignore his rights may you do so. So really, it doesn't matter what his intent was, we have to assume it was to reserve his own rights. Because we do not have the right to assume otherwise. If he wished it otherwise, it was his right and therefore his responsibility to indicate this.

Moreover, you were responding to my statement that it was "wrong to assume this" that was in response to a quote saying "the modder does not care". Lack of indication of permissions does not equate to not caring about them. If you think it does, then again, you are wrong. If you assume this, and take that as permission to redistribute their work and do so, then you are also morally wrong.


The modder does have copyright, in terms of a moral, ethical, or philosophical debate. A legal debate doesn't matter because we're not taking this to court. The only reason I bring up the law is to show how this kind of thing works in other mediums. If you're going to dispute modders' copyrights, you're going to have to show modding to be somehow different from other forms of artistic expression that do automatically confer full and exclusive copyrights upon the creator.

Of course, if you really want to go with this line of attack, feel free to try to contact Bethesda's legal department about them authorizing you to redistribute someone else's mod without permission, and see where that gets you.

Now THAT would be an interesting exercise. I am rather curious just what they WOULD say......

In all reality, we are not arguing legalities here, as nothing has been established as to the legal standing of any EULA..... What we ARE arguing is Ethics, and Common Courtesy. You can NOT make assumptions about an authors desires about what happens to his/her/their work. Sure, there are mod authors out there that don't care if someone grabs their mod, does something with it, and then re-uploads it. However, there are just as many that DO care, and assuming that just because one person/group doesn't care, therefore, none of them do...... well, that's just nonsense. Or arrogance..... Take your pick.

Let' look at it a different way. Say your neighbor goes out and builds himself a really cool car. He spends a fair amount of time getting it to just the way he likes it. Then, it sits in his driveway for a week/month/year/decade. Does that give you implied consent to go and drive it away? After all, HE isn't doing anything with it, nor has he said specifically that you can't......