130 replies to this topic

[Kendo 2]

..now would somebody please wish me a nice day?

Have a good one, holmes.

[holbrook]

yay~

Edited by holbrook, 26 October 2010 - 04:44 AM.

[Madae]

Thanks for your input holbrook, and I wasn't going to pay anyone for this information - I have Law professors that could answer the question easily enough.

But you're still not seeing the big picture here, those being;

1. Same engine
2. Same assets
3. Same website
4. Same means of generating content
5. Same result

In short, the files are already present on a sister website. The files are freely distributed there. The files technically work straight out of the box for both games, and only minor alterations, if any, need to be made. In the case of Textures or Meshes, all I would have to do is download them from F3Nexus and drop them into my New Vegas data folder. It's really as simple as that.

This is where it gets tricky. The files work for both games because they are practically one in the same. For assets, the files are just being moved from one spot to another. This is not stealing or, on the surface, claiming someone else's work as your own. This isn't even a modification to the original work.

I'm not going to discuss this further, so don't bother trying to sway me with your laymen experience of the law. It was never the issue to begin with and you're blowing this whole thing out of proportion.

Edited by Madae, 26 October 2010 - 05:03 AM.

[zr1vetteowner]

@holbrook
You have yourself a great day:) I wish I was as good with words as you are. I agree with FrostFlake, I would not be surprised to see you as a Moderator someday:)

[holbrook]

here's the quick and simple version of what i'm sure a lawyer would tell you.

1. if the files actually did work out of the box, you would have no reason to upload the files on this sister site; people could just download them from their current location.

2. since the files do not work out of the box, and you need at least minor modifications in order to make them work, the current downloads are not viable to use and a conversion of the file uploaded on new vegas nexus would be more ideal.

3. despite that you are provided with a "copy" of a mod, you are not provided with the "right to copy". since you lack the right to copy, you cannot upload. ergo you either need permission from the rights holder in order to upload those assets (whether they were edited or not), or the author must be the one to do it; else it will not be legal to do it at all.

4. an .esp file is no less the property of its creator than a .jpg is for a photographer, a .psd file is for an artist, or a text document is for a writer. as such, you have no right to distribute so much as even the readme file let alone any other assets that belong to that individual in any manner what so ever without express permission.

now considering the facts... that you can't do anything but "use" the mods available here without having permission to edit/upload, and that mods from fo3 won't work on new vegas without some form of modification, what your lawyer's legal advice will boil down to is

you're floating through a river of excrement in a native american water vessel without any means of propulsion.

s.c.

it seems a miracle to me that you couldn't figure that out on your own.

or do you really believe a lawyer of all people is going to be the one to tell you that you're free to do as you please with things that don't belong to you?

or is it that you think a lawyer is going to tell you that despite bethesda and their lawyers considering it to be a different game; with different developers, and different licensing, and different user agreements, that you're going to be told "eh... it's at least close enough for government work dude, go for it".

yeah, that sounds legal...

p.s.

when you get project beauty, marts mutant mod, or cube experimental working for new vegas with "only minor alterations", be sure and let us all know.

oh what am i saying... i'm sure they work out of the box already.

p.s.s.

@zr1 and frost

thanks a bunch for the compliments but i don't think being "good with words" and "able to argue well" are exactly the qualities they look for in moderators~ =p

legally i'm obliged to inform you not to hold your breath.

off the record however, i bet i can hold my breath longer than you can. ready set go!

...

...hey... you guys are cheating aren't you?

i knew it!

Edited by holbrook, 26 October 2010 - 07:07 AM.

[Vagrant0]

Let's just make this perfectly clear... The issue is not open for debate. If you're going to start an argument, don't.

This site believes in respecting the rights and intentions of those who upload files to it. The game is less than a month old. Authors who are "inactive" may have simply been tired of the dead-end that FO3 modding was, and may have intentions of coming back to update their works. Uploading, or even offering conversions which use assets from a linked FO3 mod at this point is not suggested at this point simply because returning authors may not be too happy of someone taking claim, or getting notoriety for their works. If you don't get permission to upload or create a conversion for a mod, just don't upload it until we know for certain that that author has no intentions of returning. Inactivity at this point is impossible to know, so no actions will be allowed based on this assumption. Although uploading a conversion patch which doesn't include resources isn't strictly against the site rules, at this point it shows an unwillingness to even allow authors the time to decide what they want to do with their mods, and is likely to lead to those authors pulling their works entirely.

At this point, and because the issue has been so common over the last week, even doing a conversion patch is not suggested.

Simply put... BE PATIENT!

This issue is not open for negotiation or debate. If you start up an argument here, you will be given strikes. This is a news post which is intended to inform of site rules. Having all this extra argument makes it harder for people to know what is what, and is not appreciated.

Edited by Vagrant0, 26 October 2010 - 11:45 AM.

[rkelly]

the esp files unless made by the original mod maker cannot be claimed as there property if some one else made one 100% from scratch as the compatibility patch to bring the mod from fo3 to nv. or so i have heard at the beth forums. the original mod maker can ONLY claim the esp he or she or team made, models, textures, scripts, sounds and etc that they eitherr made or had permission to distribute. the esp file patch idea wouldnt fall under that if the esp was made from the ground up by another modder. but this would be a grey area for some and the same as theft for others.

So an author spends a month on a heavily scripted mod and someone comes behind him, spends five minutes in the New Vegas GECK to patch it and that's okay? It ain't in my book. If an esp/esm contains unique features someone made it that way.

The esp issue has already been addressed years ago when Montana made his adult companion scripts. HIS intellectual property and they cannot be used without his permission. The Nexus staff backed him.

thats because of the script that was added. i said JUST a esp patch file made 100% from scratch WITH out any scripts from the original mod.

[rkelly]

There are basically two components which count as theft of a mod:

1). Unauthorized editing/distribution or resources (meshes, textures, sounds, and other objects which exist outside the .esp/esm, both in whole and in part.
2). Unauthorized editing/distribution of .esp/esm related content (scripts, game settings (to a degree), UI settings, duplicate forms, duplicate actors) which is unique to that mod.

If either of these are present, the mod is liable for removal and the uploader may be banned. You can certainly look at the .esp and re-create it from scratch, but you are not allowed to duplicate work. We moderators have ways of being able to tell which is which.

then compatibility patches should be fine right? just getting clarification and a 100% yes or no answer. i mean the part i colored is the part that could be taken as a yes.

[Vagrant0]

There are basically two components which count as theft of a mod:

1). Unauthorized editing/distribution or resources (meshes, textures, sounds, and other objects which exist outside the .esp/esm, both in whole and in part.
2). Unauthorized editing/distribution of .esp/esm related content (scripts, game settings (to a degree), UI settings, duplicate forms, duplicate actors) which is unique to that mod.

If either of these are present, the mod is liable for removal and the uploader may be banned. You can certainly look at the .esp and re-create it from scratch, but you are not allowed to duplicate work. We moderators have ways of being able to tell which is which.

then compatibility patches should be fine right? just getting clarification and a 100% yes or no answer.

As it currently stands, this is not advised since authors may take offense to people just randomly making patches for mods which they were working on converting themselves and just start pulling their mods. It is NOT SUGGESTED now or any time soon in regards to FO3 and FONV content since there are so many people uploading compatibility patches for mods. If you want to force a clear yes or no answer, the answer at this time will be a "no".

[morikaane]

Despite being a wasteland wanderer of few words... I agree with the admin. It is the tough road, but the damn right one.

To back up what has been said... all the intellectual property of a plug-in is the property of the author. It is the same as saying that Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas are both the intellectual property of its creators, Bethseda and Obsidian. Same applies to a person who creates an image in Photoshop, that photo belongs to the person, not to Adobe.

Therefore a person who creates a plug-in, owns that plug-in, immutably. You need their permission to distribute it. Period.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply delusional.

M.