Gruffydd

If you're playing on the PC, you could use my mod to get new stuff to cover the blank walls... Gruffydd's Signs and Posters - Cities, Towns & Settlements - AFK Mods

I'm confused about this comment: 1 - I'm a Premium. I don't see annoying banners and ads. 2 - What in the world does uBlock, or the whole comment you made, have to to with the topic? I suspect if you actually saw the ad, it might make more sense, but, don't know for sure, I don't see ads either. :D I assumed it was is response to the bit about the contest (post a mod maybe win loot). Which would be weird since it would be a local ad. But I don't see ads either, so that's just a guess.

This has nothing to do with the topic of cathedrals and whether or not they really exist.

Cathedral is a silly term for it anyway, I think. No cathedral was ever built by one person building something, then someone else coming over and building on that, and so on. A cathedral is a singular architectural vision. If anything what this builds is the Winchester house.

I think part of the problem is there are a lot of people who would like to use assets cathedral-style and not very many who make new assets and are willing to give away that work to the public domain. If more cathedral modders contributed resources there might actually be a vibrant cathedral community, enough so that reluctant authors might even see the results and change their minds. But as it is, I really don't see all that much created by the cathedral community. At least, not in Bethesda mods on Nexus, which is what I'm most familiar with. Am I just missing some vast library of cathedral works somewhere?

I'm not even sure if group/team projects really count as cathedral. Isn't the cathedral thing supposedly that people can take what others have already made and use it as building blocks to make their own stuff, which in turn can be built on by others? Actual team projects from what I have seen rarely fall into that. Instead, it's a group working on a communal project for which they have no intention of releasing to the public domain on completion. The closest I've seen to actual cathedral modding is mods that use a modders resource. I certainly haven't seen anything in the public domain that built upon mods that built upon mods and so on that were all released to the public domain. It kinda feels like cathedral as a concept is rarely used as anything other than a reason to take assets another author created without that author's permission. "It should have been public domain/free/open source all along rah cathedral boo parlor therefore I should have the right to take it."

If I want to release such a project I have a reason for that and I will do. Some "half baked products" got only finished because of releasing and with the help of the comunity. So don't request to stay away with that.... I'm pretty sure they were asking NexusMods to make sure the new functionality was as good as possible, rather than something half-baked. I don't think it was directed toward authors at all...

You can put any kind of release of rights you want on your mod, up to and including fully releasing it into the public domain. Less restrictive is always permitted, when it's your own work.

The whole parlor/cathedral thing wouldn't really be an issue if it weren't for some very vocal people trying to force everyone to be cathedral. You like controlling your own work? Great! The law says you own it and the copyright on it. You want your work to be added to other modders work to make a glorious new vision? Great! Release your mod to public domain or under a cc or similar license. It's mostly as far as I can tell people wanting to exploit a "parlor" modder's work without permission who are the most vocal. They need to get over it. If they want something like parlor modder's Mod X (whatever it may be) to be in the public domain so much they should make their own version (from scratch, not just swiping the assets and slapping their name on it) and release it to the public domain.

Okay that makes sense, especially if they don't have an automated function for it. Weird that they don't send a confirmation when the deletion is completed though.

Hi. I wrote to DarthDoodar about this, and got no response, so I'm hoping someone here can answer. I submitted an official request for file deletion a bit over a week ago, and the mods in question had their titles changed to include the word "DELETED" in them. I then got a series of notifications, one for each file in the mods, saying something like this: "A moderator (DarthDoodar) archived GruffyddSandP4.02 version 4.02 in Gruffydd's Signs and Posters - DELETED" Screenshot: I'm just wondering why all of the files are listed in the notifications as being archived instead of being deleted. Are my files actually archived now somewhere on NexusMods, or were they really deleted as promised? And if they were deleted, why was I notified that they were all archived? Thanks in advance for any response.

Absent any automated system to identify things, shouldn't it be the collection curator's responsibility to determine what their collection is or is not compatible with, and notify users accordingly?

At this point I have to agree, especially having read the last couple of pages. Although "Bunny's twaddle" I think is more appropriate as a description, because it's just rehashing the same old invalid arguments against modders owning their work (and now against copyright as a concept!) that have been argued and debunked over and over and over again elsewhere, using the most insanely illogical straw-grasping and distortion. You can't help the willfully ignorant. But you can ignore them, and that's what I shall do from now on.

That's like saying the Tolkien estate doesn't own The Lord of the Rings because Terry Brooks wrote a blatant ripoff of it. As long as you do it yourself, you can cover all the same concepts without issue. If that includes setting changes you can make the same ones. If it involves writing code, you'd need to do it yourself from scratch, or using code that's been released for reuse. As you said (and as US copyright law also says) you can't copyright a concept. But mod ownership isn't about owning the concept (a few authors have tried to make it so, but it's not true), it's about owning the work. If someone else wants to put in the work to make a mod that does what someone else's mod already does, that's their choice, and there's nothing wrong with it. But if they take even one of the original mod's assets to do it, they're in violation. As an example, my mod adds signs and posters to the Fallout 4 settlement menus. It uses modified or custom meshes, and public domain, licensed, or custom art. Another mod can also add signs or posters (and a number do - great, more variety!). They can even use the same public domain or licensed art (minus any modifications I've made). But they can't swipe my meshes or custom art, they need to make their own.

Nothing at all wrong with a list of mods verified to work together, provided in the order in which you should install them, and indicating any special instructions. We've had those here for years. I loved when my mods were included on them. One button to install them all, never have to visit a mod page modpacks? Yeah, from an author point of view there are issues. Some authors don't mind those issues. Others are very concerned by them.

You checked this how? I had the mods I cared about removed. I know of a number of other people who had some or all of their mods removed. How many I wonder removed their mods without any kind of announcement, so we don't know they did so, or are simply abandoning the current versions here, never to update them again?

If you were actually here for more than a minute, you'd have seen the endless threads on this very topic. You are not adding anything, you are rehashing what has been gone over ad nauseum over and over before. Do all of us a favor, and go read the past threads. I'm sick of having to provide the same links over and over to people who don't know the history, haven't done the research, and refuse to accept what's documented fact. I know it's nothing new. It's just that people started bringing up terms of use and eulas to prove their point on ownership once again like always and then the same reply (as always was used) once you upload it here you allow nexus to do what it wants with it. It might not have been enforced before, but it will be now. If you don't want the same things repeated over and over tell the guys bringing it up again and again to stop it. *sigh* Okay, one more time, for the last time. Licensed rights are not the same as ownership. They have nothing to do with ownership. You can't give away ownership through licensing. Responding to verifiable fact that mods are owned by the mod author (and if done under license protected by copyright as derivative works) (in a discussion where multiple people are claiming otherwise) with the fact that NexusMods is stating anyone using the site grants NexusMods a license is responding to a discussion about fish with a post about lemons. Sure, you can draw a link between the two, but you're really talking about two very different things. Until last month everyone "knew" because it had been said officially for years that the Nexus respected author's rights and the author's choice to post or remove their work, despite what the "boilerplate" (as some called it) in the ToS said. That ToS, and the 180 degree turnaround in policy to start enforcing it, is part of the problem because it claims all six rights granted to a copyright holder, eternally, and that wasn't policy until last month regardless of what the ToS said. Think what you will about the topic. The facts are out there if you want them. As a poet said, I can't make you want the truth, it's up to you.

This here is such a good point. I just saw the other day someone saying in the USSEP comment section that USSEP breaks Alternative Start..... Collections just mean people know even lesser from whom they have mods. They never need to go on the mod page, and they won't. Because they will install a list, and when they like something in game, they wouldnt even know which mod makes that. So many points from people here that are pro "take away deletion" for the "greater good" seriously dont see how many holes their arguments actually have. But we are the ones that search for negatives.....sigh.... -_- I have maybe around five really good FO4 mods that I use that add new objects to the settlement menus. They're all different, all quality stuff, and all in separate menus. But once I place them in the game, for the most part I couldn't for the life of me tell you which objects came from which mods without going back and looking. And that's with me having intentionally chosen that handful of mods for what they add, and with them being in separate menus in the settlement menus. I don't expect some "average modder" with a 200-mod Collections list to have any clue what part of their game play came from which mod. Especially if the collection has a couple dozen mods that all add in new guns or something like that.

If you were actually here for more than a minute, you'd have seen the endless threads on this very topic. You are not adding anything, you are rehashing what has been gone over ad nauseum over and over before. Do all of us a favor, and go read the past threads. I'm sick of having to provide the same links over and over to people who don't know the history, haven't done the research, and refuse to accept what's documented fact. Edit: Sorry for pulling the veterancy card, as you put it, but really, there are HUNDREDS of pages on this topic across many threads in many forums. Each time, it's someone new with their "brand new" ideas about how mod authors don't really own their mods and how copyright isn't a thing, and then we spend ages providing factual link while they go on and on about their personal opinions on the matter having more weight than actual documented fact. It's not specifically you. You're just the latest in a LONG LINE of people restarting this same discussion.

That "some guy" was me. And that's not what I said. There are benefits to mods going mainstream but they aren't for the majority of mod authors. They benefit people using mods and companies exploiting mods for their own purposes/profits, and possibly a very small fraction of mod authors who may get invited to the "other side" like the authors who are working for Creation Club. Any hobby going mainstream rarely benefits the amateur hobbyist who was previously enjoying the hobby, with the exception of greater availability of tools. But mods going mainstream isn't even a real part of the discussion here, because it's a wishful thinking hope rather than an actual verifiable consequence of what's going on here and now. There are reasons why the Nexus is doing this and the choices they made. But those reasons are for the benefit of the Nexus, by providing a new (income-generating through increased site traffic/subscriptions) service to the average mod user. They are at the expense of mod authors and knowingly so (go read some of their posts), although there are many authors who do not mind giving up what they are being told to give up. Basically, everyone benefits from the current situation except for the mod authors who don't want to give up their rights to support the new business model, or who have other concerns with how the situation is being handled.

In truth, legally this is how most mods typically work, at least as far as I remember. When you make a mod for a game, you usually don't have ownership of it unless the mod in question doesn't use any tool or assets from the game in question. Meaning if you posted it, even if the site allowed you to delete it ... legally anyone could repost it. But most sites would still typically be against that just out of respect for the mod author. BGS games in particular are a bit more on the unique side due to their ToS, where BGS does allow mod authors to retain ownership, course with caveats like you can't sell it. ... No, legally unless the game company states you can mod a game (like Bethesda does), you don't have the legal right to do so, because you are making a derivative work without the copyright holder's permission. Some game studios are happy to look the other way. Others are not, and request that mods be taken down when they find them. In neither case does it give anyone the legal right to distribute copies. If the mod is owned by the mod author (as licensed for derivative work by the game studio) then you are violating the mod author's copyright by distributing the mod. If the author did not have a license to make a derivative work, then you are violating the original game studio's copyright by distributing the mod.

Mods are not open source projects unless the author specifically decides they are and states such to be the case. Mods are not public upon release. They are owned and copyrighted by the authors. NexusMods says so (see: Copyright and You in the Rules forum). Bethesda says so (see: section 2A of the CK EULA). US Copyright Code says so (see: copyright.gov).

Making anything easier to use is a benefit to everyone, including mod authors. It just depends on how you want to look at it. If you only focus on the negatives and none of the positives, of course it's going to seem bad. Let me list some benefits just to show you. 1. It's going to bring way more people into modding, meaning more endorsements, more downloads, possibly more donations. 2. It will introduce a lot of people into modding and some of those individual may become curious and start creating mods themselves. 3. You have fewer people trying to mod manually, and as such you end up having fewer people with problems with their load order due to not knowing what they are doing. This means, mod authors are less likely to have to deal with users who don't know what they are doing. This is even more true if problems that do occur are directed at the curators ... which from my understanding is how Nexus is going about it. 4. Collections create more opportunities and idea that may have not been thought up before, and may lead to joint projects by authors to create something even better. 5. Collections incentivize mods playing nice together, and it becomes way more beneficial to make sure mods are as compatible as can be. 6. It increases the possibility of your mod being noticed as it may end up being included in a collection which may lead to many users learning about your mod where as before it was under the radar. There are tons of amazing mods that just sometimes never get the attention they deserve. Collections just add another layer that can create a great opportunity for such cases. And I am sure there are more I didn't list. There are tons of positives, you just have to take a step back and stop being negative. 1. It's going to bring way more people into modding, meaning more endorsements, more downloads, possibly more donations.Endorsements and downloads are fun stats, but meaningless. Donations are rare enough as to be nonexistent. Donation points are a dribble at best for the vast majority of mod authors.More users does not directly benefit mod authors. It does directly benefit NexusMods. 2. It will introduce a lot of people into modding and some of those individual may become curious and start creating mods themselves.This also does not benefit current mod authors in any way. It does directly benefit NexusMods. 3. You have fewer people trying to mod manually, and as such you end up having fewer people with problems with their load order due to not knowing what they are doing. This means, mod authors are less likely to have to deal with users who don't know what they are doing. This is even more true if problems that do occur are directed at the curators ... which from my understanding is how Nexus is going about it.Maybe. I personally didn't have very many people reporting load order problems. In fact, I can't remember the last time I did. 4. Collections create more opportunities and idea that may have not been thought up before, and may lead to joint projects by authors to create something even better.Wishful thinking. I don't see the causal relationship there. 5. Collections incentivize mods playing nice together, and it becomes way more beneficial to make sure mods are as compatible as can be.It's not the obligation of mod authors to try to make mods "play nice together". Mods will conflict. Always have. Always will. You're modifying game code. If two people modify the same code, there's conflict. Expecting authors to somehow coordinate with all other authors to make the mods "play nice together" is unrealistic at best. 6. It increases the possibility of your mod being noticed as it may end up being included in a collection which may lead to many users learning about your mod where as before it was under the radar. There are tons of amazing mods that just sometimes never get the attention they deserve. Collections just add another layer that can create a great opportunity for such cases.No, it increases the possibility that the user doesn't even know they're using that mod, since they installed a Collection based on its overall hype and didn't even bother to read which mods are included before pressing their one-button-install. Given that many users don't even bother to read a mod's description, comments section, bug reports, or readme files before installing (and then complaining to the author that it's "broken"), I give this a very high probability.

This does not fill me with a desire to give up my rights over my own work to a for-profit company so that these people can have an easier time using mods.

Reality is that even though the ToS may have said that, we were told repeatedly by multiple sources that it was basically just boilerplate, and that it was not how the Nexus operated. Now they've done a complete 180 on their stated policies of over a decade, in support of a new business model, in the least supportive and most dismissive way possible. Now they're saying to authors well, that boilerplate is now reality no matter what we said before, and hey, look at that, it lets us claim every single right that you as copyright holder have over your material, forever. So yes, by the wording of the ToS, maybe it was a "privilege" that the Nexus "let" authors delete their own work. But you know what? It's a privilege for the Nexus to be given our work, that we've worked to long and hard to produce with no material benefit for doing so, in the first place. Without the mods there is no Nexus. And you know what? It's also a privilege for users to be given the results of our work - for free I might add - as well, even though so many apparently see it as something that they have a right to, that they're entitled to, and that they demand that we produce for them. So, if you're going to toss around what a "privilege" it was that Nexus was "allowing" us to remove our own work from the site, be aware there are other privileges that you're taking for granted. We, the mod authors, do not work for the Nexus. We are not required to host our work here. There are multiple other sites on which we can host our mods that will partner with us instead of exploiting us to advance their business model. We don't even have to host our mods anywhere. If we want, we can take them down entirely, and then nobody except those we personally give them to gets to use them. They're our mods. We own the copyrights (see: copyright.gov, the Bethesda CK EULA, and the "Copyright and You" thread here on the Nexus in the Rules section) and anything we grant to others is the privilege, not what they allow us to do with our own work. So, if now the Nexus can't or won't respect us enough to see us as partners instead of an asset to be exploited, then we can and will take our work elsewhere, and a number of us have done so.