New distribution permissions options for all files

[XTR3M368]

I only have one other question....

 

If the new feature permissions options is left as "This user has not currently updated their distribution permissions", are we allowed to go by the author's written permission "legals" (in the mod's description) until the new feature is updated by said authors?

Edited October 30, 2010 by XTR3M368

[Dark0ne]

If the author has provided details in their ReadMe or description regarding permissions then it will always over-ride what is in the permissions section of the file page.

[holbrook]

that's an unexpected call, i guess it can't be said that "policy remains unchanged" anymore.

 

if you change this standpoint though, wouldn't you need to change the terms of service, and wouldn't this change of terms that previous authors did not agree to lead to "grandfather" protection or legacy issues for files before these changes were put into effect?

 

currently it states...

 

All files uploaded must have been created by the uploader or used with permission from the original author of the content.

won't there now need to be a line to mention that the above statement is no longer honored by nexus if you become deemed "inactive" due to being absent from the site for an amount of time that also isn't even going to being defined to them?

 

it would seem necessary to me at least, as there's currently no mention on the ToS about how authors can lose control of how the work they upload if they're not actively here to defend it.

 

there's also no mention of how neglecting to give permission now has the ability to be considered "good enough"; having your work treated as though you've given someone permission despite never in fact giving it, unless you yourself are presently here to contest it. (or contest that a new rule changed how your property may be used without your acknowledgment of these terms changing, and that it is in contradiction to what you agreed to when you did upload your work)

 

people often found it disappointing to run into an impasse or become stymied by a lack of permission, but that's simply unavoidable if you're going to protect the author's rights to their own work.

 

has the amount of people uploading someone else's work without permission really raised to a level that the best option you see for dealing with it is to "deal with less" by allowing this activity in the cases where people not currently on the neglected to outright forbid it?

 

isn't the presumption that "well hey, since they didn't say they didn't want me to take their work, they must be ok with me doing it or they would have told me otherwise" just a bit too much speculation?

 

if the author didn't want their content being used in other mods then they should have stated so in their description or ReadMe.

hasn't the absolute reverse always been the standpoint taken?

 

uploading work you need permission for is sort of like walking up to a vending machine and trying to buy a can of coke.

 

we need permission to upload, and we need 50 cents for the drink.

 

saying "the file didn't state that i didn't have permission and the author never wrote back when i tried to contact him" doesn't change that you still haven't obtained permission is the same as saying "mom wouldn't give me any money when i asked and i don't have any of my own.

 

can people tell vending machines that they haven't been able to get money from their mother because "she hasn't been around lately" and expect that's a valid reason for the machine to spit out a free drink?

 

the machine doesn't care what your reason for not having 50 cents is, and the nexus didn't care what your reason for not having permission was.

 

lacking what is needed, regardless of "why" is still lacking it.

 

why should that theory change and exception be made today?

 

I'm not going to come out and say Oh, you wait two weeks and if you hear nothing then it's all fine and dandy.

when they became inactive and did not reply to permission requests, and a considerable and fair amount of time had passed without response, then using the author's resources became acceptable

as i mentioned before; how are you going allow people to ignore the current terms of service based on an amount of time passing without define what that measurement of time is?

 

also, if the decision for how long is long enough is based simply on "how a moderator feels at the time", (which leaves no clear understanding for users as to when they're following or breaking the rules) yet you've just invited somewhere around a quarter of a million people to "do whatever they wish with anyone else's work" if that author didn't expressly state "you can't do whatever you wish with my work"...

 

isn't it carrying great potential if not an outright certainty for it to become a bigger nightmare for nexus staff (when you already have your hands full) to not only deal with people uploading work without permission like they always do, but to add dealing with mods uploaded without permission when the parameters to decide if it's acceptable or not is utterly indecisive and unclear?

 

this would have been fine if the authors agreed to such conditions on their work in the past, or were forced as we are with the new system to fill in and leave no doubt as to what our intentions were, but i can't see why or how you expect this sort of a decision to be in the best interests of anyone other than the people who don't like following your rules.

 

p.s.

 

earlier you mentioned copyright law was irrelevant on this subject because you were going to protect author's rights to their work on here even if copyright law wouldn't. you said you would require having permission from authors in order to use their work in uploads of your own regardless of what copyright laws "might" not consider infringement.

 

if you can no longer say "our policy isn't changing", i don't think you can say "copyright law is irrelevant" anymore either.

 

not just because[/] of what copyright law consists of, or because like any other intellectual property or creation; our mods are protected by copyright laws in the same manner, but because the terms of service does include statements which are extremely relevant and conflicted by allowing the use of someone else's work without permission regardless of them being "inactive and unresponsive".

 

The posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or you have consent from the owner of the copyrighted material, is strictly prohibited on any Nexus site.

 

Absolutely no copyrighted work is to be used without permission of the original creator.

 

TLDR - because you asked nicely. well... maybe not but close enough. (seemingly my third irony)

 

- excuses for why you have not been able to obtain permission (they didn't reply / they didn't give permission, but they didn't said i "didn't" have permission either) does not change the fact that you still fail to possess permission.

 

- if permission is the be all end all "cost of entry", this situation is no different than telling a guy standing guard at the door collecting tickets for a concert "well, the lady selling tickets isn't there anymore, and they didn't say i couldn't have a pass for free, so could i just get in and watch the concert now and if she shows up later saying that i did need a ticket to be here then she can ask me to leave?".

 

- has the building pressure and nuisance that has come from the issue of people uploading work for new vegas without permission escalated to a degree that you've made felt making a bad judgment call was the only suitable option you had?

 

- aren't authors and their work protected by the terms of service that they agreed to, as it existed at the time, when they uploaded that work to the site? and wouldn't they remain under that protection in the event of a change in rule that compromised what they previously agreed to until they acknowledged and agreed to the new terms?

 

- if "our policy hasn't changed" is no longer true; "copyright is irrelevant" is no longer true.

 

also, i'm still curious on your opinion for simplifying the permission information and using small simple graphics to make it easily and readily identifiable even at a glance such as with these 5 examples...

 

http://home.insightbb.com/~ljhinc/images/misc/flaguse.jpg

 

cheers

[Mur_Zik]

@holbrook

 

My English is poor enough that's why I do always try to avoid posting if there's no *special* need for this. I do also avoid reading too long posts as well as usually their main idea is - "i'm posting this means I'm living"(or something like this). Actually, the main idea after reading too much text containing no idea is a headache...

 

I've managed to finish reading this

http://www.thenexusforums.com/index.php?/topic/254361-new-distribution-permissions-options-for-all-files/page__view__findpost__p__2272529

finally though as most of you've said corresponds(?) my views on the topic. Except the "modder's resource" theme.

 

It must be actually important for modders who use these "resources" in their own mods as well.

 

The idea is clear to my mind but is not concluded by now(just got tired of typing).

[XTR3M368]

@Holbrook....TLDR..

 

Authors can protect themselves even being MIA for years very easily....by saying permission must be given to use their mod. The precedents are ALL OVER the Nexus of authors stipulating conditional use. Those haven't changed. Your "pop machine" analogy doesn't fit because there IS stipulations to "getting a soda"....the .50 cents. I think you are comparing apples and oranges....and glazing the eyes of the community over. :tongue:

[Kendo 2]

I've aleady accepted the fact that some New Vegas moddurz are going to do as they please, regardless of the spirit of sharing, the intent some mods were uploaded with, or what anyone thinks about it.

I foresee this being a quagmire of what constititutes permission, absent uploaders and authors, resource works, memember interpretation and staff rulings. Dark0ne has already made his ruling (subject to modification when he deems necessary). The only way for modders to really protect their work is not make their mods resource material, and that KILLS the sense of community here. I'm guilty of it and until I can figure out a way to upload resource material without getting screwed in the process that's just how it is.

[ginnyfizz]

I concur. This could be a nightmare. As I have said in another similar thread, the original uploader/modder could have become apparently inactive on Nexus but for very good reasons. Working away from home for long periods. On active service with the military. Lost internet connection for any number of reasons. Serious illness. It is just wrong, asking for trouble and alienating to modders to say that after a certain amount of time their work becomes fair game. To quote Holbrook

 

 

"also, if the decision for how long is long enough is based simply on "how a moderator feels at the time", (which leaves no clear understanding for users as to when they're following or breaking the rules) yet you've just invited somewhere around a quarter of a million people to "do whatever they wish with anyone else's work" if that author didn't expressly state "you can't do whatever you wish with my work"... "

 

I was really impressed by the quick action and the new ruling, but I am now concerned that the waters have been muddied again - I could not put it better than Holbrook has. The usual rule of thumb for anything is, if in doubt - don't do it. If the original modder is absent and you cannot get an answer on permission, then assume that the answer is "no". That would be by far the safest option.

[Dark0ne]

I didn't read Holbrooks post. Every post I've seen from him has been one big wall of text. So learn to TL;DR or summarise for people who don't like walls of text please!

 

If you care this much about your files being used then put your permissions in your ReadMe or file description. It's really not hard and If you do this then it doesn't matter at all, as no length of time will change anything.

 

As it is I've yet to see a complaint from someone who's actually had a bad experience with this i.e. from a modder who didn't notify anyone of their permissions, who left the community and then came back to find their work used by others. In fact I can't ever remember such a situation occurring. Until such time I think the authors who do note down their permissions (who aren't affected by this in the slightest...) should probably pipe down.

 

Don't just blow hot air because you can.

[XTR3M368]

"The only way for modders to really protect their work is not make their mods resource material, and that KILLS the sense of community here

 

That is not true at all. Put whatever stipulations you want with it and the staff will honor them and force others too. If you say "modder's resource" and no other stipulations, you are authorizing everyone to use it. If you say "modder's resource with <insert whatever stipulation here>", you are fully protected.

 

It sounds like some want to release things as unconditional modder's resources but then want say in where it is used. If you want that say, then state that...am I the only one that sees this?

 

Edited October 30, 2010 by XTR3M368

[Dark0ne]

It sounds like some want to release things as unconditional modder's resources but then want say in where it is used. If you want that say, then state that...am I the only one that sees this?

 

You've hit the proverbial nail on the head there. That's actually been the recent issue ;)