New distribution permissions options for all files

[Deleted133263User]

:whistling: Its a good thing I got a move on with the first pdf then, for the first few days it was a no file page with just the images uploaded constituting the tutorial, there have been a few versions and expansion on files since.. but I may have been getting close to drawing attention initially - Noted for any other future projects :thumbsup:

[crippknottick]

When editing File Details, why does the drop down selection Yes/No for the question.....

"Does your file contain assets used from other authors (that you have permission to use) that can't be redistributed without permission?"

Always have Yes selected, even though previously you have set No?

 

Makes you feel like the site is hinting at something, but as far as I can see I have used no assets from anyone, just jpgs/pdf's made by my own fair hands :) (see signature linky)

The new warnings have a hostile appearance to them but I got the same pink banners about entries with no files, but all my entries have always had files. I think it's generic/global warnings to everyone and not directed toward individual members.

[BlackBaron2]

Yes, they are global warnings, like the image share has the "no nudity" big pink box :)

[Dark0ne]

The warnings are generic and for everyone. We get told off for having ambiguous rules so I'm going to respectfully ignore any complaints about making it painfully obvious what can get you banned! :turned:

[Arthmoor]

At the risk of stirring up another 5 pages of tl;dr posts....

 

I'm not comfortable with the idea that a modder must include use permission statements in their mods or risk having them cannibalized by future modders because we didn't do that. Copyright law is crystal clear on the matter of derivative works. You must have permission in order to make one.

 

In the absence of a license agreement, or some other statement of permission, the default position according to copyright law is that no permission is given, and you have no right to the material at all. It doesn't have an exception for the author going on leave for 6 months and being out of contact.

 

Is Nexus seriously trying to claim they have the authority to do the exact opposite of what the law states?

[jaysus]

thx for this addition, tho the rules were kinda clear before yet, it now probably will make asset thieves think twice haha

[DarkVVolfV]

Great job, loving this. helps keep things tidy too

[Pronam]

I'm not comfortable with the idea that a modder must include use permission statements in their mods or risk having them cannibalized by future modders because we didn't do that. Copyright law is crystal clear on the matter of derivative works. You must have permission in order to make one.

 

In the absence of a license agreement, or some other statement of permission, the default position according to copyright law is that no permission is given, and you have no right to the material at all. It doesn't have an exception for the author going on leave for 6 months and being out of contact.

 

Is Nexus seriously trying to claim they have the authority to do the exact opposite of what the law states?

The legal foundation is there for all, but the process to get them all to court/legal instances is long. As tracking down if a mod is stolen is taking some time. It's easier to clearly state everywhere that people aren't allowed to do this and this than to pursue everyone that didn't. Some people do 'by mistake' as they simply didn't bother to read things properly and these are simply ruled out a bit more as it's so much more prominent on a page. It's like a forbidden entry from this way sign on the road. Legally it's all ok, but it's made more clear and when a police officer stops next to you he'll notify you of the fact if you choose not to pay attention or seemed to have ignored it :biggrin:.

 

So everyone has to make a sign? Not really, if you tick the box of the personal statement and choose not to fill it in...you're done with. I think it's mostly an addition of awareness. As even if you don't want to think to much about it, the modders are made aware of the fact how protect their things more (by putting an deny-sign up.) and with that they can choose whether such a thing is necessary or not. Awareness on both modder and downloader side should save a lot of trouble already.

 

Permissions are not showing up atm btw?

[wrinklyninja]

A bug(?) report here, in contrast to the debate:

 

When I edit any of my file's attributes, the drop down menu for Does your file contain assets used from other authors (that you have permission to use) that can't be redistributed without permission? always resets to "Yes", even when I have previously selected "No". Could this be fixed so your setting is remembered like the rest of the drop-down boxes?

 

This also occurs with the checkbox for I would like to specify my own permissions in the "Permission instructions" text box below and not use the drop-down menus, which always resets to unchecked regardless to whether you previously checked it or not.

 

[Deleted133263User]

glad to see I am not the only one thinks that is weird, it does not give you confidence if the settings you set dont seem to be ... set.

 

Crippknottick quoted my post earlier.. which was erm, a different subject to pink banners, but it still remained un-addressed, so not sure if it will be looked into.