New distribution permissions options for all files

[holbrook]

Aren't ESPs created by the TES construction set technically the property of Bethdesa anyways?

ESP Files created in the CS belong the Bethesda...

a reasonably understandable misconception, but potentially far from minor.

 

esp files are the inherent property of and belong solely to the author. bethesda (and bethesda alone) is merely granted license to use our property if we make our property available to the public, and when that property was created using their editor. just like anyone else does, bethesda needs permission to use our work; they are neither the owners of nor privy to any claim on our work simply because we use their tools.

 

however, since we agreed to their terms of use for the geck, we agreed that if we choose to release our files, we also grant bethesda (alone) permission to use them. that includes any scripts, settings, and quite possibly dialogue or story elements regardless of where they were originally written, as they are still undeniably utilized (inside the geck) to create the resulting esp file (or any other file the geck is capable of producing). the reason they can do this is not because they own the property itself, but because they own a license that was given to them by the property owner (even if in ignorance brought upon by neglect).

 

simply... your work is always your work, but releasing your work that was put together in the geck is subject to the pre-existing conditions you agreed to when downloading/installing the editor. they gave us a license to create, and we gave them one to utilize our creations.

 

of course this is not inclusive of meshes, textures, audio etc. as these are neither things possible to create within the geck, or possible to store within the esp itself. the esp merely "points" to and "references" these outside assets.

 

this is why we now have iron sights, weapon modifications, and item recycling/repair workbenches in new vegas. when these mods were put onto the fallout 3 nexus, bethesda (and bethesda alone) immediately gained the right to use that property in their own work such as we see in new vegas.

 

also... when re-reading the legal documentation provided by bethesda for its released games and editors to make certain that the information i spoke was correct, i ran across several interesting lines that have greatly provoked the urge for me to further mutilate our deceased equestrian friends. i hope you can appreciate that i'm currently resisting such temptation, even if i can't seem to suffer in silence properly~

 

=p

Edited November 6, 2010 by holbrook

[PurplePigeon]

ESP Files created in the CS belong the Bethesda,

What?

The EULA places limitations on what you can do with New Materials produced with GECK and you also grant Bethesda the right to do pretty much whatever they want with them. But it does not make New Materials Bethesda's property, nor does it deprive you of your own rights (except for limitations which are explicitly specified in the EULA).

 

Actually, in some countries it's impossible for a person to transfer their intellectual property rights to someone else, except if they work for hire. You can grant a license to do something with your property, even an exclusive license but not make something you create someone else's intellectual property.

 

however scripts are usually written in Notepad/wordpad and put in game in the CS.

I don't think it matters because you still use CS to produce ESP. But ESPs are not Bethesda's property anyway.

[buddah]

For the love of anything, read my entire post and not some idiots attempt to quote it out of context.

 

Created in and used to put in game are two different things.

[PurplePigeon]

Created in and used to put in game are two different things.

Yes, I have read your entire post and I still think that it makes no difference. Your whole ESP is the New Material you create and scripts are a part of it. But I'm not a lawyer, maybe I'm wrong here.

 

But I don't know of any occasions where Bethesda would be sued by a modder for copyright infringement :smile: .

[buddah]

Because they have a great legal department, who wrote the EULA and are quite familiar with what they can and can't do.

 

Only a foolish company would violate their own EULA.....it would alienate the entire community. No matter how good your game is your following would not forgive or forget that.

[Surenas]

Because they have a great legal department, who wrote the EULA and are quite familiar with what they can and can't do.

 

Only a foolish company would violate their own EULA.....it would alienate the entire community. No matter how good your game is your following would not forgive or forget that.

Sorry but the juridical practice in Europe shows that they are not particularly familiar with what they can and can't do ... they simply do it. Though the chance that they'll be challenged in court proceedings that deal with the EULA is indeed low... up to now. But don't count on that.

[Marcurios]

site is getting better all the time, thanks..

[SydneyB]

Thanks a lot for this new addition, Dark0ne :) I am sure this will make things clearer for everybody :)

 

I am only missing some possibilities when choosing the permissions from the list. For example, in the "Conversion permission" I can only choose between "No" or "Yes, but you must credit me as the creator of the file" and I would like an option that would say something like "Yes, but you must ask permission from the other original authors" or "Yes, but you must follow the detailed instructions given in the "Permission instructions" section, or something like that :)

[holbrook]

read my entire post and not some idiots attempt to quote it out of context.

 

Created in and used to put in game are two different things.

no idiot quoted your post out of context. a supposed idiot however quoted only the relevant part of it before explaining that the esp files that people make do not in any way belong to bethesda under any circumstance. yet upon us releasing those files, bethesda gains "licensed" rights to the resulting contents contained within the esp file; regardless if you originally penned them in notepad, or directly in the editor.

 

the point was to express that a person's original creations are unfailingly the intellectual property of that person regardless of what program was used to create it or what text box someone happened to be typing into at the time. one program is no different than the other in terms of protection offered or in bethesda having license to it. the other point was to express that, so long as you are the creator of the esp's contents (scripts, etc.), when your property is made available to others in an esp format, bethesda gains a license to use those contents; not because you created "the script" in their editor, but because you created and then released "the esp" file that contains it with their editor. it's fairly pointless to assume that scripts don't belong to bethesda, because it wouldn't change anything for us even if they did. they're very clear and encompassing about it; "All uses of the Editor (pushing ctrl+v) and any materials (esp files) created using the Editor are... subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement." in other words, there's no wrong way to eat a reese's; the result is always the same in the end. created in and used to put into the game are different things, but as far as it concerns "this" issue it's just 2 different recipes for making the same thing.

 

no one has to take my word on that, they can hear it from bethesda and call them the idiots if they prefer.

 

http://fallout.bethsoft.com/eng/downloads/updates-GECK-fnv-eula.html

 

more importantly (well maybe not), the last post wasn't an attempt (or occurrence) of you being misquoted nor being taken out of context, and it carried no intent of stretching your words, twisting the truth, or to piss you off in general.

 

as it just so happens, neither is this one.

 

cheers,

Edited November 8, 2010 by holbrook

[XTR3M368]

Thanks Dark0ne and staff. The new permissions section is nice. I do wish it was linked into the description pages of people's files so it would be easier to find for less experienced users....at the bottom of each description page maybe?

 

The only other constructive criticism I have is that, at least on my 22" widescreen monitor running 1680x1050 res, the word "permissions" from the new content is actually crowding into the "Contact the Author" box below it in the "Options" section.