New distribution permissions options for all files

[MrFlesh]

I have no mods listed here but I have hundreds of copywrited material and I've had to defend it several times from both sides of the fence.

 

For the person who asked what law it would fall under, that depends entirely on the origin of the modder/mod, but most likely the originating location of the construction set (U.S.), not the location of TESNEXUS. As for TESNexus not supporting works derived from copyrighted material, 1/4 to a 1/3 of tesnexus (and 1/2 of fallout and nvnexus) would disappear if this was the case. I gave them three examples.....lets see how long they stay up.

 

"would you please point to where in the eula it says authors lose (or never had) the ownership rights of their work?"

 

It is clear by the above and most of your post that you are unable to separate what you wish & is etiquette from what is reality. The EULA is not the end all be all point of the conversation. Most statements outside of copyrights and patent laws in an EULAs are not even defensible in court. They are mostly CYA documents meant to scare the user into compliance.

 

I can give numerous instances in U.S. law where it can be argued against any rights of control. All the below points are established law or have been defended successfully in U.S. Copyright and Patent Law.

 

1. Copyright or patent? Due to the nature of mods containing both code (falls under patents in the U.S. not copyright) and art (art is very hard to defend in copyright law unless it is an exact copy, as most art is inspired) the conversation can be argued either way. Patents are not implied. You must actually go out and apply for a patent. Being that patents cost thousands of dollars from beginning to end, I highly doubt 99.999999% of mods ever produced were patented. If the work is released without a patent it becomes public domain (in the case of patents after a year) free for anybody to do with as they wish.

 

2. In the case of copyright, if the work has no real commercial value (the EULA states you cannot charge for NEW work) and is unregistered it gets very little protection. Here is an expert from a lawyers copyright FAQ in regards to unregistered copyright and commercial value

 

"While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any new creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the work is unregistered and has no real commercial value (MrFlesh Edit: EULA states you cannot profit from works derived from Construction set), it gets very little protection. The author in this case can sue for an injunction against the publication, actual damages from a violation, and possibly court costs. Actual damages means actual money potentially lost by the author due to publication, plus any money gained by the defendant. But if a work has no commercial value the actual damages will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich) author would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don't look kindly on vindictive plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive. "

 

 

3. Derivative work. Derivative work is any work that incorporates an established work but changes it enough that it can't be mistaken for the original. You cannot copyright a derivative work but you can escape liability with the fair use defense. This was established in the 90s with Campell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc and Sega Enterprises LTD v Accolade.

 

Heres the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

 

4. 20% rule. A work is considered new if it is different enough from the derived work. In U.S. patent and copyright 20% is enough. If a mod consist of a mesh and a texture, simply retexturing the mod is enough to consider it a new concept. This is where my case for not having permission comes in to play as I wanted to retexture a mod. Technically I could do as I please since neither the texture or mesh is his but in the interest of the community I choose not to.

 

5. After all of the above In your example you still can't claim ownership of the "red sword" as it is a generic idea. Now if you made the "Red Sword of Galandria" issomething entirely different.

 

 

I'm not stating any of this because I intend to rip off every artist on TES nexus. I'm stating this because when I read posts on forums a lot of people are on their high horse about this topic and the reality is there is no high horse to be had. Now if Nexus wants to include some things in their EULA to foster a community, I can understand that. But when I said the following....

 

"But if a mod is no longer supported, no longer updated, dead, the maker is no longer responding, the maker is no longer modding for the game, etc, then any element of that mod or modders unsupported works should be free game. "

 

it goes a long way towards fostering a community.

Edited November 13, 2010 by MrFlesh

[Kendo 2]

...Up untill now, everything i've read has been very concrete: "no permission = no upload". Agree or not, it was the rule. Now it's suddenly "well, if the author disappeared and you can't locate him, it may be ok, we'll see, case by case basis..." Speaking as someone who is learning to mod and would like to see his future work protected, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

 

You're right. It doesn't inspire confidence.

 

 

"But if a mod is no longer supported, no longer updated, dead, the maker is no longer responding, the maker is no longer modding for the game, etc, then any element of that mod or modders unsupported works should be free game. "

 

it goes a long way towards fostering a community.

 

You're wrong. What will foster a community is protecting the interests of the people that drive the community. In the case of Nexus it is the people submitting their work for others to enjoy. It isn't the staff, the lurkers or downloaders driving Nexus. It is the modders and it is THEIR WORK that is the draw and attraction.

 

Without download content Nexus becomes just another gaming discussion board. It might be wise to protect the interests of the people submitting mods.

[MrFlesh]

If they are no longer modding, no longer supporting a mod, have stated the mod is dead, or are no longer modding oblivion, they are no longer a part of the community are they?

 

I asked one of the biggest skin makers if I could retexture some of his work he said "Sure go ahead thanks for asking." I asked a huge model maker if I could use one of his meshes he said "Sure, thanks for asking." I ask some podunk noob modder if I can use his script and he criticizes my "lack of modding resume" and worried what I'll do with his work.........-_- It's scripting, that's like the drummer of a band worrying about his image. You're the f.....g drummer! No one cares! So I am reinventing the wheel because someones ego has to lord over 40 lines of script, and I'm doing it willingly because no law under the sun save interest in the community prevents me from using it anyway.

 

The people that really contribute that put out lots of good work, are the most lenient with usage. It's the people who put out a handful of mediocre to bad mods that want to "protect their interests"...which just means the only "interest" these type of people have is building a little content kingdom and lording over it. This isn't contributing to a community, it's trying to turn it into a market place for egos.

 

I recently read that a prominent Oblivion modder quit modding because a minor unreleased file of hers made it to the public.....your kidding right? a 5meg file in a 50gig+ directory, that is constantly swapped in and out of, was copy/pasted by accident or intentionally by ONE person to another, hit the net, the net did what it does naturally, and the modder decided to take her ball and go home to punish the community for something it had no knowledge of? I sure hope she doesn't have kids. I think the community is better served by people like this leaving than sticking around....I don't use her mods out of shear principle.

 

P.S. Where is the high rez chocolate elf skin. I can't find it.

 

Edited November 13, 2010 by MrFlesh

[Surenas]

All this doesn't change anything, doesn't turn everything upside down. That's the phantasmagoria of childish wishful thinking.

What is mine isn't yours and will never be without my permission, no matter if it's just a 100 kb good idea of a beginner or a professional project. The fact e.g. that I have left Gas Powered Games in 2006 doesn't mean that my free gift for the Dungeon Siege community would ever be approved for looting in buccaneer fashion or I'd have to teach the folk a lesson. A great many think so and the lesson might end in a forced closing of the hosting server. I still have strong memories of such an end. None of you wants a juridical shootout of lawyers with a more or less crippled, perhaps even dead website at the end, don't ya? The first that'd make a hasty retreat from the scene are those that have a reputation and money to lose - the sponsors. They smell trouble already before its making, believe me. Simply keep in mind that not every designer is a poor among poors and better accept that some reject something that is mostly granted. I always had the impression that at large the problem isn't the permission as such but the unwillingness of a certain type of folk to ask for it cos it's free and that already sounds like sow's ear. Those folk may be better hanged upside down on the wall immediately, as a warning to others not to confuse free private usage with free public looting, or we all have to pay an unexpected high prize one day. And that'd be more than just bad luck. What you get is what you see, ain’t nothing more to it. So let me see your cards on the table, before I buy.

The consequent discussion on moderate charges in the wake of mod piratery, to call the baby by its real name, isn't that new btw, it appeared already in early 2003 as I vividly recall.

To the staff: Think of an implemented form sheet to avoid inevitable trouble ever and anon that deals with the intellectual property rights, not only the non-English modders would appreciate it, but likewise all youngsters of the modding scene thus the whole community as well. Give 'em a chance to develop an own profile that is not built on watered-down Caribbean quicksand. Protected mods are by far more existential for the Nexus than a trendy nipple crusade and the actual form sheets that deal with the always shifting ethics of our zeitgeist ever could be...

http://www.abload.de/img/anne9hol.gif me 'earties, yo ho!

[ginnyfizz]

Basically what I am hearing, MrFlesh, is more of the "OMG I must have it and I must have it NOW" mentality that occasioned the new permission rules in the first place. The problem of mods being just taken and plonked from FO3 to New Vegas with little or no nod/reference to the original modder, people pandering to the impatient kiddies by uploading conversions and basking in the kudos. The new rules were to stop that all running out of control and it was "if in doubt, don't use it, ask, and if you hear nowt, the answer is no"

 

But then the new permission rules suddenly became something like "Well if a modder is absent and can't be contacted it might be fair game after all..." and there was once more joy among the impatient. Yes, revelationjp and Kendo 2, you're right about the lack of confidence this engenders.

 

"The people that really contribute that put out lots of good work, are the most lenient with usage. It's the people who put out a handful of mediocre to bad mods that want to "protect their interests"...which just means the only "interest" these type of people have is building a little content kingdom and lording over it. This isn't contributing to a community, it's trying to turn it into a market place for egos"

 

Now that is really unwarranted. Some modders have a life outside modding and gaming, and may not churn out mods by the dozen, but they make quality stuff. If people are that desperate for mods and they can't get the one that they want, due to not being able to get permissions, they should either find an alternative or make their own.

[MrFlesh]

I am not referencing the FO3 to NV at all. I'm focusing on the "permission" reference itself. It's baseless how mad people get and the lengths people are willing to go to defend essentially nothing.

 

Modders can't make money off of a mod, I'm sure there's enough portfolio fraud going on that it has limited job search possibilities, nobody cares who the modder is (save other modders), so what are modders defending? Their rep? Please. The only thing they are defending are their ability to have the power to say no, and honestly there is no reason, outside of being a d..., to not say yes.

 

What I hear people in this thread describing as a "community" is really a consumer/producer relationship. "Take what we give and be happy with it or go to hell." That's not community building at all.

 

I find it extremely ironic that as I type this I'm listening to the Bethesda podcast. They are talking about how John Carmac started the mod community by developing technology and then giving it away for other people to work with. Here I sit on a 189 message post with a bunch and people (most have no mods whatsoever) are railing against that very thought.

 

I can totally vouch for what they are saying. When I first got in to modding in the Q2 and Tribes era nobody asked permission you just put your crap out there. No one gave a s... about kudos, credit, or props. Because it doesn't mean anything.

 

All somebody taking something from F3 and moving it to NV really means is that is less work for me and now they have to do the trouble shooting. While I move on to something better. I mean come on are people really still puffing out there chest over something they made 2 years ago (that they probably swiped from oblivion)?

 

 

I didn't say EVERYONE that puts out only a few mods acts ridiculous. It's just that is where you see the majority of the bad behavior come from. Someone that churns out a lot of quality most likely has a job in a related field. They realize that modding is fun but has no value beyond that. Where as someone who is self taught and had to go through several iterations of a project thinks they have something worth defending.

Edited November 13, 2010 by MrFlesh

[ginnyfizz]

Some of the people protesting in this very thread, MrFlesh, ARE talented modders and make original work that they did not swipe from anywhere. You are making a lot of sweeping statements. Basically you confirm everything that I said in my previous post. People cannot accept the fact that others have a right to say "No".

[Kendo 2]

Since I started modding in 2006 I have had several requests denied without a valid reasons in my eyes. I accept that as part of modding.

 

 

...I'm focusing on the "permission" reference itself. It's baseless how mad people get and the lengths people are willing to go to defend essentially nothing.

 

...The only thing they are defending are their ability to have the power to say no, and honestly there is no reason, outside of being a d..., to not say yes.

 

...Where as someone who is self taught and had to go through several iterations of a project thinks they have something worth defending.

 

This line of thought is why the new permissions were required.

 

People have the organic right to say 'NO'. Their reasons or motivations are of no importance and a reasonable person wouldn't question them. That's the way it is in real life and the internet isn't different or the exception.

[Surenas]

[snip]

I find it extremely ironic that as I type this I'm listening to the Bethesda podcast. They are talking about how John Carmac started the mod community by developing technology and then giving it away for other people to work with. Here I sit on a 189 message post with a bunch and people (most have no mods whatsoever) are railing against that very thought.

[snip]

That's unbelievable!

How will you know that we'd be 404? Such a telediagnosis is more than just ridiculous when one sits in the dark, I tell you. Fortunately we have Google Search, so google through first and make better prepaired statements later. That'd be much appreciated.

I wonder who has caused my personal closing of any further free charitable gifts that smell of mod in 2006 if not guys that argue in your way. Retrospectively seen I've made the right decision. No more frustrations 'bout infamies, no more money to invest ahead of a court decision, for even a victory leaves a bad taste in your mouth, to be fair.

[Zaldir]

Pulling Laws into the discussion is actually not relevant at all, as Dark0ne and the moderators are the ones protecting peoples work, not laws.

 

It's the people who put out a handful of mediocre to bad mods that want to "protect their interests"...which just means the only "interest" these type of people have is building a little content kingdom and lording over it.

 

I just wonder, who are you to judge which mods are mediocre or bad? It's not up to you to decide, it's up to the community, but first and foremost the author of the mod - If the author thinks it's a good mod, well, then it IS a good mod.

The reason why people want to protect their work is because they are proud of it, and don't want to see people misuse it. For instance, if someone makes some cool clothes, they may not want to see it used in a pornographic mod, thus, they want to protect it by denying reuse of it.

 

--------

 

But then the new permission rules suddenly became something like "Well if a modder is absent and can't be contacted it might be fair game after all..."

If I recall correctly, this is not Dark0ne's words - this is the words of someone else, who probably misunderstood the "new" rules. (Which have actually always been around, but just recently clarified)

What Dark0ne said was that if a modder is absent and no contact can be made for a set amount of time, people can ask a moderator what to do, and the moderator will handle it in a case by case matter.

 

And like Dark0ne said, this has never been a problem before, it just became a "problem" when it was clarified...