New distribution permissions options for all files

[Paco420]

Its one thing to "steal" work from someone. its another to recreate to work along side a new version of the game. Seeing as 90% of mods for F3 do not work for NV without editing the main permissions and lines, I do believe that the people that put in the work to modify the original file should be allowed to post the work they put in to edit and rework the mods to work for the new version of the game.

This seems more like an Anti Piracy move then a way to protect what people do.

Mods on there own could be considered an "infringement" as they are created to manipulate the game from its original intended design which by TOS is against the rules in general. Having a Nexus on its own could be considered to be against the Bethasoft Rules in general seeing as this site encourages people to create there own mods.

I understand why the changes were made and feel that its the right of the people to post what they want and how they wish for it to be distributed.

 

Considering that some mods created actually change the aspects of the original release of the game, perhaps we should look more towards what we are doing in the first place here on this site, no matter if it is granted by Bethasoft or any of the developers from Fallout.

 

In closing...

Should someone not like the fact that there work was recreated to work for the new version of Fallout, they should actually be greatful that someone enjoyed it enough to make it work for NV. I would like to add that if its not the original creator of the mod releasing the new version that they should be obligated to at least mention the original modders name and location were they got the original.

 

I would like to add that as much reason Dark0ne has on the work of others. Should the original author refuse to fix or recreate the work for NV and does not give permission for anyone to do such, this is were the permission which has been implemented become a bit of a controversy and is the reason for some "infringement"

 

Edited October 29, 2010 by Paco420

[XTR3M368]

Those MIA modders have to be treated as no permission, no using their content. I like the default settings of "you can't use anything in this mod without permission". I wouldn't like it if those default settings would over ride "modder's resource for use with credit given" type "grandfathered permissions". If a modder is not around anymore and has granted free use with credit given, new policies should "grandfather" those wishes of said modders in.

[holbrook]

@offkorn

given the location of this discussion; i'll try to make this as unargumentitive as i can and provide simple answers.

 

anyway... short and sweet may not be my forte' or exactly my style, but i'll give it a try...

How exactly is a Modder harmed when their free resources are Modded by someone else (assuming the re-Modder gives them credit)?

despite the authors of the mods on here giving you access to their resources for free, they are not "free resources". these files are being provided for personal use only unless otherwise stated.

 

the harm can come in various ways. several include...

 

- the author loses control of the file and the ability to keep track of their works feedback/success.

 

- they're robbed of the pleasure of being the one to share their work with people.

 

- their work is used in a way displeases them. for example; their content is included in an offensive file, such as an adult only mod.

 

- people give credit in the description, but have the audacity to accept praise for the work in the comments.

 

- their high quality work is being used and attributed to a mod of inferior quality.

 

that's called harm, and you don't have to have the "intent to harm" in order to cause it.

Do they lose time? No.

they do if they have to waste their time reporting the people who have a misplaced sense of entitlement.

 

when all is said and done, seeing their work sullied and finding that people have no appreciation or respect for their efforts when it doesn't coincide with the selfish interests and popularity contests other people are obsessed with is likely to feel nothing short of an utter waste of time; a waste of time creating, sharing, and being part of the community at all.

Do they lose notability? No.

that's an assumption, it's also not for anyone other than the author to decide or the mods to determine.

 

it's very easy to "lose credit" even (if not especially) when "giving credit". the perception of others is not something you can consider an "absolute".

Did you have to ask the Publisher/Developer for permission to Mod their game or alter their resources? No, you didn't.

no, we didn't have to ask.

 

not because we didn't need permission though, but because they had already given it to us. they gave us access to the rescources, the tools, the instructions, encouragement, and the needed permission, but make no mistake; it's to mod their game.

 

there are limitations even to that however, and some differences in the mods we make.

 

for example, i doubt you'd argue that despite them giving us the permission and everything necessary to create our own content that they wouldn't be "ok" with us giving their content away for free, right? i believe you'd see this because if nothing else, you do seem to insist property revolves around money.

 

however, i'd like to point out something important. we're not allowed to distribute the free content they gave out as a preorder bonus either.

 

why?

 

because it's not our property to distribute; nor do we have the right or permission to do so. i'd imagine you might argue "that wasn't free", but people didn't pay extra for that bonus; everyone paid the same price regardless if they got the "free extras".

 

the mods we have on here are exactly the same, the only thing different is that our name isn't bethesda.

 

anyway, out of curiosity since you consider the modders here to be selfish for wanting permission to edit the mods that they share, do you find bethesda to be selfish for this? or does the concept of a "preorder bonus help you to see now why "intentions" are important, and why merely giving away something you received for free can indeed cause harm? giving these bonuses away not only harms bethesda, it harms the people who preordered, and the places they preordered them from.

Would not expecting others' to have to ask permission to Mod your Mod or alter your resources be the clearly selfish act?

 

the lack of having infinite generosity does not make a person selfish. if they were selfish, you would never have access to their mods in the first place. requiring people to ask permission before they're allowed to tamper with your work or stick their noses in your affairs is not selfish; that's simply expecting people to have enough respect for you or your work to validate treating you with the bare minimum of courtesy required for qualifying as "human decency". you shouldn't need laws or rules for that, but as it turns out; a lot of people need to be told to have this... decency.

 

go figure.

 

what's important to them or why it is is their business. no one has the right to meddle with that without permission or invitation from them.

Considering that there's not a single valid reason to ever deny someone permission in the first place (spite most certainly should not count). There's no point in requiring it to begin with.

 

ensuring quality.

protecting perception.

control of content included.

retained ability to distribute.

preserving the ability have something unique.

preventing conflictions with ethics.

reserving responsibility on principle.

impact/effect of your intentions.

expression of your own work.

future plans with the mod.

 

should i go on?

 

i feel compelled to mention that maybe spite might not be a valid reason for denying permission to someone, but it is a valid reason as to why a person doesn't have it.

Of course, a site's ToS can stipulate almost whatever it wants for any (or no) reason

that's a gross lack of understanding for what influences the terms of service of a site. a site that allows illegal activity is subject to legal persecution.

Fair Use. Copywrite law focuses on commercial products and redistribution.

well, the site owner himself says even if copyright laws allowed differently than what he's decided it wouldn't change anything, but thankfully he wouldn't have to anyway.

 

despite how pointless it may be to correct your misinformation about copyrights, maybe it'll benefit you or someone else to know.

 

you are utterly incorrect about the commercial part, but you got the distribution part right.

 

while i'm unsure if you're making typos or simply don't understand, it may be important to know that it's copyright, not copywrite; it means "the right to copy" intellectual property, and being given a copy... even when it's a free copy, does not mean you're also given the "rights" to produce copies as well; whether for free or otherwise.

 

property in no way has be connected to commercial uses to be protected by copyright laws.

If money is not being made or lost and/or the entire 'product' is not being redistributed in an unaltered form, Fair Use will usually apply.

more utterly incorrect nonsense.

 

"copyright infringement" that occurs from altering the property of someone else is not called "fair use", it's still called "copyright infringement"; the work that caused infringement is simply called derivative instead of copied.

 

fair use was created in US copyright laws primarily to protect expression and freedom of speech. it covers things like educational uses, coverage in news and media, personal use, and parodies. taking someone's property and redistributing it (altered or not) is nothing close to fair use; not in any way, shape, or form.

 

fair use includes copying music you've purchased from a cd to your ipod.

fair use includes the news being able to show content during their coverage.

fair use includes showing a "home audience" movie in schools.

fair use includes being able to exercise free speech to make fun of movies like twilight with parodies of your own.

 

the only fair use that applies for the mods you get off here is that you're allowed to modify someone else's files for personal use, it does not allow you to distribute the modified work.

Copyright law doesn't care whether the work has a value

Yes, actually, it does.

no, it does not. copyright as i've mentioned is the "right to copy", it is not the "right to sell". copyright protects property both gainful and otherwise.

Again; how is that selfish when the resources being used are also a free public Mod?

 

Nothing, actual or theoretical, is being lost by the re-distribution (assuming, again, that proper credit is given).

free access being given to the public does not mean it is public domain.

 

it's no different than a public park. you may come and use the parks facility, but you're not free to deface the property or to take that property out of the park.

 

all you're free to do is "use" the park. how you think someone who gave you a park to run around in is the selfish one is beyond me, but your sense of entitlement is what clouds your judgment.

 

it's not that you're selfish for wanting to provide your edits of someone else's work to the public, it's selfish because you care more about what you want than what the person who chose to shared it with you wants.

 

it looks like i may have failed in being short, but i did my best to be sweet.

 

-

 

@paco

This seems more like an Anti Piracy move then a way to protect what people do.

Mods on there own could be considered an "infringement" as they are created to manipulate the game from its original intended design.

did you forget who gave us the geck, the tutorials on how to use it, the blessing to do whatever we please and said "dazzle us"?

 

mods are not an infringement by any stretch of the word. bethesda supports it fully.

Considering that some mods created actually change the aspects of the original release of the game, perhaps we should look more towards what we are doing in the first place here on this site, no matter if it is granted by Bethasoft or any of the developers from Fallout.

if bethesda never saw the mod ironsights, or the mods dedicated to item manipulation and weapon customization, the new vegas you play now would not be the same or as good.

 

it's reasons like this that bethesda supports modding.

 

-

 

@streestar

Also maybe prevents some good mods from ever developing due to these new rules. But modders who completely vanished and left the scene and cannot be contacted, who left no instructions or permissions - resources should be available to anyone in the community.

nothing is stopping people from developing anything. in fact if you were to ask me, i'd say this encourages good mods to actually become "developed" rather than encourage people to continue regurgitating the same content endlessly; forcing us to swim around in mediocrity.

 

the thing about no instructions is that "no answer" means "no permission". if ever it was in their interest to make their work an open resource to the community they could and likely would have stated so. this system isn't designed to do much more than make it unquestionably obvious that you don't have permission unless it is undeniably and expressly given. that is simply the kind of permission you have to have no matter how long someone has been gone.

Edited October 29, 2010 by holbrook

[AnelaidLives]

Considering that most gave credit to the author and involved mainly tweaks to allow it to work on the new engine, I don't see the point of the controversy behind this.

 

 

Edited October 29, 2010 by AnelaidLives

[XTR3M368]

The only thing I have to comment on about the well thought out essay above mine from holbrook is I don't agree with the "modder's resource" premise of harm you present.

If a modder is worried about that, they shouldn't release their mod with a "modder's resource with credit given" type permission then. The should stipulate that they want control over which kinds of mods their content should go in....which wouldn't be "free to use with credit given" type permission anymore. The "free to use" permissions are just that...free to use. That doesn't mean "free to use as long as you don't make a crappy mod". It is not up to us to second guess the modder's intent that stipulate those kinds of permissions. It is fine in cases where permission is unclear or non-existent to assume that permission is required. It is draconian and contrary to the wishes of a modder to impose "have to have permission" to mods that have existing "free to use with permission" type "legals".

[holbrook]

@xtr3m3

 

my essay is not in regards to files uploaded as "modder's resources", it is only in regards to people treating anything they find on here as a "modder's resources".

 

maybe i should have clarified that, but it seemed unnecessary to me at the time because a modder's resource is something that we know inherently gives open permission, and this article/site feature bears no impact on those items.

 

i still believe any requests should still apply if stipulated however, but i agree that with a modder's resource it is silly to worry about "quality" of the finished product. a resource is nothing until you give it life, a finished product already has one.

 

something i will never forget seeing is in fallout 3 nexus though was a pregnant body mod resource. it allowed anyone to use it but under certain requirements of nudity/violence. "crappy mod" outcomes aside, this kind of request is understandable as far as things go wouldn't you agree?

 

but yeah, free "modders' resources" shouldn't be expected to come with any "quality of your mod" requirements, as one of the great purposes of these resources is to aid in learning when starting out; you wouldn't expect the same outcomes you see from people who are more proficient and have plenty of experience. for finished mods though, which have been released and have a reputable factor of their own to some degree i think it become of significant importance how your work is used and who uses it; especially considering that they likely only want to tweak or convert your work then upload it with a very similar name.

 

it's important to a lot of authors to know that the people they give permission to will do good work with it, but people are free to do as they please with their own work; i'm only defending the author's ability to say what someone may do with their work, i'm not defending how much sense of their decisions make.

 

some people are just incurably silly~

Edited October 29, 2010 by holbrook

[Dark0ne]

Holbrook you need to learn how to TL;DR your posts because it's got to the point now where I've stopped reading your walls of texts cause they're always so long. Learn to summarise!

[Povuholo]

Maybe it would look like less text if the quote box wasn't broken for whatever reason? :P

[XTR3M368]

thanks for clarifying that holbrook. Your "harm" section had me misunderstanding your intent....although my misunderstanding might have been due to my eyes glazing over by the time I finished reading your "novel". :tongue: :biggrin:

[holbrook]

LOL

 

well the TLDR version as far as you're likely to care is that, even if you didn't disregard what copyright laws might allow, they actually are spot on with how you operate. i'm fairly surprised to know you were reading what i wrote at all, but considering that i know that now; it's all the more reason for me to stop replying to other people's feedback and provide some of my own.

 

first, i must say i'm surprised to see such a system implemented. i belong to a lot of communities that allow users to post and share work, all of which protect their user's rights to the fullest just as this one. i may not know if this was done to create less headaches for nexus in the long run, or because it simply seemed like a good idea to offer people- maybe both played a role, but whatever the reason, it's a nice feature to have available.

 

despite how many sites i use that show the same respect for the rights of authors as this one does; i only know of one other site that has a system similar in principle to what you've done here, but not even it has taken such lengthy measures to make sure the rights and permissions of the user's content so readily available and easy to find though.

 

i hope you realize i'm paying you a compliment when i say that the site in my opinion that you've just outdone is deviantart.

 

however i don't believe that the system is beyond improvement, and i do have a bit of bad news.

 

alas, i'm afraid to inform you that the tabs for files on here are already out of room when viewed on 1024x displays. while the file indeed starts off without issue, but as the number of comments and images grow, it easily exceeds the amount of room provided. you can see the effects of this here...

 

http://home.insightbb.com/~ljhinc/images/misc/1024overlap.jpg

 

the good news is that maybe that means you won't have to worry about not being able to add another tab. also, if you think about it the web standards for viewing content are based on what everyone in the world uses; the everyday user if you will... but the nexus' visitors are pc gamers, and you can probably expect them to push the envelope a little more than our mothers might when it comes to computer settings.

 

food for thought~

 

the important thing however, as i'm impartial to the tab idea, is that it seems a bit chaotic and not so easily identifiable. reading the permissions for several files myself caused me to misread them a few times, and i think it would be nice to get an idea of what all that text is going to say at a glance.

 

in complete and utter irony (which i hope doesn't go unappreciated) i of all people am basically proposing that you make a TLDR version for the permissions section.

 

rejoice, for i will need to type far less becaue i'm providing images to illustrate my point on how effective this is.

 

as someone mentioned, people easily identify with colors; i too suggest you use colors to flag the general circumstances of a file, including when the person uploading a file is not the one (or the sole one) able to give out permission because it's either a conversion or a group effort. something that matches the general look and feel of the site (username button in top left corner) but stands out at the same time like this...

 

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

 

coupling that with a bit of universal text for what these flags can mean to the unwary user can easily take care of most of the footwork, while leaving the details for the author to fill in. leaving a nice, neat, and succinct bit of information. i would also propose that you take out of a lot of the selected options (such as ability to port to other games) and leave that for the author to write in, while possibly reminding them in the pink box to consider such possibilities, but i suppose that's unnecessary since you provide the option to remove them now.

 

the effects of this i hope can speak for themselves, which is good because despite my recent increase in kudos, i think we all agree i've said enough. take a look...

 

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

 

also, here's the photoshop file for those graphics. in the event it offers any use for you, you can do as you please with it. consider it my final irony to be giving permission for my work in this article.

 

http://home.insightbb.com/~ljhinc/images/misc/nexusbuttons.psd

 

TLDR (just for you)

 

- 1024 theory busted

 

- color coordinated graphics would greatly improve simplicity to a degree that it works well even at a glance.

 

- follow the 3rd link to see simplicity hard at work.

 

- follow the 4th link if you want to use the file.

Edited October 29, 2010 by holbrook