New distribution permissions options for all files

[StarMystyk]

Well, I'm happy with the new feature. I can think of one mod that was stolen and converted from Oblivion to Fallout 3 without the author's permission. It is (or was) in the Top 100 for a long while, but the credit, endorsements and kudos should really have gone to the real author and not the one who stole the mod. I've always been annoyed about that, although I seem to be the only one. And it's not my mod.

 

Regarding a mod of mine, there's a 'modder' who released a bunch of patches for various mods, including one of mine, without asking. I can't stand people patching my mods for me. That's my job. Since April last year he as flatly refused to remove the "patch" for my mod. Does that mean I can now report his mod and (hopefully) have someone make him remove it?

Edited October 29, 2010 by star-mystyk

[XTR3M368]

The way I understand it, you could have requested that before. The policies haven't changed, this is just an improvement to the system of "legals" and permissions notifications. Report away, if it violates TOS, they will deal with it. If you haven't stipulated your mod as a "free to use" type, you should have your request honored.

 

*edit* I read a couple of your "legals" and I think you have an excellent case to have the "patches" removed. I would report the "offending" mod.

[StarMystyk]

I had reported it last year but it's still there. I just assumed it was because I'm not a popular modder so that's why my report was ignored. It's happened before as well. I fulfilled a request and the requester released it as their own. I couldn't get that pulled, either no matter how many times I reported it.

Sure they both made mention of my name but never sought permission to use them, just got all abusive and hostile when I messaged them.

 

So, maybe the big pink boxes will deter other mod-stealers from doing the same thing to others.

Edited October 29, 2010 by star-mystyk

[HugePinball]

The policies haven't changed

This is worth repeating.

 

This announcement is about the new features, so please try to use this topic to discuss those features themselves (and there has already been good discussion and suggestions on topic), and not the policies they serve to clarify.

[StarMystyk]

:rolleyes: It's not just me off topicish. I always get singled out.

 

If they haven't changed then why are my reports always ignored?

Though that was before HP's time, so I don't expect him to answer that.

Or anyone. Don't really care anymore.

[holbrook]

i think rather than getting singled out, you're getting paranoid because you were the last to post before he addressed all of us troublemakers about our shenanigans. =p

 

Edited October 29, 2010 by holbrook

[XTR3M368]

One thing I would say about where the notifications is now in the options....is that might not be the best place to put it. That is not where I would look for that kind of thing if I were a newb. Even when told it was in the options, I was thinking to myself..."OK, where is that now?" Wouldn't it be better served going into the "Information" bar of the file right out in the open where it can't be missed? or somewhere else where it is like "BAM!" right in front of your face? Since the Nexus believes this is very important, shouldn't the placement of the link be in a place that reflects said importance? "Credits and Permissions" having its own box in between the "endorsement" box and the "options" box would reflect the importance of this and set it off enough to find it easily. I know "not being able to find the permissions" is not a valid excuse, but IMHO, making it easier to find will serve its function and the community as a whole better.

[HugePinball]

As Holbrook says. I was intending to make a comment to that effect whether you had posted or not. I quoted a single statement from XTR3M368 because it was part of my point. The fact that he was responding to you with that post had nothing to do with it. I'm sorry if the timing caused offense. Edited October 29, 2010 by HugePinball

[electrro]

Just my experience:

In past few days,i PM many people for clear status of using theirs work in my mods.Like result,not only i have new friends,we start to work together and with knowledge and experience exchange,things(mods)only get much better.I want to thanks Staff on this,maybe it's not case for everyone,but i think that new rules only lead in great progress

[Khettienna]

I've taken your comments in to consideration and have added a tickbox to the settings that allows you to do away with the drop-down menus and specify your own criteria using the Permission instructions textarea. Hopefully it will help reduce conflicts between the drop-down options and the instructions authors put in the textarea.

@Dark0ne: Thank you, that suits me just fine. =)

 

Since the implementation of the new system those reports have dropped by about 80%. This tells me that the new system is doing what it was designed to do - cut down on stolen mods.

Welp, I will try not to not take my assumed-criminalness to heart, then, and let you search my bags everytime I leave the store with a new purchase. ;-)

 

@khetienna

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

@holbrook: Erm, that's not my post you're debating with, I tink it was Offkorn's. Mine was all interface-related.

 

Regarding a mod of mine, there's a 'modder' who released a bunch of patches for various mods, including one of mine, without asking. I can't stand people patching my mods for me. That's my job. Since April last year he as flatly refused to remove the patch for my mod. Does that mean I can now report his mod and (hopefully) have someone make him remove it?

@star-mystyk: A true patch will not actually include any of your content, at least not without being dependent on your mod. Thus it would neither compete with your original mod, nor distribute your resources, and would be considered fair play all-around. If that's not the case, you probably want to re-word your complaint to make a better case for yourself, noting that your resources are actually being distributed without your approval.

 

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.

I would actually like to ask about this to gain some clarity. There are a lot of mods - some of them popular, well-loved, long-standing mods made by upstanding modders - who have used either resources or "ideas" (i.e. plugin-only work) without explicit permission. In many of these cases, "fair use" (not in the legal sense maybe, just in the practical sense, I don't want to argue about what "fair use" is or isn't) was assumed because they gave proper credits, the original maker left no statements about permissions one way or the other, the original maker could no longer be contacted and was assumed to have left the scene, and/or they expressed willingness to cease & desist if the original modder expressed any opposition to the use of said resources or ideas. So it could be that a mod that's been up for two years now includes something from a mod that came out four years ago from a modder who hasn't even logged in as many years. How will you be handling these situations? Will those mods be considered in violation?

 

I have a personal example I'll toss out for the masses to scrutinize: Gold Road Cottage was the first mod I ever released, as kind of a self-tutorial. It started out as this mod here, and there are plenty of elements of the original mod still left in my version. This mod contains no resources, only plugin work, if that makes any difference. I also know I'm not the only one who has edited & distributed this mod, because it had bugs and a few people have uploaded "fixed" versions here or there over the years. The original maker did come back after a year and a half of inactivity just long enough to note that he would like credit if anyone redistributes the mod, which I think implies the allowance of distribution; however, I think a few of us had uploaded our versions before he actually clarified this one way or another.

 

Now, maybe him coming back and leaving a clarifying statement saved us all. But if he hadn't, would we all be in trouble right now? Are you hunting such mods and weeding them out? Do people who have used resources and/or plugin work in such a manner need to be busy re-working their mods to not contain that work, or pulling their mods down?

 

TLDR: I'm probably just being dense, but I'd like some black-and-white clarity on reuse of likely-abandoned mods with no permissions specified.