Nexus permissions rules (Compilation Patch)

[Zenball]

No problem sesom, just wanted to clear up any misunderstanding. I know that this is a highly emotive area of discussion and understand if things can get a bit heated sometimes. Please, check this thread later for suggestions as I think there is an interesting discussion to be had and I would welcome your input, as I said :).

[Thandal]

[The best way to ameliorate the situation is to find a way to improve how the site works with regards to permissions. The recent additions are the first step towards this, but more balance can be achieved. Moving the discussion in this direction is the best way forwards now.

[ Chiming in (late) as a sometime programmer and copyright holder. ]

 

The "best way to ameliorate the situation is..." to get permission from the authors to use their works.

 

If you don't have permission, (either already provided in the documentation, or explicitly provded seperately) then don't use. Simple, really. All the other discussion seems to center around, "Well, I didn't/couldn't get permission..."

 

Sorry, at that point I really stop listening to the argument because it almost always becomes self-serving. Usually boiling down to: "Here's why what I have done/want to do, (which I already know is wrong) should be permitted "for the greater good."

[Zenball]

[The best way to ameliorate the situation is to find a way to improve how the site works with regards to permissions. The recent additions are the first step towards this, but more balance can be achieved. Moving the discussion in this direction is the best way forwards now.

[ Chiming in (late) as a sometime programmer and copyright holder. ]

 

The "best way to ameliorate the situation is..." to get permission from the authors to use their works.

 

If you don't have permission, (either already provided in the documentation, or explicitly provded seperately) then don't use. Simple, really. All the other discussion seems to center around, "Well, I didn't/couldn't get permission..."

 

Sorry, at that point I really stop listening to the argument because it almost always becomes self-serving. Usually boiling down to: "Here's why what I have done/want to do, (which I already know is wrong) should be permitted "for the greater good."

 

Thandal, please cool your boots. If you are going to provide a response to this discussion that immediately states that you have stopped listening to the argument, it helps absolutely no one and creates an unreasonable atmosphere. If you actually read what I say, I do not contest the issue of permissions being given. I was naive in this matter, thinking that people wouldn't mind so long as I gave credit. That was a mistake. I accept that - even though to my knowledge not ONE of the contributors to the patch complained. End of that particular episode. Now please, if you are going to contribute to the development of the discussion, try to be constructive and reasonable instead of jumping down people's throats. It really does not help.

[Zenball]

The experience of making the Community Bug Fix Compilation Patch has made me reflect upon the possibility of structural changes to the site that allow permissions to be more streamlined and integrated into the upload and endorsement process, in particular the permissions section.

 

There are a number of possibilities towards this end.

 

1. A new category, fixes, which would automatically set permissions to the loosest possible enabling people to use the resource without seeking permission. This category could autosuggest if the user includes the words 'fix', 'bug' or 'bugfix' in their filename, with a pop up explaining that the fix category allows re-use without permission. This is the quickest and dirtiest fix.

 

2. For more general purposes and streamlined permissions: if an uploader integrates any other mod with their mod, they should have to enter the url/file ID of the mod into the permissions section. This will send an automated alert to the author of said mod, asking them if it is ok if the mod in question is used. Each user can choose to either manually give permission for that mod to be used, or set permissions to be automatically given. Automated return permissions could send back a form detailing the limits of how the mod may be used.

 

3. Endorsement integration. If a mod is included in another mod, that mod should receive some kind of recognition, perhaps a separate rating (community points?), displayed next to endorsements. This could be received incidentally as a ratio of endorsements received indirectly through other mods (in other words mod A makes a resource, mod B integrates it, mod B receives an endorsement, mod A automatically receives a community point, or perhaps to make them rarer, 1 point for every mod that integrates them). A new tab in the mod information could show a list of other mods which integrate it and which other mods it integrates. This would also help prevent users of the mod from having unnecessary esp files in their load order and therefore reduce the risk of mod conflict.

 

The above additions to the site would, I believe, do the following:

 

1. Streamline the permissions process, making mod cross pollination easier, more productive, and more fun, leading ultimately to a more integrated, networked and harmonious community and even perhaps better mods.

 

2. Encourage modders to upload resources to the site in order to be used by others, by directly giving unique recognition for it and providing them increased feedback, protection and control.

 

3. Since it it mutually beneficial (non-zero sum for game theory fans) for people to credit and reference included mods, it should be no skin off anyone's nose to make the effort to do so, nor to allow permission (for nexus use only of course as this would be a closed system). Those who integrate, adapt or use other people's mods who do not observe this etiquette should not be surprised when their mod is removed.

 

This is a basic brainstorm and requires more thorough discussion, but what are people's initial thoughts?

[durklives]

What is the copyright situation on mods like this?

 

http://newvegasnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=37151

[Zenball]

What is the copyright situation on mods like this?

 

http://newvegasnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=37151

 

Try to keep on topic here - what do you think of the ideas I outlined above?

[durklives]

What is the copyright situation on mods like this?

 

http://newvegasnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=37151

 

Try to keep on topic here - what do you think of the ideas I outlined above?

 

Well I thought it was pretty relevant to the topic here, being that it contains sound files from Rick Astley, which is probably owned by a large record company, which was probably was not asked for persmission to use those songs, and here it is that mod is being protected and uploader is protected as the "creator" of the assets. Not only that but his credits and permissions page requires you to get HIS permission to use any of the "assets" as well as other authors. Checked the original authors page and he requires permission to use ANY of the assets in the file, which includes the Rick Astley song that he did not create, nor probably didn't even get permission to use.

 

I just think it's strange how some website can give owership rights of Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up", which I _thought_ was owned by RCA Records/Sony, to some other random guy on the internet.

[Zenball]

I am afraid I have run out of patience now and decided to discontinue public work on the mod, and update and use it for myself. I will not be uploading this to any mirrors, so please do not ask me. Admins, please permanently remove the Community Compilation Patch from your database.

[Thandal]

[Thandal, please cool your boots. If you are going to provide a response to this discussion that immediately states that you have stopped listening to the argument, it helps absolutely no one and creates an unreasonable atmosphere.

I made that (fairly emphatic) declaration to let you know how your attempts to justify what you want to be able do with their work might (did) strike someone who's work could be affected. I did not mean that I literally stopped reading, Simply that I assigned the maturity rating to the rest of the discussion at about the same as I would with my teenager: "He understands the concepts, but sees only how they support his own point of view."

 

Presuming that you are NOT a teenager, and that you believe strongly in both the topic and in protecting authors' interests (as primary), and the Community's, (since an author would not have published the work at all otherwise) I believe you might benefit from stating that simply and early. Which is why I suggested something simple. Something along the lines of:

 

"No permission? Don't use. Can't get permission? Don't use. Got permission? Use as permitted."

 

With THAT part clearly out the way, the rest becomes variations on "conditional permission", doesn't it?

 

In other words, in my view, the burden is on A. The person who wants to use someone else's work -- to ensure it's alright with the author, and B. Authors who want their work used -- to make thier desires known. Nexus is here simply to bring the well-meaning elements of both parties together, not to adjudicate their interactions.

 

All the elements of your discussion are good ones, and belong in an article for authors, where the various types of permission and their potential consequences can be provided for review, interpretation, and further comment. The end result of which MIGHT be boilerplate language that an author could chose to put into a Readme or other permissions statement. That is a worthwhile topic, and a valuable discussion. I just don't believe that it is the Dark0ne or his team who are responsible for anything beyond checking for that permission. And even then, (since most of the community is pretty well behaved) only when the question is brought to their attention. Where I always have a problem is when the discussion starts to justify using someone else's work WITHOUT permission "because there isn't a statement to the contrary."

[LHammonds]

In other words, in my view, the burden is on A. The person who wants to use someone else's work -- to ensure it's alright with the author, and B. Authors who want their work used -- to make their desires known. Nexus is here simply to bring the well-meaning elements of both parties together, not to adjudicate their interactions.

Yes, that is THE purpose for Dark0ne's permissions implementation.

 

The vast majority of people that upload their work here would have no problem with other people re-using their work with credit given. I found this out way back when Oblivion was released and found that a large amount of mods didn't even include a readme...let alone a permissions or credits section. Just about every author I contacted for permission was happy to let me use their work and almost wondered why I even asked. That is why I created the Readme Generator tool and pimped it to as many authors as possible while trying to make it easy and quick to create a professional-looking readme.

 

With this feature to specify permissions directly on the uploads, it just about voids my paltry "permissions" section so that EVERY mod uploaded after that feature was implemented now has either the default settings (cause they didn't want to mess with them) or they have been modified to reflect the contents of the mod and their views on how others can re-use their content (obviously the re-use applies only to what that author did...does not grant lesser permissions on included works by others).

 

LHammonds