Rules of Forum use?

[Telyn]

@greywaste I don't think there is one easy blanket answer that would solve all situations in a sentence. For example, a person might want to put an image of his or her WiP in Imageshare. Obviously that wouldn't be on Nexus yet, but it seems like a positive and legal use of Imageshare, getting feedback on a WiP. There are also large mods here which can't actually be downloaded here, but the file description points to a mirror. Can't go busting people for downloading QTP3 in one piece instead of many, right? Then there are some popular artists who choose to host their own completely legal self created works at their own sites, instead of having to manage multiple site uploads. I'm pretty sure nothing of Slof's is directly ripped from anywhere, although she has a couple items inspired by old games. Loosely inspired, I suspect. Sexier versions. There are mods like OBSE, which is only available on Silverlock. Any mod which requires OBSE can be said to be a derivative of it. Some fairly popular and legal overhauls can't be downloaded here directly, either. Would a person have to disable their overhaul before taking a screenshot lest a texture replacer be visible? What about a person who has made a private race and doesn't plan on distributing it? It might be frustrating, but should showing off your private Winged-Foot Elf race be bannable? I kind of hope not, even though people do ask about private content in Mod Detectives all the time.

 

I understand why you want this, I really do. An earlier comment about files of the month containing rips has caused me to look at every file of the month I have, trying to figure out which ones might have rips in them so I can remove them. I don't like being lied to, either. However, there are creators who use Creative Commons and specify how their work can or cannot be converted, altered, and spread. There are also models you can purchase where the fee includes the right to use those models in noncommercial work royalty free as long as it's only a part of your project and not the entire work. If you think about it, not that many artists will buy graphics resources they aren't allowed to use anywhere but on their own computers. Game resources, yes, but not much point in buying, say, clipart, if you can't use it as clipart. I think the reasonable thing is in cases like that the modder needs to provide the relevant licensing information, or any written permission, etc. and yes, a link to the original, IF that is part of the requirement. If the link wouldn't be allowed here, then obviously the member can't comply with a license that says it has to be linked, so they shouldn't upload the image or mod here.

 

Fair use has some odd quirks, too. For example, parodies are generally protected (although you still can't rip the original material), but generally homages aren't nearly as protected (fan work).

 

I trust that the staff here does the best job they can, and I haven't personally ever seen a ban I thought was unreasonable.

[lonewolfkai]

Mods with intent of commerical use, or any sort of money making for the mod author, are not only a violation on this site, but is also against Bethsoft's agreement. Therefore, any such talk of that is really irrelevant. Replicated material is allowed so long as it follows this simple ruling. Again, I point to Jojjo's Frostmourne as an example. Edited April 14, 2011 by lonewolf_kai

[roquefort]

"Don't be too sure about 'exact copying' either, sad though it may be, though generally, I think you're pretty much safe as long as the copy is for strictly non-commercial use - i.e you aren't going to try and make money with it."

Non-commercial use is no protection against accusations of copyright violation (although it would affect claims for financial restitution); also copyright law covers 'derivative work' as well, so inexact copying might still be covered. Also be aware of trademark law, which is another potential pitfall.

 

"..parodies are generally protected (although you still can't rip the original material)"

You could rip original material for purposes of mockery, actually, but you'd have to be dead careful about the parody defence (note; defence -- it doesn't mean they can't get you up in court) if charged with copyright violation. The acceptable boundaries for that are rather tightly defined.

[kirinann]

What about mods that were once available here but taken down by the author? can we post pictures of them, or if we do and don't know they were taken down could we get in trouble?

 

 

sorry for questions.

[Telyn]

You could rip original material for purposes of mockery, actually, but you'd have to be dead careful about the parody defence (note; defence -- it doesn't mean they can't get you up in court) if charged with copyright violation. The acceptable boundaries for that are rather tightly defined.

 

Actually, you are correct, that was sloppy wording. You could use a picture of Picard and change it in a mocking manner as a criticism. I think you'd be on much shakier grounds even with the protections for parodists if what you did could reasonably be confused with the official product by the general public. I think your parody defense there could be challenged with more chance of success. Also, you probably cannot get by with ripping a model from a game and uploading it unchanged somewhere simply by calling it a parody mod in your title. It would be pretty difficult to prove your real intent was parody in that case.

[Deleted1120339User]

Don't apologize for asking questions Kirinann. It's partly what this forum is for.

 

I have a few things to say about this rules topic. You have clear rules on how to act on the posting of illegal content but It seems that you do as you wish with those rules. I was banned for simply encouraging someone to PM me but I didn't post or link any images and from what I have heard it's allowed to share ripped content privately so I think this case is very unfair since I've always been careful not to post any links with illegal content. In my opinion and according to the rules as they are posted, I didn't violate any rule. In fact I have mailed the staff about it but didn't get a reply.

 

If you ban peope for repeatedly naming illegal mods or posting images of ripped content and later remove the images you do this very badly because I see tons of images here like that and many people getting away with it. Either you have to act in EVERY case of violation of the rules or you allow some things to slip between your fingers. It's about being consequent or it will create misunderstandings, like in the case of my ban.

[LHammonds]

kirinann, we cannot say that fan art is always acceptable. There are companies out there that literally hate people creating fan art based on their intellectual property (IP). I will point my finger squarely at the BBC. ;) Fan art is typically ignored by the IP owners but if you want a positive YES or NO, simply ask them. You'll probably get a generic response written by a lawyer though.

 

ccmechanic2, I don't think you understand what a vigilante is. It is explained in this pinned thread. The difference between a responsible member reporting a problem and a vigilante is that a vigilante will directly attack another member...thus opening the possibility of a flame-fest. When members use the report feature, it is never revealed "who" made the report and thus, no backlash between members can errupt.

 

XenoGenesis, I already covered that question / scenario explicitly in post #12, paragraph 3. It is what I called a "fine line" and it should be avoided.

 

Telyn, I think the "Files of the Month" mod being referenced was already taken care of...by me. There was a rideable creature which was a port from World of Warcraft.

 

kirinann, uploading images that contain mods not available on the Nexus but would not break the rules if hosted on the Nexus would not be a problem. If you don't know why the mod was removed, then that should be a pretty clear answer to your own question. Either find out why or avoid it.

 

aeriz, if you submitted a request for an unban and you were not unbanned, that means several staff members have reviewed and denied it. As for your all or nothing claim, you are going to have to get over that as well. We cannot possibly scan and review every piece of content uploaded to these sites. Of the reports handled, very few originate from the staff happening to stumble across activity that goes against the rules. We rely heavily on member reports.

 

LHammonds

[ccmechanic2]

kirinann, we cannot say that fan art is always acceptable. There are companies out there that literally hate people creating fan art based on their intellectual property (IP). I will point my finger squarely at the BBC. ;) Fan art is typically ignored by the IP owners but if you want a positive YES or NO, simply ask them. You'll probably get a generic response written by a lawyer though.

 

ccmechanic2, I don't think you understand what a vigilante is. It is explained in this pinned thread. The difference between a responsible member reporting a problem and a vigilante is that a vigilante will directly attack another member...thus opening the possibility of a flame-fest. When members use the report feature, it is never revealed "who" made the report and thus, no backlash between members can errupt.

 

XenoGenesis, I already covered that question / scenario explicitly in post #12, paragraph 3. It is what I called a "fine line" and it should be avoided.

 

Telyn, I think the "Files of the Month" mod being referenced was already taken care of...by me. There was a rideable creature which was a port from World of Warcraft.

 

kirinann, uploading images that contain mods not available on the Nexus but would not break the rules if hosted on the Nexus would not be a problem. If you don't know why the mod was removed, then that should be a pretty clear answer to your own question. Either find out why or avoid it.

 

aeriz, if you submitted a request for an unban and you were not unbanned, that means several staff members have reviewed and denied it. As for your all or nothing claim, you are going to have to get over that as well. We cannot possibly scan and review every piece of content uploaded to these sites. Of the reports handled, very few originate from the staff happening to stumble across activity that goes against the rules. We rely heavily on member reports.

 

LHammonds

Thank you very much, we're never to old for a refresher course, And I see it was updated too. I was most certainly under the impression just the opposition of that was happening. I'm getting old and some times forget to do simple things like reading what you pinned for me. I know I 've read that to many times. I suppose I got caught up in all this net stuff to much. I'll leave you folks alone, your real busy here, thanks again.

[Telyn]

@LHammonds Thank you! I thought it might be something really obscure that wasn't reported. Admins just can't be expected to be familiar with every game ever made.

[Guest deleted263027]

@LHammonds, that explains the logical reasoning behind these decisions; and I understand since Nexus had grown and the community cannot risk any activities that may or may not be illegal (best to play safe in all cases). However, as I said, the forum rules - and your post as well - is assuming that the purpose of screenshooting ripped content is to advertise it and distribute it privately.

 

Which I disagree.

 

Now I do not intend to deny that there are many users out there who desire ripped contents without actually owning the game. However, if a person purchased the game, liked it, and thus went over the hassle of exporting / ripping and converted it for Oblivion, chances are the person liked the art style and wanted to give more of a persona for his/her character in Oblivion. It is a thin, vague line at best - yes, but there are people who are doing it for aesthetic purposes and are not willing to share it. Much alike private mods which are built from scratch, some people will not wish to share the conversion sincerely because of the time and effort they spent to differentiate their character from others (legal reasons are first and foremost, but it does play a role).

 

I admit that while theoretically an owner of two games may wish to convert data to and from and keep it strictly for personal entertainment, it would be extremely frustrating to actually verify if the person in question had purchased the games - much less confirming that the person did not distribute it to an undefined public. Nevertheless, at the same time, posting images proves in no way that the person is distributing the ripped contents with others. As long as there are no links (or instructions) provided with the image, I cannot imagine it being a problem.