File submission guideline question

[Michalius]

User-submitted content that is predominantly intended to interact with existing user-submitted content is subject to the approval of all parties involved and may be removed at the request of the author of the original content.

That's a last rule in the "Usage and Accreditation" section of file submission guidelines.

 

Let's look at abstract example:

There is a preexisting mod X.

A mod author decides that, while he likes it, X would be better if it did one thing differently. He creates mod Z that does that, creating that new piece of functionality. Mod Z requires mod X, doesn't redistribute any assets from mod X.

In my opinion it is an absolute win for the community - everyone who thinks like author of Z can add his mod to their load order, while everyone else can skip it and keep using X without Z.

 

Under that rule, author of mod X can just say "no", and prevent mod Z from being uploaded.

 

Why? What is the terrible scenario this rule tries to prevent?

[TheGreatFalro]

Because that would infringe on author x's copyright.

[Michalius]

What copyright? In the example I mentioned mod Z is a completely separate work that just happens to only be able to be used by someone who also uses mod X. Mod X still has to be obtained via legitimate means, existance of mod Z neither discourages it or makes it harder, Z cannot be used as a substitute of X. I genuinely don't know.

 

Mod Z here, in copyright context, is akin to someone creating a do-it-yourself package that contains instructions in what order shoud tracks on music album X be played along with a completely original track author of Z recorded in his garage to close up the entire composition. Any potential music fan wanting to try that would still need to buy album X of course, since Z doesn't contain any track that's on it. Saying such package would infringe on copyright of rights holder for music album X sounds absurd to me.

[Arthmoor]

The original author's copyright on their mod. Mod X is explicitly given copyright protection via Bethesda's EULA:

 

 

 

2. GAME MODS; OWNERSHIP AND LICENSE TO ZENIMAX
A. Ownership. As between You and ZeniMax, You are the owner of Your Game Mods and all intellectual property rights therein, subject to the licenses You grant to ZeniMax in this Agreement. You will not permit any third party to download, distribute or use Game Mods developed or created by You for any commercial purpose.

 

One of the exclusive rights of copyright is the right to create derivative works based on the original work.

 

Mod Z is a derivative work of Mod X. Thus it requires the permission of the author of Mod X before it can legally be distributed.

 

Mods are not sets of written instructions on how to change something. They are copyrightable data which are classified as literary works under copyright law.

[Deleted67195711User]

As a very practical example, I love the Northern Springs Mod. Even unfinished as it is, it is unique. But it contains one off items from the base game (bobble heads, weapons, quest reward items, and the like). I was not fond of this mod containing and (in my opinion) cheapening these items. So, I made a mod to remove all these one off items from the Northern Springs mod.

My mod is a derivative work based on Northern Springs, and therefore, to keep within the laws of copyright, I had to get permission from jshrapnelc (the original author of Northern Springs) to release my mod. Turns out, I was not the only one to lament the inclusion of these one off items, and jshrapnelc gave me his blessings.

[Michalius]

@Arthmoor - I agree with everything you wrote except one thing: I don't see mod Z as described as derivative work.

 

A definition from French law for start, since it's very explicit:

It is defined in article L 113-2, paragraph 2 of the Intellectual Property Code as "new works into which pre-existing work [is incorporated], without the collaboration of its author"

With "into which pre-existing work is incorporated" being operative here.

 

US law is not that explicit in it's wording, and since it's US a lot of it is based on case law, however there are multiple places where we can see that's also what they mean. Take https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law

A derivative work is a new, original product that includes aspects of a preexisting, already copyrighted work. Also known as a "new version,"

Or first sentence in wikipedia article on derivative works:

In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work).

Now, if you go back to my example, mod Z doesn't contain any elements from mod X (not to mention major copyrightable ones). Only connection it has to it is through information that X is it's master.

End user experience, should he install both mod X and mod Z when playing through mod X content very much would be a derivative of the experience he'd have when playing with just X, I grant that. But the user compiled that derivative work himself for his own purposes by putting them both in his load order. What is being distributed is two completely separate pieces of copyrightable work.

[Reneer]

If Mod Z cannot function without Mod X then it, by simple necessity, is a derivative work of Mod X. Furthermore, Mod Z is changing, whether in a large or small way, how Mod X functions, otherwise there would be no reason for Mod Z to require Mod X as a master.

[Michalius]

I'm going to have to ask you what definition of derivative work you use, and why is it better than the three I quoted. I can't see "can't function without" as relevant for purposes of copyright law, only "whether it includes copyrightable elements from the original".

[Reneer]

It doesn't matter the exact definition of "derivative work" used. The fact is that Mod Z requires Mod X in order to function. By creating Mod Z, which requires Mod X (underlying work), Mod Z builds upon (incorporates) all of Mod X and whatever changes / additions Mod Z does constitutes the derivative work.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that the Berne Convention protects copyrighted works from being used without permission from the copyright holder.

 

Article 2, Section 3 of the Berne Convention states:

(3) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work.

The Guide to the Berne Convention clarifies the text of Article 2, Section 3 a bit more:

2.16. This paragraph also covers arrangements of music and generally

all other alterations of literary and artistic works. Of course, the protection that these works enjoy is without prejudice to the copyright in the

originals: in other words, in order to translate, adapt, arrange or alter a

protected work, the consent of the author is needed, unless, of course, the work is in the public domain.

[Michalius]

By creating Mod Z, which requires Mod X (underlying work), Mod Z builds upon (incorporates) all of Mod X and whatever changes / additions Mod Z does constitutes the "new version".

Incorporating existing work, or including elements of it is a pretty well defined concept - find a subset of X (that you could call copyrightable) that's included in Z. If such subset doesn't exist Z doesn't incorporate any element of X.

 

As defined in the abstract example Z does not in fact incorporate any elements of X. I don't understand how can you disagree with that statement.

 

As for Berne Convention - you are right that mod X is of course protected, I never disputed that. However mod Z does not translate, adapt, arrange or alter mod X. Mod X remains unchanged. It changes the effect mod X has on a game when installed together with mod Z, but that's not what's protected. For copyright to apply you do need to assert that Z is derivative work. I assert that Z is fully original work.