File submission guideline question

[Reneer]

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.

Mod Z requires some amount of information contained in Mod X so that Mod Z can function as intended. Thus Mod Z incorporates Mod X as the underlying work.

 

I'm not going to continue to play this game with you - if you feel that my explanation isn't up to your standards then I suggest that you find yourself a lawyer and pay them to explain it to you.

[Michalius]

To work at all Mod Z requires information contained in Mod X in order to function.

Functioning independently (or, indeed, at all) is also not a concern for copyright law. What is protected is the codified expression of creative work, here in the form of a mod file. Not it's usage. See copyright for source code if you need a closer example

 

I'm not going to continue to play this game with you - if you feel that my explanation isn't up to your standards, go find yourself a lawyer and pay them to explain it to you.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Vice versa.

[DarkDominion]

Errrr, let me get this straight:

Every mod out there that adds tags to items ( armor, ingestables, books ) so that VIS or VIS-G can add icons to them should have asked permission from the mod authors from the armor , ingestables and books author ?

And even from Valdacil and Gambit ?

 

Every ENB preset should ask Boris permission for using his ENB ?

 

Every SKSE/F4SE based plugin should contact silverlock.com and ask for permission from the team ?

 

or did I get it wrong ?
( not impossible though :laugh: )

[Reneer]

Errrr, let me get this straight:

Every mod out there that adds tags to items ( armor, ingestables, books ) so that VIS or VIS-G can add icons to them should have asked permission from the mod authors from the armor , ingestables and books author ?

And even from Valdacil and Gambit ?

 

Every ENB preset should ask Boris permission for using his ENB ?

 

Every SKSE/F4SE based plugin should contact silverlock.com and ask for permission from the team ?

 

or did I get it wrong ?

( not impossible though :laugh:Ã

)

To answer your question in a general way: when you use stuff you didn't create in your own work and there isn't written permissions from the content creator that allows your use of their work, then, yes, you need to ask permission.

[Michalius]

According to rule in question, and Reneers inerpretation of copyright law - yes. For SKSE and ENB permission would probably be implied by the nature of the tools.

 

I'm arguing that "patching" mods, that do not redistribute any copyrightable content from it's parent mods (which would be prohibited by other file submission rule and the law anyway) have no grounds to be forbidden, and making it so is harmful to the modding community

[Reneer]

I'm arguing that "patching" mods, that do not redistribute any copyrightable content from it's parent mods (which would be prohibited by other file submission rule and the law anyway) have no grounds to be forbidden, and making it so is harmful to the modding community

Your overall argument - disregarding the question of copyright law - seems to not contend with what I consider a deeper issue. If I were to create a "patch mod" for the Inigo or Lucien mods that patched the voice lines so the characters would spout homophobic nonsense I would be violating the authors' vision for their characters. I would be taking their creation and perverting it. And I could do all of that without redistributing any of their original files.

 

And that simple scenario, I fully believe, is the crux for why the rule exists.

[Michalius]

 

Your overall argument - ignoring copyright law - uses the concept of patching as a diversion from the deeper issue at hand. If I were to create a "patch mod" for the Inigo or Lucien mods that patched the voice lines so the characters would spout homophobic nonsense I would be violating the authors' vision for their characters. I would be taking their creation and perverting it. And I could do all of that without redistributing any of their original files.

 

And that simple scenario, I fully contend, is the crux for why the rule exists.

 

The price of freedom is that some people might try to use it, yes. I agree, that would be a total perversion of original authors intent. It would be good if we had a solution that prevented this.

 

I would question how valid your example is however in the general case - for most extreme perversions of original intent there is most likely already a rule preventing that - homophobic content isn't allowed in mods on nexus is it? Author of Z could mislead people as to what his mod changes in X - but that's also against the rules isn't it? A more neutral example, would probably be a mod changing looks of a character. Mod author might claim that the looks he designed are their vision and refuse any mod that alters it. Should he have the right to enforce that opinion?

 

We can also not theorize, let's look at BlackSwanFallacy post above. Do you believe, that Northern Springs mod author should have the right to decline the existence of the patch in question? Is the world a better place when this was his exclusive decision? It does improportionally affect people who are less savvy in modding - after all, most experienced mod users are perfectly capable of creating such a patch themselves, just a matter of spending the time to do that.

 

This rule treats mod users as children, and gives undue authority to mod authors. It is obvious that a mod Z changing mod X is going to change mod X, anyone using both would definitely be aware of that. If a user wanted to experience the vision of Xs author and only that they would not install Z. Since we're in the business of modding the game, it shouldn't come as a suprise that people might want to modify things. If they didn't they probably wouldn't mod in the first place.

[Reneer]

The price of freedom is that some people might try to use it, yes. I agree, that would be a total perversion of original authors intent. It would be good if we had a solution that prevented this.

 

We already have a solution that prevents it - you just don't like the existing solution.

 

I would question how valid your example is however in the general case - for most extreme perversions of original intent there is most likely already a rule preventing that - homophobic content isn't allowed in mods on nexus is it? Author of Z could mislead people as to what his mod changes in X - but that's also against the rules isn't it?

I was intentionally exaggerating with my example.

 

A more neutral example, would probably be a mod changing looks of a character. Mod author might claim that the looks he designed are their vision and refuse any mod that alters it. Should he have the right to enforce that opinion?

Yes, because they created the character in the first place.

 

We can also not theorize, let's look at BlackSwanFallacy post above. Do you believe, that Northern Springs mod author should have the right to decline the existence of the patch in question? Is the world a better place when this was his exclusive decision? It does improportionally affect people who are less savvy in modding - after all, most experienced mod users are perfectly capable of creating such a patch themselves, just a matter of spending the time to do that.

An argument rooted firmly in populism at the expense of content creators, color me surprised.ÃÂ

 

This rule treats mod users as children, and gives undue authority to mod authors. It is obvious that a mod Z changing mod X is going to change mod X, anyone using both would definitely be aware of that. If a user wanted to experience the vision of Xs author and only that they would not install Z. Since we're in the business of modding the game, it shouldn't come as a suprise that people might want to modify things. If they didn't they probably wouldn't mod in the first place.

Undue authority? Says who? Mod authors are the people who are creating mods, not users. The author of a mod should have full control over their creation, full stop.

[Michalius]

Undue authority? Says who? Mod authors are the people who are creating mods, not users. The author should have full control over their creation, full stop.

They have full control over their creation. This rule gives them control over someone elses creation.

[Reneer]

They have full control over their creation. This rule gives them control over someone elses creation.

No, the rule means that someone else can't modify the integrity of their work without their consent. Full control means full control.