File submission guideline question

[Michalius]

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

And that brings us back to the copyright argument I guess - I don't believe a patch mod in any meaningful sense modifies the integrity of the original work. It's a separate creative work that allows the end user to modify the original work (or more precisely - the original works effect, since original mod file which is the subject of copyright is never modified itself) themselves after aquiring both legally - and modification for private use is end users right.

[Deleted67195711User]

@Michalius, if you are not going to believe us here, then stop posting and contact an attorney. Maybe you will believe the advice of someone if you have to pay them.

[Arthmoor]

 

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.

 

It's also the reason why derivative works are an exclusive right of the copyright holder, and this scenario you describe is something that would in fact qualify as a derivative work since it's directly descended from the original work, and is indeed NOT capable of being a fully independent entity.

 

Clearly Michalius needs to talk to a real attorney and not someone who plays one on Youtube in order to get the correct advice here, but even if they don't, just reading up on derivative works would probably be immensely helpful rather than taking advice typically found on reddit at face value.

[SeinSchatten01]

Harmful for the modding community is that you guys think you can do whatever you want. You, the real author, not you, should have started from zero and not used usleep as basis and removed in your opinion unwanted changes. That way Arthmoor and nexus administration couldn't take down the mod. But it would be more work.

 

Yes, I'm an internet detective and know what this topic is about. Yes, I have a grudge for the -200 internet points my throwaway got. :P

[Arthmoor]

If this person is who you think they are then that would also mean they're committing a multiple account violation since this isn't the person I've been dealing with on that subject.

[Michalius]

That's now 3 separate people telling me to talk to the lawyer instead of discussing my arguments. That's a fair tactic if and only if you already discussed it with one and he agreed with your position. But if you did, you would have probably written that instead, wouldn't you?

 

And now just to be thorough:

It's also the reason why derivative works are an exclusive right of the copyright holder, and this scenario you describe is something that would in fact qualify as a derivative work since it's directly descended from the original work, and is indeed NOT capable of being a fully independent entity.

A mod that included Inigo or Lucien with changed lines would be 100% derivative work (if not straight plagiarizm, depending on the scope of the changes made). Mod including new lines and nothing else, the case I've been discussing form the start of this thread, I disagree. I have given somewhere in this thread three quotes from different sources what defines derivative work, and have described how I fail to see patch mods fitting in those definitions. I would appreciate if the opposing side gave a similar level of effort in refuting me.

 

Also, no, I'm not the author of that mod. Though I did write in the reddit thread that I opened a thread on nexus forums discussing the fairness of the rule that got the mod removed from Nexus, so not that great detective work there.

[Arthmoor]

Copyright law itself invalidated your assertion before you ever made it, which is why people are now telling you to contact a real lawyer instead of whoever it is you think you're quoting who obviously isn't one.

[Reneer]

Mod including new lines and nothing else, the case I've been discussing form the start of this thread, I disagree. I have given somewhere in this thread three quotes from different sources what defines derivative work, and have described how I fail to see patch mods fitting in those definitions.

Of course what you are describing is derivative work. Your example, as you have described it, makes Lucien / Inigo (or whomever) speak your new lines, right? That's a derivative work because you are making a character that you didn't create express words and opinions that you made up and with zero permission to use that character.

[DoctaSax]

BigBizkit quite recently said this about patch mods on Nexus:

 

 

We adopt a "tolerant" stance when it comes to patches:

"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."

 

In practice this means that e.g. an esp only patch that still requires all the assets such as meshes, textures, etc. will be tolerated and does not require explicit permission, unless the author of the original mod complains, or we have reason to believe the "patch" has been created with malicious intent.

 

It is a bit of a grey area and we often need to evaluate it on a case by case basis (especially with other, non-Bethesda games), but our aim here is to strike a balance between authors rights and bug fixes/patches that are meant to benefit the community.

 

Something of a "don't ask, don't tell" unofficial policy then.

[Reneer]

BigBizkit quite recently said this about patch mods on Nexus:

 

 

We adopt a "tolerant" stance when it comes to patches:

"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."

 

In practice this means that e.g. an esp only patch that still requires all the assets such as meshes, textures, etc. will be tolerated and does not require explicit permission, unless the author of the original mod complains, or we have reason to believe the "patch" has been created with malicious intent.

 

It is a bit of a grey area and we often need to evaluate it on a case by case basis (especially with other, non-Bethesda games), but our aim here is to strike a balance between authors rights and bug fixes/patches that are meant to benefit the community.

 

Something of a "don't ask, don't tell" unofficial policy then.

Yeah, we all know how well those sorts of policies work out.