Rules/Etiquette question

[Reneer]

So to your mind, spawning an actor that is defined in a mod is illegal ?

 

And if so I would be liable for instigation in the guidance I publish as Fallout 4-76 Define your own custom replacement actors ?

You? No. At least, not very likely.

 

Edit: Actually, now that I review the FO76 EULA again, it very much includes both you and the people using your mod, specifically:

3.LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS

...

Any use of the Game in violation of the License Limitations will be regarded as an infringement of ZeniMax's copyrights in and to the Game and will be a breach of this Agreement. You agree that you will not and will not assist any other person, under any circumstances, to:

...

D. use cheats, automation software (bots), hacks, mods or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the Game or adversely impact any other persons playing of the Game or his/her experience of playing the Game;

You might be wondering why I mention the FO76 EULA. I mention it because it directly forbids the creation of mods for the game or 'assisting' other people in modifying the game.

[AeonsLegend]

 

 

But by your definition all modding, scripting or anything else that automates something on top of something else is then illegal. But that's not the case. As I stated in my post on the previous page. As long as the mods don't interfere with any of the programs value this is ok. I mean in your example Bethesda could be sued by Microsoft for making a program that uses their operating system to work. The original Modder could be sued by Bethesda for making their mod as well. All of this is not true. The key part here is interfere or compete with, devalueing or making money/profit off of it is what would make this illegal. In fact the whole donation system on the Nexus is already walking a thin line if anything.

Yes, it would make automation of such things without permission / license illegal (which they already are via game EULAs, but that's neither here nor there right now.) Why do you think we need to sign an End-User License Agreement when we install the Creation Kit? In part to obtain permission to create and distribute mods (and force us not to sell them, natch).

 

Derrivative work is using another piece of work in part or in it's entirety. This is not the case here. No part of the work is used in the mod, only the Editor ID is present. In court mods aren't considered licensed work either as they cannot hold any value other than the work that was put into creating it. Putting any actual monetary value on the work a modder makes and make a claim on it immediately makes that work illegal.

Yes, in part or in it's entirety is the key bit there. Take my character-snatching Game.GetFormFromFile example up above. You aren't touching anything about the other mod... just using a specific NPC from that mod, which is without question intentionally stealing the character.

 

I'm sorry you're simply wrong about all of this.

[Reneer]

I'm sorry you're simply wrong about all of this.

Care to actually elaborate on that statement? Wrong how, exactly?

[AeonsLegend]

 

I'm sorry you're simply wrong about all of this.

Care to actually elaborate on that?

 

I think it's obvious, but here we go.

 

If you reference an NPC it's not stealing it. This is because you're not including the NPC in your mod. If you would copy the asset into your mod, then yes you would be taking someone's asset. But simply adding a master to your mod and adding a reference is not. The reason here is because without the original mod this does absolutely nothing. All you did was add the meta data. While the meta data is from the other mod, it has litterally no value on it's own. In this case it's not derevative work. And that's really how this works. The only claim the other of the other mod could make is that he doesn't want his mod to be used in conjunction with another mod. Even if that claim may hold some value, it's still not derevative work.

 

Modding is not illegal on it's own. It's only illegal as far as the eula states it is. A modding tools eula such as the CK eula has no value to the mods made to the game, only to the assets the modding tool supplies. The game itself has a EULA which describes what you can and cannot do and where the rights of the assets lie. Bethesda allows modding in terms of add on mods with some restrictions such as that you cannot make money or making illegal or scandalous content in the mod itself. In fact it is in no way is it illegal to use assets of the game in your mod as long as you require a full registered game to use the mod.

 

On top of that Bethesda indirectly owns the rights of all mods. You have some copyrights over what you have created but you cannot lay claim to it because your work is derevative. But it is derevative to the original game, never to another mod. And since you cannot claim the mod legally without breaking copy right laws towards bethesda all we have is "good conduct". Which is, like I said something you should ask permission for. Not because you legally have to, but because you should.

[Reneer]

On top of that Bethesda indirectly owns the rights of all mods. You have some copyrights over what you have created but you cannot lay claim to it because your work is derevative. But it is derevative to the original game, never to another mod. And since you cannot claim the mod legally without breaking copy right laws towards bethesda all we have is "good conduct". Which is, like I said something you should ask permission for. Not because you legally have to, but because you should.

This is wrong. First, Bethesda does not in any way indirectly own the rights to mods. Read the CK EULA here. Relevant bit here:

 

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.

Secondly, our work is derivative from Bethesda's work, true. But Bethesda explicitly gives us a license to use their work as clearly defined in the CK EULA. Using the CK for free puts conditions on us in the process (don't sell mods, that disclaimer that I really should add to my pages, etc.)

 

Modding is not illegal on it's own. It's only illegal as far as the eula states it is. A modding tools eula such as the CK eula has no value to the mods made to the game, only to the assets the modding tool supplies. The game itself has a EULA which describes what you can and cannot do and where the rights of the assets lie. Bethesda allows modding in terms of add on mods with some restrictions such as that you cannot make money or making illegal or scandalous content in the mod itself. In fact it is in no way is it illegal to use assets of the game in your mod as long as you require a full registered game to use the mod.

Yes, it is. Modding is illegal because it is creating a derivative work by its very definition. Works must be licensed from the copyright holder before you can use them in your own work. You can't take, say, a fictional character from a copyrighted book and stick them in your own work, just as you can't modify someone's source code without license from the developer.

 

If you reference an NPC it's not stealing it. This is because you're not including the NPC in your mod. If you would copy the asset into your mod, then yes you would be taking someone's asset. But simply adding a master to your mod and adding a reference is not. The reason here is because without the original mod this does absolutely nothing. All you did was add the meta data. While the meta data is from the other mod, it has litterally no value on it's own. In this case it's not derevative work. And that's really how this works. The only claim the other of the other mod could make is that he doesn't want his mod to be used in conjunction with another mod. Even if that claim may hold some value, it's still not derevative work.

I agree with your basic point that simply referencing an NPC is probably not copyright infringement, since it would very likely fall under de minimis. But once you start doing things and interacting with that 3rd party actor is when it becomes a problem. Why? Because you're using someone else's character in your mod without permission from the creator at that point. Which is basically the definition of copyright infringement.

Edited November 17, 2020 by Reneer

[AeonsLegend]

Ok man.

[Pickysaurus]

Well this topic seems to have exploded.

 

I've been trying to contact another Mod author with no response. Do you think it would be ok if I built a mod that used another mod authors mod as a pre-requisite without that mod authors permission or is that against the rules written or unwritten?

 

To answer you original question. Generally speaking if your mod requires the original but doesn't directly edit or include the original assets, it's fine to post. For example, I was to use a certain sword for my NPC, so I make the sword mod a master and reference it in my plugin, but the user needs the original sword mod in it's entirety to use my mod properly. There are scenarios where the original mod author can object to their content being used in this way, but that is generally reviewed if (and only if) the original author does in fact report it.

 

If for some reason that's unclear you're welcome to PM me. I'm going to close this thread though, I haven't read all the comments but there does some to be a lot of "armchair lawyers" in here and these kinds of conversation always seem to descend into arguments.