The right of mod users

[prinyo]

 

 

... instead of pissing off the person who's still actively supporting and creating gay/male exclusive content in an unending sea of boobies and vaginas...

 

It is a personal note ... I'm a 42 years old gay male and until 1 year ago I would have never believed I'll become a gamer and spend thousands of hours in a virtual game worlds and gaming forums.

And then I found Ixum's videos and I was intrigued is this real, is this really happening within the dynamic environment of a game or is it just an animation. And I found SOS and slowly my life changed as I discovered Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout, DA, ME, RE and other games. If there was no SOS Ixum wouldn't have made his videos, but if it wasn't for his videos I wouldn't have found SOS and everything else. So for me personaly they are equally important. Ixum and Vector drastically changed many things in my life and that's why I feel really bad about what is happening on a personal level. 

And adding to this - given how small the gay modding scene is as you point out, having content creators at war within it is bad news for all of us.

[Slammer64]

Uh, prinyo, if you download and install a mod, regardless if you're developing on it or not, you're still an end-user in terms of the law.

[27X]

As a player, I absolutely agree with your sentiment.

 

As a modder, content is king, even if the creator is a hyperhistrionic drama queen. The isn't a case like kris+a™, where the "creator" is abjectly full of shit in addition to being batshit crazy.

 

For good or ill, Plexus created the platform of content being used, and his wishes should be respected. No, it isn't fair to the subusers of both Ixum and VP's work, but that's what the creator wants.

 

As for videos featuring VP content made by Ixum, that is a separate issue entirely, and VP has zero control or claim of his work being presented to the public or transformative displays for public use. The legal wrangling over that is plenty well defined, no matter what Youtube's TOS attempts to purport, or VP saying that a picture of his mod is retroactively owned by him and not the picture taker.

 

 

 

[prinyo]

Uh, prinyo, if you download and install a mod, regardless if you're developing on it or not, you're still an end-user in terms of the law.

 

There are 3 issues here:

1. A mod (by Ixum) was taken down because the author of the mod it was based on decided he doesn't like it (anymore)

2. Ixum as a user is now forbidden to use SAM in his own personal gameplay (as stated in OP)

3. He is also obviously forbidden to release videos that feature SAM

 

Point 2 of this is MA vs user, but the other 2 are content creator vs content creator. The way I understood your post was that it was discussing the second case (cc vs cc) and that's why I reacted to it. But I completely agree with everything else you said. 

I should probably stop posting on this topic as it seems I'm starting arguments that I didn't intend to. 

[ButchDiavolo]

From what I read on VP's site, he is creating an EULA to make sure his copyright is not infringed. He doesn't NEED to make a EULA for this, because he already owns the copyright. He already owns all assets/ meshes/ textures what not of the mod he created. But if he wants to make a EULA, fine. That is his perogative.

 

What VP can NOT do is have Nexus or whoever ban/ pull Ixum's texture mods or original content based on SAM. If Ixum made original content, Ixum is the copyright owner of this content. If this is the case, Ixum should protest at Nexus and/or other sites where his texture mods are hosted. Or host the textures on his own site. There is nothing VP can do about that.

 

As for the banning of videos in which SAM content is featured. Again, there were (as far as I know) no stipulations under which SAM was not to be used. Creating a EULA AFTER the fact doesn't change a thing.

[prinyo]

 

 

[...]

No, it isn't fair to the subusers of both Ixum and VP's work, but that's what the creator wants.

[...]

 

But is it fair to Ixum himself? This is what I'm trying to say in several posts here. 

[prinyo]

 

 

What VP can NOT do is have Nexus or whoever ban/ pull Ixum's texture mods or original content based on SAM.

 

Well, this is what actually happened. And this is what I'm talking about all this time.

I realize now that it is hard to make my point because I'm following this situation for several weeks now and I'm thinking about it in a context that is different from what is presented in the thread. I hope the 3 points I listed in my previous post will make my point more clear.

 

 

Added

There is obviously more going on in this conflict than we can see, but the basic fact remains that VP made Nexus and LM take down a mod based on retroactively changed requirements and agreement. That's why I kept talking about the situation that one MA can easily on a whim destroy another MA's work. 

[Ixum]

From what I read on VP's site, he is creating an EULA to make sure his copyright is not infringed. He doesn't NEED to make a EULA for this, because he already owns the copyright. He already owns all assets/ meshes/ textures what not of the mod he created. But if he wants to make a EULA, fine. That is his perogative.

 

What VP can NOT do is have Nexus or whoever ban/ pull Ixum's texture mods or original content based on SAM. If Ixum made original content, Ixum is the copyright owner of this content. If this is the case, Ixum should protest at Nexus and/or other sites where his texture mods are hosted. Or host the textures on his own site. There is nothing VP can do about that.

 

As for the banning of videos in which SAM content is featured. Again, there were (as far as I know) no stipulations under which SAM was not to be used. Creating a EULA AFTER the fact doesn't change a thing.

 

My texture mod was based on VP's original textures and I did have permission to use those. Some others have made their own texture mods based on his and theirs have not been banned. This is a personal attack clearly, not going to go into that.

 

VP is basically revoking my license to use SAM, which in essence means I cannot according to him make any videos using SAM, others are totally free to do so. He even said on his site, the "watermark" requirement will not be overseen very strictly. Unless ofc he suddenly decides he doesn't like what he sees, or someone disagrees with him.

[27X]

 

 

 

[...]

No, it isn't fair to the subusers of both Ixum and VP's work, but that's what the creator wants.

[...]

 

But is it fair to Ixum himself? This is what I'm trying to say in several posts here. 

 

 

Of course not, but "fair" is an absolutely relative measure.  VP has issues with drama and issues with overt personalities, and a proven track record of being an ally of _____, and then moving off to somewhere else as a new patron when he doesn't like the politics of whatever's going on, when he's strong enough to leverage that paradigm  and this has been a thing since day one with him.

 

I have a metric shit ton of personal mod that I've made for Skyrim, and they'll stay that way for this very reason, even though I'm fairly sure there's some folks who would probably like an over the top ridiculous martial arts mod and 8K skins for Khajiit (and also people without tails). The Sims and Bethesda titles for whatever reason attract the most prima donna personalities I've seen in fifteen years as a a game dev and dedicated modder, and I just don't feel like dealing with bullshit over "final authorship", which is and has been a thing with this community since forever.

 

I don't know either mod maker personally so I have no idea who's being subjected to bullshit of the contextual/don't be a dick kind.

 

I do know Ixum's content and posting history, and I do know VP's content and posting history, but that isn't enough to know who the dick is.

[prinyo]

It is not the games themselves, it is about how popular they are. I have enough experience in a local radio station and I've seen how people change.

I'm quite new to the modding (only an year) and it is the first time I'm witnessing a situation like this one and I'm wtf'ed more than I should be. 

It just makes me sad when talented and energetic people use their energy in pointless wars. It also confuses me because as a programmer I'm used to operating in environments where there are clear rules. 

[ButchDiavolo]

 

[snipped]

 

My texture mod was based on VP's original textures and I did have permission to use those. Some others have made their own texture mods based on his and theirs have not been banned. This is a personal attack clearly, not going to go into that.

 

VP is basically revoking my license to use SAM, which in essence means I cannot according to him make any videos using SAM, others are totally free to do so. He even said on his site, the "watermark" requirement will not be overseen very strictly. Unless ofc he suddenly decides he doesn't like what he sees, or someone disagrees with him.

 

 

Hmm, see, this is a tricky, multi-facetted situation.

 

VP gave you permission to use his original textures once upon a time. Since he is the copyright owner of those textures, he can indeed revoke that permission. In this case it doesn't matter if there were "stipulations"/ EULA at the time of the mod release. A EULA is a very different beast, though sometimes copyright matters are also mentioned in them. But standard Copyright laws always take precedence over EULA's.

 

So in short, if he asks you to stop publishing/ distributing a mod/ mods based on his original textures, you are obliged to do so. This may be unfair, but this is the simple truth of it.

 

He can not, however, demand that you stop using them on your own computer for your own gaming. Neither can he demand that you stop using SAM for your own gaming on your own computer. Even a EULA wont matter in this case, since using his mod in the privacy of your own home is not a copyright infringement. If he asked you to do so, it is just petty, but has no legal basis.

 

As for using SAM, the EULA he has created now is only valid for people, who download and install his mods AFTER the date of publishing the EULA (June 8th, 2016 if I remember correctly). So the EULA doesn't affect you in this regard. BUT READ ON!

 

There is one other (very important) thing: if you decide to go ahead and continue to post videos, in which you use SAM, make sure that you only use SAM with the original textures/ meshes and other assets that came with the mod, or mods that have been sanctioned by VP!!

Otherwise you are still infringing on his copyright, since you are, in a way (through media), still "distributing" your texture mod.

All videos you post after June 8th, 2016 must be watermarked as specified by VP in the EULA, since those videos will be considered "new content" and therefore fall under the EULA.

 

So in short (too late, I know): You CAN continue to use any mod by VP you have installed before June 8th, 2016. However, for any videos/ photos/ other content created after June 8th, which use his mods, you MUST watermark this content, as specified in the EULA.

 

I hope this makes sense. I know it is not fair, but this is how it will have to be.

 

And again, this is written from a European perspective. You would have to look up how things are arranged in the US (or the country where you live).

 

Hope this helps create some clarity.

 

[darkconsole]

 

[...]

 

And again, this is written from a European perspective. You would have to look up how things are arranged in the US (or the country where you live).

 

 

as an american, an asshole (not necessarily exclusive from american), and a mod author, i wouldn't yield to any of that stuff. if one day i flip shit and start pulling that crap on my mods i hope there is an asshole like me who refuses to yield.

 

me personally as a person i would either

 

1) quit using his stuff and constantly insult him any time the opportunity presents itself, but only using facts that way its truth and not libel.

 

2) ignore him and do what i want in the privacy of my own home and post what i want within the right to parody/fair use.

[ButchDiavolo]

Well yes, personally I would stop using his precious stuff, advise others not to use his stuff either (what can happen once, can happen multiple times) and just ignore him.

 

But my legalspeak was more about the options (or lack thereof) Ixum has regarding his situation, should he want to continue posting vids.

 

**edit** Ah! I think I get what you meant now. The "European perspective" means how it is legally arranged here in Europe. I didn't mean that I, as a European, am of that view.

[darkconsole]

in terms of Ixum's texture, he does actually run into this problem:

 

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/2014/12/22/much-photo-need-alter-avoid-copyright-infringement-hint-cheshire-cat/

 

did he change enough of it that he can be considered unique. or did he just scribble something and tweak the colour. and that opinion is different for each judge. just opening something in photoshop and changing a few pixels does not make it yours. etc.

 

i've never actually used sam. looked complex as fuck to setup. but now i really don't want to use sam.

[Numerals]

Looks like I've missed all the fun.

 

You know what all of this drama smells like to me? A bunch of Chinese modders that I dealt with in the past in some obscure mecha game. Same old fascination with draconian EULA, same old control freak tendencies, same old copyright decisions made on the fly according to their mood at the moment.

 

The only difference is that the mods they were doing weren't critical to other mods due to the way mods worked for that game. I guess this is what you get when you pair that unpredictable paranoia and hostility with framework mods that are critical to the continued existence of many other mods that depend on it.

 

And I speak of this as someone who once worked for those Chinese modders as quasi-community relations with other modding communities of that game. The end result of all this drama is going to be very simple: They will continue to have a bunch of bootlickers and oblivious users supporting them, while people who know what's going on will either go underground or steer clear entirely. Oh, and they will fail quite miserably at actually enforcing all that crap outside the few biggest sites. Mark my words, we've tried in the past.

 

 

Ixum, if I were you I'd skip the "pointless, hopeless battle for justice" part and just move on. It isn't worth your time.

[firehawksh]

But it isn't very satisfying to just pretend like nothing's happened, right? Since VP is being such a jackass, Ixum could troll him with polite, but very clear jabs about him being the Kayne West of Skyrim's modding community.

[Captain Cobra]

Discretion is the better part of valor.  :^)

[firehawksh]

More like not taking crap from anyone is.

[darkconsole]

But it isn't very satisfying to just pretend like nothing's happened, right? Since VP is being such a jackass, Ixum could troll him with polite, but very clear jabs about him being the Kayne West of Skyrim's modding community.

[RitualClarity]

 

Legally you can't revoke someone's rights to something after the fact, if I make a picture or texture and say use it as you like blah blah blah, you are free to do that, later if I say you can no longer use it, then from that point on, you can't. but I cannot demand that you take away anything you made doing the time where you had permission.

Yes I agree. I also believe this is something that is just plain wrong and only serves to damage the community.

[Numerals]

But it isn't very satisfying to just pretend like nothing's happened, right? Since VP is being such a jackass, Ixum could troll him with polite, but very clear jabs about him being the Kayne West of Skyrim's modding community.

 

"Moving on" and "taking jabs" aren't mutually exclusive in this case. I'm merely suggesting Ixum to move on from trying to fight VP over the matter as it's utterly pointless.

 

 

Just for the sheer hilarity of speculating, I am in serious doubt of VP's ability to do literally anything meaningful to Ixum other than removing his stuff or perhaps getting him banned from the biggest modding sites (i.e. Nexus) should he try to ignore the ridiculous EULA and "revocation of rights". And no, spamming Ixum's mailbox with pseudo-legal threats and takedown notices isn't considered meaningful. He also can't ban Ixum off his own turf because he has already done that, and it isn't very meaningful in any case.

 

I have to make it clear that I'm not suggesting or endorsing that Ixum should actually do what I said in the above paragraph. Just some food for thought regarding the relationship between a hyper-vocal control freak modder and the actual power at his disposal.

[Ernest Lemmingway]

 

 

Legally you can't revoke someone's rights to something after the fact, if I make a picture or texture and say use it as you like blah blah blah, you are free to do that, later if I say you can no longer use it, then from that point on, you can't. but I cannot demand that you take away anything you made doing the time where you had permission.

Yes I agree. I also believe this is something that is just plain wrong and only serves to damage the community.

 

 

Ex post facto. The author of SAM can't demand Ixum take down any content created when the license was still in place under that legal principle. If they try, they won't have a legal leg to stand on. At least in the States.

 

Ixum, why use SAM at all? Get a body replacer compatible with SOS. It has more options, more compatible enhancement mods, and hopefully the author of that mod won't be such a petty little prick.

[Numerals]

 

 

 

Legally you can't revoke someone's rights to something after the fact, if I make a picture or texture and say use it as you like blah blah blah, you are free to do that, later if I say you can no longer use it, then from that point on, you can't. but I cannot demand that you take away anything you made doing the time where you had permission.

Yes I agree. I also believe this is something that is just plain wrong and only serves to damage the community.

 

 

Ex post facto. The author of SAM can't demand Ixum take down any content created when the license was still in place under that legal principle. If they try, they won't have a legal leg to stand on. At least in the States.

 

Ixum, why use SAM at all? Get a body replacer compatible with SOS. It has more options, more compatible enhancement mods, and hopefully the author of that mod won't be such a petty little prick.

 

 

There actually are complications with SOS as it was originally made by the same person who made SAM. The current person who maintains it also appears to be quite involved in the development of SAM, according to SAM's description on a certain site that requires you to register just to see the SAM section.

 

Couple that with the fact that said author is a proven dick (no pun intended) and appears to have a personal vendetta against Ixum, there is some potential for further shitstorm, however legally groundless as they may be.

[firehawksh]

Which is why someone should just shove his face into the thick of it. That, or perform the Dark Sacrament.

[darkconsole]

vp handed off sos to b3, basically, so it should be fairly safe atm. i'd like to see him try and stir that shit tbh. this thread would be like 40 pages longer. i don't think that many people really use sam tbh. sure a bunch of you will say not true i use it after this, but, thats probably like all 10. it seems to have suffered issues like, being too complex also causing it to require special armor meshes, which i never saw many of. i can also base that assumption on my own support threads due to how many people had broken games because sos included old papyrusutil and they didn't overwrite order it properly.