Mod Assets- What Can I Use and Where/When?

[KoolHndLuke]

 During the discussion in another thread, the subject of mod assets (meshes, textures, code, etc.) by other authors- some that are no longer with us- came up a few times. It's kind of messing with my head about what assets you can use and when. I know there is a general rule that the mod author specifies their own permissions- free to use and modify by everyone or must contact original author and the like- but, I think things are getting somewhat *fuzzy* about general permissions to use assets at all- even in images or screenshots!

 

Nexus Staff quote- "If you didn't get permission to make the changes to the original work then you shouldn't post pics of the result. It's the same as for any other pics that use ripped material."

 

My question- "So.....mashups in the image share section? Many of those use different textures and edited meshes."

 

Nexus Staff quote- "If you know materials are ripped, and you know the rights holder(s) haven't given permission, (many have) and you can provide a link to the original(s) for inspection, please use the Report button and let the Staff handle it.

But the question was asking in advance if it were alright." 

 

Since when do we have to get permission to upload images of our favorite mods if we have made even the tiniest changes? This wasn't normal even just a year ago.

 

Authors that did not have "open permissions" on their mods and are *gone*- can any of those assets ever be used by anyone?

 

What I'm wondering is whether we- as in the community- should need to ask permissions for these kinds of things at all. Do we adhere to the "We are building a Cathedral" philosophy in modding or not? Opinions?

[Guest]

You can always rely on the "fair use" policy.

If you do a screenshot using some mods, you don't really need to ask permission. But do not get any coin from the images or you should have a written permission.

 

Using assets (models, scripts, etc.) for other mods is different.

If the author gave public permission, or you get a personal verifiable permission, then you are OK.

If the author explicitly says "don't use" then you cannot use.

 

If the area is gray then better to contact a moderator before. Usually if the author disappeared completely for years, we close one eye. But in case the author is still active also if not doing mods anymore, then the answer will be no.

[DoctaSax]

Imo, taking pictures of a work is not the same as taking assets from it, which infringes on actual copyright/mod ownership.

Pictures of a work, or "let's play" videos of a work, probably fall under some type of sui generis rights (author's rights, moral rights), and even trademark law, performance/broadcast permissions, the issue of fair use, and perceived endorsement come into play there. It all very much depends on jurisdiction and, of course, enforcement by the rights holders themselves.

 

For the matter you bring up though, it's more a case of showing evidence of unlicensed modification of a work. We tend to say that what people do on their own PCs is their own business - on modding sites copyright/mod theft only comes into play when people upload things. But when you show pictures of such modifications it no longer is a 'private' matter: you provide evidence against yourself of having modified a mod without permission. What sites tend to do about that as a matter of course will vary. When push comes to shove though, ie when somebody who has the exclusive rights to that mod complains about it, well... it's best to be safe, isn't it.

 

1 hour ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Authors that did not have "open permissions" on their mods and are *gone*- can any of those assets ever be used by anyone?

'No' is the only answer you're gonna get there. All we can do is encourage people to use open permissions, but when they didn't, they didn't. Anyone who uses assets by someone else either has permission or not, and it's up to them to be able to prove that they do.

1 hour ago, KoolHndLuke said:

What I'm wondering is whether we- as in the community- should need to ask permissions for these kinds of things at all. Do we adhere to the "We are building a Cathedral" philosophy in modding or not? Opinions? 

Cathedralism is a nice philosophy - Wrye pretty much based that on the ideals of FOSS. Still, it was never the dominating philosophy. From the beginning, and ever more so, people have stated things like 'you can't modify this', 'you can't upload this to other sites', or 'you have to ask permission to use any assets in this mod'. I guess these things used to be a little easier, maybe, but not by much.

 

Again, all the community can do is advocate open licenses etc, but it can never override a modder's prerogative to decide for himself under what condition he's gonna publish something. Without that, there'd be little incentive for anyone to create anything.

[gangstamick]

Always, reach out, if no response, give credit where credit is due. If the author hates it, it's his prerogative.

[KoolHndLuke]

 I can understand respecting an author's rights with their work of course. But, how much control can one realistically expect over content that is being downloaded daily, passed around, modified some more by individuals for their games? I mean author's moaning about screenshots is going a bit too far imho just as rules restricting this are as well.

 

 With regards to absentee authors, wouldn't it perhaps make more sense to say that a mod author can control permissions of their mods for as long as they are maintaining them? That way some old (and good) mods sitting around in need of fixes or such or maybe just need to be updated (Win 10 updates or whatever) can get someone to do it without them worrying about it. This could not be retroactive of course because that wouldn't be fair. But, as a policy going forward? I don't see where the harm in that would be if the author consents to this from the beginning.

 

Sometimes authors cannot come back and change permissions on their mods. I only bring this up because down the road I'm sure the community doesn't want a bunch of "dead" mods sitting around that no one can touch.

[Kimy]

30 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

 I can understand respecting an author's rights with their work of course. But, how much control can one realistically expect over content that is being downloaded daily, passed around, modified some more by individuals for their games? I mean author's moaning about screenshots is going a bit too far imho just as rules restricting this are as well.

 

 With regards to absentee authors, wouldn't it perhaps make more sense to say that a mod author can control permissions of their mods for as long as they are maintaining them? That way some old (and good) mods sitting around in need of fixes or such or maybe just need to be updated (Win 10 updates or whatever) can get someone to do it without them worrying about it. This could not be retroactive of course because that wouldn't be fair. But, as a policy going forward? I don't see where the harm in that would be if the author consents to this from the beginning.

 

Sometimes authors cannot come back and change permissions on their mods. I only bring this up because down the road I'm sure the community doesn't want a bunch of "dead" mods sitting around that no one can touch.

Thing is that nobody, as in nobody, has any right whatsoever to define rules regarding reuse of my work. I have no idea why people think different rules would apply to modding than any other kind of creative work. But that's not the case. The person who created it, owns it. Period. If a creator leaves and doesn't leave the community at large with any other instructions, you can't use their stuff if they haven't said that you can. Even if they cannot come back. Not after a month, not after a year, not after a decade. You can....75 years after the creator died. That's when copyright protections expire in most western countries. If you find that rule stupid, tell that to your representative in parliament.

 

It's unfair to basically suggest the operators of this site to implement rules that would essentially strip creators of their copyright on their creations. And that's what you're doing here. Not only would such rules probably be illegal in most/many countries, it would also lead to a substantial number of creators leaving for places that wouldn't demand creators to relinquish their rights. Not sure if that's what you want, but that would be the result.

[DoctaSax]

1 hour ago, KoolHndLuke said:

I can understand respecting an author's rights with their work of course. But, how much control can one realistically expect over content that is being downloaded daily, passed around, modified some more by individuals for their games? I mean author's moaning about screenshots is going a bit too far imho just as rules restricting this are as well.

Eh, let's not turn this into a philosophical debate over the pros and cons of copyright. What we have to work with is both the law stating that everything you create is automatically yours to decide what to do with, and a modding culture that's copied that as its philosophy too (with some exceptions where some expect more leniency, I suppose, although they really shouldn't). 

 

Screens of unauthorized modifications to mods... we don't have rules against it, we also don't have rules allowing it, it's really not our job to do any of the allowing or disallowing when it comes to things we didn't make. That's the rights holder's job. Complaints about screens or videos of mods may seem silly to you, and they are to many people, but again, in the end, if a complaint is made, it'd be rare for a hosting site to go against the wishes of a rights holder in favor of somebody claiming 'fair use' or 'it's the internet, after all'. It may be grey area stuff, but nobody's interested in putting it all to the test via courts and such.

1 hour ago, KoolHndLuke said:

With regards to absentee authors, wouldn't it perhaps make more sense to say that a mod author can control permissions of their mods for as long as they are maintaining them?

Even if not retroactively, this is simply going a bridge too far for established sites like LL or Nexus. How long would the wait have to be before a mod's assumed to be community-owned? Can you ever assume it to be community-owned without an explicit statement or license that says that it is? And if it has such an open statement or license, there's no need for a waiting period to determine if the original modder is inactive: it's up for grabs from the start. So it all comes down to us saying: going forward, you can only publish under an open-source type of license (ie permissive or copyleft), which would drive away quite a few modders.

 

The only way something like that can work is in the form of a new site that only accepts uploads under open-source terms, from the moment they're published. Prideslayer & I once talked about his wish to create a site that'd only allow host such mods and tools, as well as the possibility of using open-source bounties and other such incentives for highly skilled people to create tools and frameworks that'd be 'community-owned' and so would never be blocked from further development. I still think there's something to it, but again, it'd have to be a separate, specialist site where only people who share that philosophy would publish. Applying it to a site where a wider selection of modders are already active is really out of the question.

 

[KoolHndLuke]

7 minutes ago, DoctaSax said:

Prideslayer & I once talked about his wish to create a site that'd only allow host such mods and tools, as well as the possibility of using open-source bounties and other such incentives for highly skilled people to create tools and frameworks that'd be 'community-owned' and so would never be blocked from further development

Hmmm.....did this ever come to pass? Because that's exactly what I'm interested in.

[Guest]

And again, we can enforce the extremes. And we do it as soon we are aware of them.

But we cannot really manage the gray zones. They are handled only if reported by people that has the right to do it.

 

(This guy is re-posting my work. The mod is removed. Fair and simple)

(Ooohh, look this screenshot uses the handy horns of Tara from KlonkikeYukon! That's unfair! Ignored.)

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Hmmm.....did this ever come to pass? Because that's exactly what I'm interested in.

I have two personal past experience on my back (one shared with @DoctaSax) both did nothing.

Mostly because of miss-coordination, miss of time, miss of interest, and miss of money.

[KoolHndLuke]

What I picture is using assets from a great many sources, from many different authors with no restrictions save giving proper credit where it is due. That way some truly fantastic mods might be made without everyone bickering about someone using this or that without "permission". With one standing rule that no one can use any of the mods or assets for profit- not because I am against that kind of thing based on principal, but, because it would undoubtedly lead to many, many problems for a site dedicated to sharing everything freely.

 

I mean, how many great mods have never been made (or released) due to needing unobtainable or too many permissions? I can think of several talented mod authors (here on LL and elsewhere) who have expressed a similar sentiment.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

What I picture is using assets from a great many sources, from many different authors with no restrictions save giving proper credit where it is due. That way some truly fantastic mods might be made without everyone bickering about someone using this or that without "permission". With one standing rule that no one can use any of the mods or assets for profit- not because I am against that kind of thing based on principal, but, because it would undoubtedly lead to many, many problems for a site dedicated to sharing everything freely.

If you do the screenshot and post it for free, and with credits, then you are good for me.

Post it behind a paywall or on a click site, and you are not.

 

In case the author posted "nobody can use my work" and then claims against the posting of a screenshot then it will be removed from LLab. And I will also try to remove the mod itself.

[DoctaSax]

11 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Hmmm.....did this ever come to pass? Because that's exactly what I'm interested in.

Nah. He left modding altogether over the paid mods drama. Pride was all about freely sharing, ie without restrictions. To date, SexoutNG is the only truly OS framework hosted on LL, under a BSD or MIT or something like that. I'll probably do the same for my next mod - the previous ones were all GPLs, which is still quite strict, in reverse. I still like the idea of a dedicated OS modding environment but christ, where to start, eh.

13 minutes ago, CPU said:

I have two personal past experience on my back (one shared with @DoctaSax) both did nothing.

It wasn't quite the same. I'm not talking about a creative project but hosting a site. Which ofc does require all those things you list too

 

[Kimy]

7 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

What I picture is using assets from a great many sources, from many different authors with no restrictions save giving proper credit where it is due.

Not your call to make. End of story.

[KoolHndLuke]

16 minutes ago, Kimy said:

Not your call to make. End of story.

Not here. No. Get enough like minded people together and we might have something...later I hope. You might be surprised at whom could/would be involved.

[Kimy]

7 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Not here. No. Get enough like minded people together and we might have something...later I hope. You might be surprised at whom could/would be involved.

Mutual agreement works. Making rules at the expensive of others, does not.

 

PS: You're taking to a person who believes in open source. But you cannot -force- that approach on people.

[DoctaSax]

43 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

What I picture is using assets from a great many sources, from many different authors with no restrictions save giving proper credit where it is due. That way some truly fantastic mods might be made without everyone bickering about someone using this or that without "permission".

This can only work if the mods that the assets are from are also permissive, otherwise not. I'd imagine an OS-only modding environment would be a lot more strict when it comes to infringements than regular sites, even, because the aim is for others to be able to freely - and legitimately - use what you upload. Everything would always be with permission, because it's explicitly granted, not because the need for it somehow went away.

43 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

With one standing rule that no one can use any of the mods or assets for profit- not because I am against that kind of thing based on principal, but, because it would undoubtedly lead to many, many problems for a site dedicated to sharing everything freely.

This is really not necessary and counter-productive even. A lot of people who're into the FOSS ideal are so because it encourages creation. Monetary incentives can encourage creation so it's not much of a taboo for many of them, and several would even insist on being able to share as freely (ie: unrestricted) as possible, including with people who'd monetize. Anybody who's against sharing their stuff with other creators who'd make money off it would only have to add a non-commercial clause to their license, as long as it's otherwise permissive.

[Guest]

I’ve had this question lingering for a while but in regards to permissions and uploading assets, to what extent is it okay to share these assets even privately? Can action by taken against us by the OG author if they found out? This of course assume no profit is being made or whatever. 

 

And one more question, to what extent is LL okay with this? Is there a difference between me making a thread with a link to my download off-site versus me uploading to the LL website?

 

also one more question: Do opinions change if the mod isn’t original? (Ie. a port from another game either legally or illegally)

 

edit: I’m looking at the LL rules Ashal posted in 2011 for this site and it mentioned not allowing the discussion or assistance of obtaining illegal assets from other games but I don’t see a mention of uploading these anywhere. I’m maybe shooting my own foot here but lately I’ve been more self conscious about what I’m uploading..

[Jexsam]

What I can't wrap my head around is telling people they can't post screenshots of personal tweaks to other peoples' work.

 

Imagine a whittler from your local flea market throwing a fit because you painted the figuring he sold you and posted it online.  You're not reselling it and you're not claiming you carved the figuring, so why should he care?

 

I get not wanting your work uploaded in strange places without your knowledge or consent, but am I really to believe that a 15 minute recolor is all it takes to render an image potentially unshareable?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, SunJeong said:

I’ve had this question lingering for a while but in regards to permissions and uploading assets, to what extent is it okay to share these assets even privately? Can action by taken against us by the OG author if they found out? This of course assume no profit is being made or whatever. 

 

And one more question, to what extent is LL okay with this? Is there a difference between me making a thread with a link to my download off-site versus me uploading to the LL website?

 

also one more question: Do opinions change if the mod isn’t original? (Ie. a port from another game either legally or illegally)

 

edit: I’m looking at the LL rules Ashal posted in 2011 for this site and it mentioned not allowing the discussion or assistance of obtaining illegal assets from other games but I don’t see a mention of uploading these anywhere. I’m maybe shooting my own foot here but lately I’ve been more self conscious about what I’m uploading..

 

Some game companies are really strict in exporting their assets to other games. Some are less.

When you install a Bethesda game (done after 2015) you have to agree to their policy. Actually you cannot even port a Skyrim armor to Fallout for them.

Other game companies are way more open. For example you can export and convert Witcher 3 items by just asking permission to 3D Projekt Red, and often they grant it in a few days.

 

Posting here links to mods hosted on another sites is not against the rules. But avoid paywall sites or the sites we are banning because are mostly for piracy (against our rules) and child sexual involvement (against our rules.)

In case of a claim will be just the link be removed, because it is hard for us to control other sites (but we have some agreements with other main modding sites.)

 

Options on the mod does not change if you stole assets from an original version or a modified version.