The right of mod users

[Slammer64]

It's Ex Post Facto that you're looking for, you can't be persecuted...err prosecuted for something done before a law was passed, I know this is about EULA's, but the same principle applies. Just like under English Common Law, which the U.S. also follows, you can't be held liable for a contract you did not agree to, much less if said contract was issued after the fact, i.e. after you downloaded and applied said mod. Technically, he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, since the fact he made the mod available without an EULA in the first place.

[rydin]

I did read about your mod banning on your MMOboys blog and I found it very odd as well. But as @Tweens says his new EULA does state that you need permission to use his mod in this way. What I will say though is I think it's unfair that you weren't approached and asked to refrain from doing what you were doing or at least informed of the changes so you could make amends.

 

I do not agree with some points a couple of people have said that modders have to accept how their content is used. Key word being "their". It's still their hard work and time and it's our job as the users to respect that. They made it so they really have the rights to it. As soon as we stop respecting that then it we are just insulting the hard work and time of said creator. We may not understand their choices but that doesn't mean we should ignore them.

 

You can argue that the have used other components of games and such but take HTML for example. HTML isn't made by the person making the website but the website design can be protected to the creator against theft and unlawful duplication etc.

 

But I do agree that it doesnt make sense to do this in such a way. Is he worried that people are taking credit for said mod? Is he unhappy at persay your popularity on the back of his mod? Questions we may never get the answer for.

 

I also do not see why he has "revoked" your license after giving it before? I know he doesn't HAVE to give you a reason but that's a shody move, considering that your texture mod only enhances the work he has already done? It gives people more reason to use it his mod. To hell it was your body hair textures which made me use SAM though I prefered SOS fuctions and controls over SAM (I use profiles now so I switch between the two).

 

I guess we will never know?

[windpl]

 

Just made from ass assumption - maybe he didn't liked what you did with it, by like I mean, maybe it was in conflict with his view on sexuality?

 

I'm not sure if a gay person would object against gay videos created with his mod. And I'm not sure that a mod author that adds schlongs to the male bodies would object against videos that puts them in action. 

 

This was my first reason for alarm several weeks ago as I consider both Ixum and Vector as important factors in the gay modding community. 

 

But speaking about the issue itself. It is obvious that the modding community is not governed by the written laws as much as the good will of its members and their moral judgment and considerations. So for me the question here is not if the EULA has any legal power or not. 

The questions that arise for me are: is it acceptable that a mod author can suddenly start policing his mod to such an extreme degree out of the blue and what is the acceptable response from Ixum - should he comply or not.

Those are factors in any open-source community.

 

 

If mod author do not wish for a mod to be used in some way, respect that and move along. You can still use it for your private needs and for that you should be thankful.

[ButchDiavolo]

Yup, what Slammer64 said. You cannot make a EULA years (or even days) after the initial release of a product, which (presumably) 100s of people have downloaded and used without restriction. That would be like, say, buying a TV and the manufacturer 1 year later saying "Sorry, but it is now illegal to watch tv-shows with our TV's".

 

If the creator(s) of SAM have a problem with how their mod is being used, they should have stated so from the start. Of course there is the matter of Intellectual Ownership, but this mainly deals with people passing off said mod/ product as their own. Or changing the original mod in anyway. So if you use said mod as part of a video, this doen't apply.

 

in short: the mod was released "as is". Changing the rules after the fact is not legally binding. They should have thought of that before releasing the mod.

 

As Judge Judy would say: "Case closed. Get out of here!"

[Ixum]

Rydin, if you do not accept how your work is used, how do you restrain it. Is it up to you? Are u the moral guardian? 

[ButchDiavolo]

[snipped for brevity]

 

I also do not see why he has "revoked" your license after giving it before?

 

if the mod was released originally without a EULA/ license, there is no license to revoke. Again, you can't change the rules AFTER the fact.

 

[Ixum]

Yup, what Slammer64 said. You cannot make a EULA years (or even days) after the initial release of a product, which (presumably) 100s of people have downloaded and used without restriction. That would be like, say, buying a TV and the manufacturer 1 year later saying "Sorry, but it is now illegal to watch tv-shows with our TV's".

 

If the creator(s) of SAM have a problem with how their mod is being used, they should have stated so from the start. Of course there is the matter of Intellectual Ownership, but this mainly deals with people passing off said mod/ product as their own. Or changing the original mod in anyway. So if you use said mod as part of a video, this doen't apply.

 

in short: the mod was released "as is". Changing the rules after the fact is not legally binding. They should have thought of that before releasing the mod.

 

As Judge Judy would say: "Case closed. Get out of here!"

 

What would the creator of SKSE or NiOverride say about this. His mod requires both. 

[windpl]

 

Yup, what Slammer64 said. You cannot make a EULA years (or even days) after the initial release of a product, which (presumably) 100s of people have downloaded and used without restriction. That would be like, say, buying a TV and the manufacturer 1 year later saying "Sorry, but it is now illegal to watch tv-shows with our TV's".

 

If the creator(s) of SAM have a problem with how their mod is being used, they should have stated so from the start. Of course there is the matter of Intellectual Ownership, but this mainly deals with people passing off said mod/ product as their own. Or changing the original mod in anyway. So if you use said mod as part of a video, this doen't apply.

 

in short: the mod was released "as is". Changing the rules after the fact is not legally binding. They should have thought of that before releasing the mod.

 

As Judge Judy would say: "Case closed. Get out of here!"

 

What would the creator of SKSE or NiOverride say about this. His mod requires both. 

 

 

SKSE dosen't care nioverride duno. Remember we are working here on good will, good will make thing happens not ill will.

[rydin]

Rydin, if you do not accept how your work is used, how do you restrain it.

 

I know for a fact that NSAP has been uploaded elsewhere even when I have asked for it not to be. In my position, I ask for the good will of people not to do it, but I cannot invoke any said power to stop it. Most content creators hope that the people who respect them will refrain from doing something they ask not to, but I am sure most content creators also know that they are powerless to stop someone.

 

 

Is it up to you?

 

Here is a question then: why does the user feel they have more rights to the product that the creator of said product?

 

I am only putting my thoughts to the thread. As I have said I do think the way you've been treated is unfair, but this is also just one side of the story. My thoughts may not be shared by everyone but I am not trying to cause an argument or upset.

[prinyo]

 

 

If mod author do not wish for a mod to be used in some way, respect that and move along. You can still use it for your private needs and for that you should be thankful.

 

 

 

It is not that simple. 

We are not talking about about MA vs users! We are talking about the moral considerations within the MA community. Where people create something based on works of others. We are talking about a community - interdependent and enabled by working together and sharing knowledge and resources.

You release a mod - yes, you've spent time, energy and resources to make it, and then you release it to the community. Someone else then build on what you did - they also spend time, energy and resources. And you are OK with this. Then one day you say - fuck them. Their work and effort are worth nothing and I will singlehandedly destroy them, because .... um... because their time, energy and resources are less worthy? 

 

 

To give you an example. Imagine right now Fore decides that FNIS should be no longer used for sex animations. Yes, to use what you say, I can still use it personally and be thankful... But all the sex animations will be used only by their authors and there will be nothing left of all the variety of mods that are published today.

 

I'm not saying that he doesn't have the right to do so. I'm saying that everyone who have spent time, energy and effort to build on his work would be hurt. The community can do great things, like the Skyrim modding community is doing, when it works together, not when it ridicules itself. 

[ButchDiavolo]

SKSE is released without a EULA ("just" a disclaimer); as is NIO (as far as I know).

 

Apart from infringement of copyright/ intellectual ownership, this means that everyone is free to use these mods in anyway they want, without explicit approval beforehand. Posting videos which make use of these mods/ plugins is NOT copyright infringement, it is their "intended use". Same goes for SAM. Or anything else without a EULA.

 

Again, making a EULA whatever period AFTER original release is pointless and not legally binding. So you can do whatever you want with SAM.

 

BUT as Windpl (and others) have said, mod creators release their mods in good faith. And we are indeed working with/ on goodwill. Basically in this specific situation, it is up to you to decide if you want to honour SAM"s creators wishes. But again, they can not force you to or "revoke"a non-existant license.

 

This may also be a good "lesson" for mod creators: if you don't want people to use your mods in a certain way, provide a EULA at the time of release! Ad package it WITH the mod!

 

btw, I am speaking from European legislation. I don't know how things are arranged in the US or elsewhere.

[Ixum]

 

Rydin, if you do not accept how your work is used, how do you restrain it.

 

I know for a fact that NSAP has been uploaded elsewhere even when I have asked for it not to be. In my position, I ask for the good will of people not to do it, but I cannot invoke any said power to stop it. Most content creators hope that the people who respect them will refrain from doing something they ask not to, but I am sure most content creators also know that they are powerless to stop someone.

 

 

Is it up to you?

 

Here is a question then: why does the user feel they have more rights to the product that the creator of said product?

 

I am only putting my thoughts to the thread. As I have said I do think the way you've been treated is unfair, but this is also just one side of the story. My thoughts may not be shared by everyone but I am not trying to cause an argument or upset.

 

 

I am not talking about distribution. I am talking of using a mod like I have used your mod in so many of my videos. I have mentioned NSAP a lot on my blog, are you unhappy about that?

[windpl]

 

 

 

If mod author do not wish for a mod to be used in some way, respect that and move along. You can still use it for your private needs and for that you should be thankful.

 

 

 

It is not that simple. 

We are not talking about about MA vs users! We are talking about the moral considerations within the MA community. Where people create something based on works of others. We are talking about a community - interdependent and enabled by working together and sharing knowledge and resources.

You release a mod - yes, you've spent time, energy and resources to make it, and then you release it to the community. Someone else then build on what you did - they also spend time, energy and resources. And you are OK with this. Then one day you say - fuck them. Their work and effort are worth nothing and I will singlehandedly destroy them, because .... um... because their time, energy and resources are less worthy? 

 

 

To give you an example. Imagine right now Fore decides that FNIS should be no longer used for sex animations. Yes, to use what you say, I can still use it personally and be thankful... But all the sex animations will be used only by their authors and there will be nothing left of all the variety of mods that are published today.

 

 

That's author right, if authors wont have control over their work there can be no another Fore in future. And that is not new, it was like that, always?

 

[rydin]

 

I am not talking about distribution. I am talking of using a mod like I have used your mod in so many of my videos. I have mentioned NSAP a lot on my blot, are you unhappy about that?

 

No but that's my choice. I personally think that's silly and don't see any issue with it. But obviously this isn't about me and I can't speak for Vector; I have no idea why he would want to do such a thing.

 

Looking at it again I do think that his ELUA is not thought out well. Making someone water mark an image that his mod is being used can give very false inpression of who created what. For example, if the character is wearing a specific armor mod, if there is an ENB, if the specific animation being played is by a certain aniamtor, the skin textures are by someone else. I think it's a little.... extreme but then again I don't understand the full extent that EULA can cover.

 

 

[Slammer64]

Again we have the age old problem, content creators vs. users...As a content creator, granted a very minor creator, but still, I find myself in the unique position of not really giving a shit how my mods are used, just as long as the credit my work (ego, I know  ) But , if a content creator wants his "artistic vision" of his mod or whatever to be respected, they must, Must, MUST let the end user know ahead of time! Going back and saying "I didn't like how you used my art, stop using it!" doesn't cut it. Put a EULA or a user contract or whatever that the user must agree to ahead of time BEFORE they download it, otherwise you're SOL (Shit Outta Luck") The end user has no responsibilites beyond not passing your work as their own. Coming up with some rinky-dink EULA after the fact will just get you laughed outta court, if you ever make it that far. If you don't want your mod misused, you really need to keep it off the internet and pass it around only to a few, close, trusted friends, because if it's as good as you'd like to think it is, it'll end up all over. Enough said, end of rant.

[prinyo]

 

 

 

That's author right, if authors wont have control over their work there can be no another Fore in future. And that is not new, it was like that, always?

 

 

 

On the opposite logic - if Fore is to do that there will be nobody to build on Fore's work in future. If MA start killing-off other MA's work retroactively it will all fall apart and nobody will publish anything.

Again, I'm not disputing his right to control how his work is used. I'm talking about destroying other people's work on a whim.

[ButchDiavolo]

[snipped]

 

This may also be a good "lesson" for mod creators: if you don't want people to use your mods in a certain way, provide a EULA at the time of release! And package it WITH the mod!

 

I need to correct myself/ be more specific here:

A EULA must be able to be read (and accepted/ rejected) BEFORE you are able to download/ install etc. the product. And the end-user must be able to save the EULA for future reference. Hence the "package it with the mod" comment.

 

If these conditions are not met, then the EULA is not legally (or in any other way) binding.

 

[windpl]

 

 

 

 

That's author right, if authors wont have control over their work there can be no another Fore in future. And that is not new, it was like that, always?

 

 

 

On the opposite logic - if Fore is to do that there will be nobody to build on Fore's work in future. If MA start killing-off other MA's work retroactively it will all fall apart and nobody will publish anything.

Again, I'm not disputing his right to control how his work is used. I'm talking about destroying other people's work on a whim.

 

 

It can't be helped. We are in grey area, there is no law to abide, there is only common sense and respect. That happen before (destroying other people's work on a whim.) and will happen in future. But still it is good deal at the end.

[ButchDiavolo]

Again we have the age old problem, content creators vs. users...As a content creator, granted a very minor creator, but still, I find myself in the unique position of not really giving a shit how my mods are used, just as long as the credit my work (ego, I know  ) But , if a content creator wants his "artistic vision" of his mod or whatever to be respected, they must, Must, MUST let the end user know ahead of time! Going back and saying "I didn't like how you used my art, stop using it!" doesn't cut it. Put a EULA or a user contract or whatever that the user must agree to ahead of time BEFORE they download it, otherwise you're SOL (Shit Outta Luck") The end user has no responsibilites beyond not passing your work as their own. Coming up with some rinky-dink EULA after the fact will just get you laughed outta court, if you ever make it that far. If you don't want your mod misused, you really need to keep it off the internet and pass it around only to a few, close, trusted friends, because if it's as good as you'd like to think it is, it'll end up all over. Enough said, end of rant.

 

LOL... you beat me to it... AGAIN

 

[prinyo]

Again we have the age old problem, content creators vs. users...

 

No, we do not. We are talking about content creators vs content creators.

 

[ButchDiavolo]

OK, now I am confused... I went to the link Prinyo posted (previously?) in the post above this. And on the EULAs page it clearly states:

 

"This is the EULA for any mods I'll be creating and making available from now on:"

 

If that is the case, why did he ask Ixum to no longer post videos while using SAM?

[27X]

Because unlike SOS work on SAM is still ongoing, so he considers it applicable.

 

Legally speaking the eula version has to match the release, which is why you have a valid complaint at all.

 

 

Contextually speaking, you should be moving to SOS, since it's by the same author but abandonware as far as he's concerned.

 

All you're going to do is perpetuate bullshit if you continue to use SAM, and since you have habit sticking stuff out front and center (pun completely intended) ((remember the jesus thing? i sure do)) you're "i need attention" factor is eventually going to bite you square on your ass.

 

It then becomes a question of how much acrimony you're willing to put up with, because that's what you're going to do. There's two other bodies you can use, and you should probably be using them 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, someone that creates other content you have access to.

 

You're not even kind of the only person using the mod, and you're deliberately poking an author with pretty well known volatility issue with a stick; pretty sure that's not going to end in your favor no matter what the "right" or "wrong" of the issue is.

[prinyo]

OK, now I am confused... I went to the link Prinyo posted (previously?) in the post above this. And on the EULAs page it clearly states:

 

"This is the EULA for any mods I'll be creating and making available from now on:"

 

If that is the case, why did he ask Ixum to no longer post videos while using SAM?

 

 

SAM Eula: http://www.ladymoiraine.com/index.php?/forums/topic/6561-sam-eula-if-youre-a-modder-please-read/&_fromLogin=1

 

Killed mod: http://mmoboys.tumblr.com/post/145616411927/as-of-today-my-sam-texture-mod-has-been-banned

 

Now apparently this has escalated to videos. 

 

More context: http://www.vectorplexus.com/index.php?/topic/13-and-i-knew-it-would-come-to-this/

[darkconsole]

posting videos also has a bit of "fair use" freedom to it. for example, i just filed (and won) 8 different copyright claims on youtube where my videos were locked by country and had ads on them, of me playing guitar with music. i filed them under fair use.

[27X]

It does, and it would probably be fine, but if Ixum isn't allowed to contact VP, obviously there's an issue of some kind.

 

The only way to find is to post a video, and see what happens. But given the history of VP's hyper volatility regarding pretty much anything, I think it's pretty obvious what his reaction is going to be already.