Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
I agree. It's annoying when people get anal about something that isn't theres.

Anything that someone creates is theirs though. If I create models, skins, maps, etc, they are my creations.

While people have a right to recognition for work that they create, if they're providing it for free they shouldn't care if people build on it (as they have) if they provide attribution.

Just because someone puts their work out for free for other people to enjoy, doesn't mean people should just be able to use that work in their own without permission; implied or explicit. In your OP you cited FO3 mods - they have the implied permission of the creators of FO3 to modify the game given that a development kit is freely available provided by the creators. Hell, the provision of development tools could be taken as explicit permission - for all I know there is even a message stating that people have permission to mod the game whenever you fire up the tools (and I imagine there probably is). Some may even have explicit permission of the creators directly in the case of some of the larger mods.

If I create a piece of artwork, just because I let people view it for free, does not mean I'd be happy with them taking it and altering it to their own ends.

My art has a very permissive copyright attached to it. But that doesn't mean that it isn't mine and that I don't have any say about what happens to it.

OP truly has no idea what he's talking about.

If I make a mod, I own the assets I created for it outright. Any voice files I created, any textures I drew myself, those are mine full stop period end of discussion.

Anything in that mod that I took from the game assets is not mine.

So the end mod consists of partly my IP and partly the publisher's IP, so either one of us can prevent the other from using it. If the publisher wants, they can stop me from distributing since it contains their IP. If they distributed the mod, I could stop them as well since it contains some of my IP.

Neither one of us owns the mod outright, but we each own parts of it, so we're at a stalemate. The solution to this stalemate is the publishers are friendly to mods as long as you aren't charging money.

But the parts of that mod that are mine? I have a right to disallow the use of that work in other mods. If I drew some textures for that mod or recorded some voice files, those are mine to distribute and I can tell other modders not to use them. (let's not argue about sufficiently transformative works though, that's a can of worms that hasn't applied to any game mod I've seen)

 Rented Tritium wrote:
OP truly has no idea what he's talking about.

It's a trend.

That and Nazis.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
OP truly has no idea what he's talking about.

It's a trend.

That and Nazis.

You're the only one to bring that up. Such a badkid.

I wonder what conclusions I can legally make about you since your upset that I'm Anti Nazi...

Your obsession with nazis is somewhat... more documented and obvious, my dear.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Your obsession with nazis is somewhat... more documented and obvious, my dear.

I hate Nazis. You are upset about that. What does that say about you?

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Your obsession with nazis is somewhat... more documented and obvious, my dear.

I hate Nazis. You are upset about that. What does that say about you?

I don't think he's upset that you hate Nazis I think he's upset that you have to keep bringing it up especially in situations where it is unnecessary and/or inappropriate.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Your obsession with nazis is somewhat... more documented and obvious, my dear.

I hate Nazis. You are upset about that. What does that say about you?

I don't think he's upset that you hate Nazis I think he's upset that you have to keep bringing it up especially in situations where it is unnecessary and/or inappropriate.

Ok. I haven't brought it up here. I haven't mentioned them in a long time for that reason. Yet, he seem intent on bringing it up again.

 dogma wrote:
So, on that basis I can assume that you're making a moral, rather than a legal, argument?

Or you could assume that your example has nothing to do with this thread. Using necessary quotes in an academic context is entirely different from insisting that you have the right to take whatever you want and use it however you like.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
As someone who does work in creative fields, I honestly think this is one of the stupidest things I've read on my entire history at Dakka Dakka.

Please explain.

I think it's pretty self-explanatory. What you said was both so factually wrong that anyone willing to spend 30 seconds looking for the answer can see you have no idea what you're talking about, and an example of such blatant selfishness and contempt for the people who create the stuff you want to steal that it makes them want to punch you in the face.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
While people have a right to recognition for work that they create, if they're providing it for free they shouldn't care if people build on it (as they have) if they provide attribution.

Why shouldn't I care if someone decides to use my work in ways I don't want it used? The fact that I'm providing it in one form for free doesn't mean that I give up all control over it and am happy to let anyone modify it however they like.

I think we've had enough here.

But since a) I am an IP attorney; and b) I'm also a mod, I'm going to abuse my position to get the last word in here.

It's common for people to not understand IP law. It's a fairly complicated area, and it particularly doesn't mesh well with the sort of analysis people might apply to, say, the 40k rules. There are some obvious black areas, and some obvious white areas, but very few real-life situations can be neatly categorized. My colleagues in this area of the law are very precise people, because every situation is fact-driven. It's fairly rare that you can map a precedent directly onto a new fact pattern; there are usually enough elements that are different to leave room for legal wrangling.

Bottom line? Almost any absolute statements made as to whether something is "right" or "wrong," when you're talking about IP law, are inherently foolish ones.