Just a quick question; is it permissable to use objects from Dawnguard or Hearthfire (or any future DLC) in our own mods without the mod being dependent on a DLC's ESM file? For example; extracting Falmer clutter objects from the Dawnguard.bsa and adding them into a mod as loose files or repacked into a new BSA?

I know there are some legal issues concerning the use of objects from previous Elder Scrolls games such as Oblivion (if that isn't the case, then please somebody correct me on that matter), however I'm not too sure if that includes Skyrim DLC content.

The easiest option would be to obviously build the mod with the DLC's ESM as a dependency, however that would restrict the mod to only players who have Dawnguard, for example. Just curious!

No. Redistribution of game assets is illegal.

Ah thanks for the quick response.

Just one more question if anyone can answer; but does that include retextures? Considering how the modder is still distributing, in some cases, the original .nif with their mod or a modified texture based off the vanilla asset. Say if I retextured a mace and uploaded both the .dds and .nif, would that be permissable? I guess the same thing can be said for high-res texture packs as they are essentially based off the vanilla textures but I see many such mods available on steam and the nexus. ... many ... Sorry to be such a pain, but I need a bit of an explanation as to what is and what isn't permissable.

For the base game you can modify meshes and textures, not from other games or the expansions.
Quick question is scripts legal? say I make an new version of the poison bloom with an modified script? I assume so but better to be sure.

I don't know if it's possible, I think only the compiled pex files are included in dawnguard.bsa not the psc files. I tried to load dawnguard into the CK but it crashes on me.

The script source files are included with the CK regardless of if you own the DLC or not, so they will be fine.

You also need to add Dawnguard to your INI file to load in the CK, it crashes because it's not loading the required strings.

Legality is not the problem here. Modifying and distributing any assets whatsoever, whether it is art or source files, is illegal. That's as simple as that (well, there are fair use exceptions in some coutrnies but they're probably not applicable to this case anyway). But while Bethesda does not want you to distribute Dawnguard assets for non-Dawnguard owners for obvious reasons, they certainly have nothing against people who modify a few Dawnguard textures to make something worthwhile on its own for Skyrim, whether you own Dawnguard or not.

The fact that they're distributed with the CK and that their sources are provided does not mean anything. The only thing that matters is the license and it says that modifying and distributing Bethesda's assets, scripts or not, is illegal.

So, yeah, everything is illegal. But what matters is what Bethesda wants and tolerates.

You can still release your own retextures without having to distribute the original nif. Now that there are TextureSets, reskinning is possible to do entirely in the the ck, no NifSkope necessary. Then the only assets you'll be distributing with your esp are the dds files. I think if they are modified versions of vanilla (recoloured, etc) then that's allowed. I've done exactly this (look at the last few screenshots in http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/26260), so far nobody's said anything

- Hypno

Redistribution of game assets, provided they're to be used with and require the game from which they originate, is usually fine. It's when someone tries to distribute FNV meshes for FO3 or visa versa where the issue arises, or redistributing Morrowind models for use with Oblivion.

For example: Half-sized Snowberries is just a BSA with vanilla snowberry NIFs whose scales are reduced. No problem there, but if I tried to distribute it for Oblivion, for instance, I might get a cease and desist.

DLC assets might be different though (DLCs probably/might qualify as their own, distinct works), so I'd require the DLC the assets are from to be on the safe side.

This.

Your best bet is to just reason if Bethesda would have a problem with what you're doing. A good question to ask in this case: Would the users of my mod who don't own the DLC possibly refrain from buying the DLC because (s)he has access to the modified DLC files I included in my mod?

If you just use a few minor files the answer is most likely no. Even if they do mind, if the offense is minor they'll probably just require you to remove your mod from the internet, they won't drag you to court for something like that.

True, however if your mod was on the Steam workshop, Valve could easily decide to block your account and you would then lose all the games you "bought" on Steam. I suggest to be very cautious with what you upload to the Steam Workshop.

Bethesda has always been very lenient in terms of modified content for that game.

The majority of content on the Nexus/Workshop are modified vanilla assets. As they're Skyrim and are included with Skyrim, that's fine. You could argue that if you change the texture path of a mesh, hence "retexturing it" with your own texture, then you're illegally distributing Bethesda's meshes (as all you changed was the texture path inside the mesh). However that's not the case as that's pretty much required for any kind of modding.

Just like you could argue SKSE is illegal as it includes modified versions of the source script files (Actor.psc for example, with added functions); but that's just ridiculous to suggest that. As the source files are included, for free, with the CK, then it's tolerated as you're not just re-packaging paid content.

I understand it sounds ridiculous but it is nevertheless against the law and exposes the SKSE team to a legal action from Bethesda. But we all know such an action will never occur, this is why I said that law is not what matters here. Nevertheless it is illegal (unless Bethesda explictly created an exception in one of the numerous EULA I didn't read).

I think the point here is that mods that retexture vanilla stuff by altering it and whatnot, require Skyrim.esm as a master. Therefor they KNOW the user has Skyrim. Whereas you cannot use DLC stuff without requiring that the person owns the DLC, or else you're more or less just handing out the DLC content.

I've been gone for a while, what needs to be added to the ini?

I was going to start my own thread, but here seems just as well. I see many mods are requiring Dawnguard, but I'm not sure why. What did it add that mods need to use and/or work around?

Just need to register the BSA file in the ini ( SResourceArchiveList2=Skyrim - Shaders.bsa, Update.bsa, Dawnguard.bsa, Hearthfires.bsa) or unpack the strings from the BSA and place in the loose files so the CK can find the content.

I don't think it would be found illegal in a court ruling, because Bethesda has given implied consent, and that can be used as a court defense quite successfully. If for example Bethesda would suddenly start dragging the SKSE team to court they'd most likely lose because of the implied consent that has been given for many years already. Here is a very nice explanation of the implied consent defense by a very experienced copyright lawyer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xKBsTUjd910#t=1353s

Be careful with using significant amounts of DLC content though.

But destributing edited DLC stuff without requiring the DLC means that non-DLC owners could give the content. I still don't see how that would be allowed. Just like how you can't just destribute vanilla files without requiring that the person own the vanilla game. SKSE is a bit more unique because it's a program that itself requires Skyrim, to do anything, and the scripts aren't nearly as owned as the other assets. All of the 'owned' coding is locked away in the game engine.

@Magfaer
Indeed, this is an interesting argument, thank you.

No, I insist: the source code is as owned/copyrighted/protected than any other asset. Even if it is opened and distributed by Bethesda with the CK, it is still as protected as textures or closed source. Opening and distributing does not remove your copyright. This is the very reason that allows open source licenses to restrict how you can use the licensed software: it still belongs to someone (one or many people) and it's thanks to the copyright law that they can force you to respect the license they choose and even propose different, incompatible, licenses if they want (like a software released both under a commercial license and an open source one). The only exception is if you explictly released your code under public domain and only in some countries.

Your thinking is like arguing that as soon as a book has been published anyone is free to copy it. Even if it has been freely distributed: you cannot reproduce the ads in your mailbox for example.

e: actually I'm not saying anything, I don't want to get banned... again.

Regarding implied consent, the fact that the Steam Workshop exists goes a long way towards protecting mod authors from any legal action (within reason obviously) as the workshop is officially "supported" by Bethesda.