if its for your own purposes and your not distributing it to anyone or anywhere... dont worry so much about "borrowing"

if your gonna give it away or stick it on nexus/steam ie share it. then ask permission...

False logic. Novels written in Office are not derivative works of Office. Mods written in the CK/CS/GECK are derivative works of the games they plug into and thus fall under the scope of derivative works in copyright. It's not a particularly hard concept to get. It's just that some people simply refuse to accept it.

Call me old fashioned, but I tend to think the truth always works better in the long run than any number of well intentioned lies.

Ah, the voice of wisdom surfaces!

In any case, the answer to the OP is, and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZnItdAafUU, that it is polite to ask permission, but no SOPA stormtroopers will bust down your door if you don't.

The only real repercussion that's likely is a bunch of people shouting "Booooo!" at you and complaining how you "ruined" some other guy's mod.

I'm working on my first mod from the ground up, as you've probably guessed from the snippets I've posted around. It's not just (hopefully) a fun mod, with a quest, some merchants, new spells and things, by the time I'm finished with it, I will hopefully know just about everything about making mods, and will have created a suite of tools that I and others can use to make cool mods.

I thought I remember reading that all properties and tools (the CK and its scripting language) are owned by Bethesda. You can't own or sell the content created with the CK. But likewise neither is Bethesda in ownership of the content created using their properties.

So if I'm correct it isn't illegal to use the same properties of a mod created by another user but it sure as heck is disrespectful. This would exclude anything unique such as custom art or programs like SKSE that do not use the properties of the Creation Kit.

If I ever decided to do it I would ask. It should be a common courtesy.

^ In one thread, people were using that an excuse to justify taking others work, heh.

Simply put, do the right thing - ask.

Indeed, so it's a good thing I wasn't lying, well intentioned or otherwise.

Yes, the CK belongs to Bethesda. Nobody here said otherwise.

What's being disputed, for reasons nobody seems to be able to explain, is the notion that the EULA grants other parties rights it doesn't say it grants. The only thing that EULA does is bind you (the modder releasing a work) and Bethesda to a licensing agreement with your work. It cannot impart distribution rights to anything you create to a 3rd party, no matter who that 3rd party is. Nor does Bethesda's licensing rights for CK-generated work give them the authority to tell you otherwise.

The way I see it.

If you got inspiration from another mods idea, story or dialogue, but make it completely from scratch and independently, then just give the author a little note of credit and link to their mod. It's not hard and it's just a decent thing to do.

If you want to use assets (anything from scripts, meshes, textures, story, dialogue etc.) as-is or modified from another mod, then you need to check the readme file. If the readme states no permission is required, then that's fine, go ahead. If it states that no permission is required, but credit must be given, then you simply must give credit. That's it.

If it states that you're required to ask permission, or no information is given about permissions, then you have to ask the author. If the author doesn't reply to requests, you cannot take it for granted that the answer is yes. You must always take that as a no.

So if there's no reply, the author denies permission, or the readme file states that you may not use assets, then you simply cannot include them in your mod, modified or unmodified (even with credit). If you continue anyway, will you have the FBI knocking at your door? Of course not. But many mod authors (myself included) are very protective over their work, and if they find out will do everything in their power to get the mods pulled and the authors banned.

We're a nice community here. If everyone plays nice and respects each other then it makes things a lot easier for everyone.

And if we're going to split hairs, I never said you were lying, well intentioned or otherwise. However...



... that sure as hell reads like you're condoning lying. That would be the "telling them they're 'Legalliy Obligated' to ask permission when they're clearly NOT" part, just in case there's any further confusion.

I can't see how you even remotely arrived at that conclusion. The guy asked if telling the OP they're legally obligated was helpful. I said it was. What's the issue?

All original works and creations retain a natural copyright for the creators of that work. Releasing it as a mod for skyrim does not change ownership to bethesda, you are simply granting them the rights/licensing to be used in their game. It also does not mean they have any authority to allow a 3rd party to extend those rights/licensing for any purpose without your consent. you ARE legally obligated to ask permission to use original works.

this thread was originally talking about hypothetically taking someone's weapon from another mod, in which case, the legal issues are as clear as day.

if that weapon is an original work of the mod author, no one has any legal right to redistribute it without his permission other than Bethesda.

Everyone can have my mods! Do whatever you want with them, I do it for fun! A credit is nice, but permission is free: http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/modules/members/index.php?id=697950

That's not all of what was said though, is it?


It's the "when they're clearly not" part that's the issue. At the very best you're saying that you don't care whether the statement is true or not so long as it supports your position. It's probably not what you intended to convey, but it's certainly how it reads.

Now if you want to dispute the truth of the "clearly not" part or maybe try and clarify the precise nature of the legal obligation, then feel free. I'll even accept that the point was poorly phrased and that you meant something other than what you actually wrote.

As it stands though, you're saying that you support people telling lies if those lies further your own agenda. And while I think the agenda in this case is basically a worthwhile one, I don't think deliberate misinformation is ever a good way to advance the cause.

Ah that's interesting, I assumed it was some kind of thing of people wanting to support the Nexus because they felt steam workshop was a rival service - kind of saying "The Nexus has been here for longer and always supported the community, therefore I don't want to support it's rival" - but the poster of the mod didn't specify their reasons. Unfortunately it looks like we've got a debate on it now anyway.. oh well I suppose it's not entirely unrelated to the OP. It seems strange worrying about it from a copyright perspective mind.. I suspect it's worrying over nothing, I mean pretty much everyone gives their mods away for free in the first place, and I think it's obvious from how extensive the Skyrim modding community is that any attempt upon Bethesda or Steam's part to abuse the work of respected modders would result in a huge backlash from the very community they're marketing to. In that sense I think it's just paranoia and legal rubbish that will never come into effect.

The primary reason for the clause is to prevent modders from cashing in on Skyrim by selling mods, or making "premium" versions of their mods that they charge to download.

Are you all still arguing over this? The safest and most considerate way is to just always ask, and always give plenty of credit. Then you never step on anyone's toes, and everyone is happy.

Credit, yes, but not everyone is happy with asking permission. Some of us offer our work openly to everyone, and walk away from restricted content, because we want to discourage red tape.

Arriving at a consensus is good, but it needs to acknowledge both open and closed practices, since that is where we are.

I agree this is our community. We are not anonymous users of it. We should all take account of what is respectful and what is proper so as to venture toward being upstanding patrons of the content we use and design.

Even courtesy needs a mod.

Okay, then; Unless it specifically states that you may use their work without asking, always ask. And always give credit.

Isn't every modded content property of Bathesda, as soon as the creation kit was used?

Therefore you could use every (Bathesda and) already modded content, as open source, without needing a permisson, because Bathesda already permitted to use it.

Modifications to Skyrim have NO copyright as far as I know, because youre only altering Bathesda's product (see above).


Still, "stealing" other modders work, is morally wrong and doesn't contribute to the community.

any assets you create on your own that are original works are always copyrighted by the creator by default (and remain 100% owned by that creator), and under no circumstance, regardless of the EULA of the mod usage, can any 3rd party (i.e. another modder) have rights to take and redistribute your original work in any way shape or form without your permission.

Quite the opposite: None of the mods are property of Bethesda, unless specifically done on contract for them (that is, generally: done in-house by their team).

You're confusing ownership with licensing here.

Seriously, at no point did I ever say that lying to someone is good for them, nor do I have an agenda in need of protecting. Not all of us are proudly sporting a tinfoil hat.

The OP asked what is basically a question of copyright. My information is factual and true. They MUST ask permission, or it's a violation of copyright. There is nothing more to what I said other than what you're inventing in your head. I'd suggest you knock it off.

The EULA does not change the law, it can't, no contract can trump codified statute or take rights from you which are inherent.

If you insist on accusing me of lying and passing along false information, the next response will be me using the report button for your personal attacks.

I could have sworn I replied to this yesterday.


Of course you have an agenda. You'd like to see people seek permission before using the work of others, and to give proper acknowledgemts when required. It's one I happen to support. You can keep your tinfoil hat to yourself.


And as I belive I've mentioned already, I never said otherwise. Quite why you find it necessary to repeat that point, I have no idea.


I'm being polite to you. May I suggest you return the courtesy?

The point here is that redwood elf positied a situation where someone was telling un untruth, and asked if that was helpful. The scenario he laid out clearly refers to a case where someone is telling a lie.


Your response unequivocably says "yes" to this proposition.


So your words read as saying "yes, it is helpful to tell lies in this situation". Now, it's entirely possible that you just dashed off a fast reply without bothering to read the text with sufficent care. In which case the implication is most likely unintentional and unfortunate. But please don't tell me that it isn't present in your words. I'm trying not to insult your intelligence. I'd appreciate a return of that courtesy, as well.


Not being disputed by me, thank you all the same.


I'm pointing out an unfortunate pice of phraseology in one of your posts that conveys an implication you probably did not intend. I'm giving you the chance to correct that misperception. All you had to do was say "gosh, it could be read like that, couldn't it? Obviously what I meant was..." and we'd not be having this conversation. The fact that you went so far as to quote a partial paraphrase of RE's point rather than quote him directly suggests that you can see the point, even if you persist in denying it.

Whatever. I've made my point to my satisfaction. If you don't wish to accept it, that is most certainly your privilege.

And if you really feel you have a valid complaint, then hit the report button by all means.

Enough guys. Knock it off.