Mod use when there's no EULA

[b3lx 161]

I've seen a few general discussions about this but I'm still in the dark. What is to be done if you want make a release based on a mod that doesn't have a EULA? My policy is to ask the authors themselves, but I end up nagging people too often ("If I can't do this can I do this instead?") so I think there should be a clear and authoritative answer. And by the way I am not talking about law here but just about what is proper conduct.

 

I have a few specific examples that I have doubts about. Maybe you @PuFu are the right person for this, I don't know (sorry to tag you if you are not).

 

A few examples. In all cases I'm assuming the following:

 

-Final result is to be shared publicly

-Original author is to be informed and credited 

-Original mod is not altered in any way

 

Case 1: Making a new class in your own mod basing it on a class of another mod (  class myunit: soldier_othermod { )

Case 2: Making a new class in your own mod and assign it weapons or other items from another mod (class myunit { weapon = "othermod_weapon")

Case 3: Making a new class in your mod and add items by script 

Case 4: Making a mod that alters by config.cpp the lighting on another mod's terrain 

Case 5: Making a script that replaces objects in a terrain (hideobjectglobal and createvehicle)

Case 6: Making a script that puts your mod units in a another mod's vehicles

Case 7: Making a script that changes a texture on another mod's vehicle (setobjecttexture)

Case 8: Assigning a an insignia to another mod's unit (BIS_fnc_setUnitInsignia)

Case 9: Posting a picture of in game action depicting a mod's content

Case 10: Using contrast and colour settings that drastically change a mod's textures appearance. 

Finally, is there anything on the above list that an author cannot restrict using a EULA? I feel that 5-8 are outside of an author's restriction ability but I would like confirmation.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by b3lx
added two absurd cases for better clarity

[FallujahMedic -FM- 866]

13 hours ago, b3lx said:

 
so I think there should be a clear and authoritative answer.

 

There is an authoritative answer. If there isn't one included, the most restrictive license applies. 

Also, 

From our rules:
 

Quote

19) Posting addon/mod other content without permission

For many years this community has been known as the premium addon/mod creating community, people work tirelessly and in great detail to create fantastic addons/mods/missions/campaigns to release for free so that everyone benefits, including Bohemia Interactive. There are a few simple rules in place to provide the respect to these creative people/groups that they deserve:

The first and most fundamental rule is that you must seek permission to alter someone's work, to mirror it or use it in any way other than for personal use. No permission, no editing, no mirroring, no adding to your mod pack, no editing and sharing around your private squad, none of that is acceptable.

Obviously we cannot unfortunately control what people do outside of these forums, however on these forums you must follow this rule, if a person/team post a thread to share an addon/mod using content from someone else without permission and we receive a complaint then the mod thread will be closed until the issue is resolved and the forum member(s) risks being permanently banned from these forums for taking someone's work without permission.

This isn't just limited to re-using content in addons/mods/missions however, it's not acceptable to edit someone's work without permission and then to post screenshots of it on the forums (even if the edited addon/mod is purely for personal use), it's also not acceptable to edit someone's work, or use someone's work in any way that you don't have permission for and then to create videos which you post on these forums, doing any of the above without the permission of the original creators risks a permanent ban, for individuals, for whole mod teams or squads.

 

[b3lx 161]

4 hours ago, FallujahMedic -FM- said:

From our rules:

 

Thank you for your answer.

I wouldn't post this without reading all that. Everybody knows you can't share a mod's content without permission and I'm assuming the most restrictive license anyway. 

 

The question is that for each of the examples I gave it can be debated to what extent they are to be considered an improper use. Since maybe that was not clear enough I added two cases that illustrate that there are things we already know even the most restrictive license doesn't restrict.

[FallujahMedic -FM- 866]

You're welcome. 

You have posed some very good examples, however, I would still seek permission from the original author. 

Whilst I cannot speak for any of the mod makers here, I can give a few real world examples (not mods per se) where some of the examples (or extrapolations thereof) given, have had activities curtailed. 

• A certain Luxury automaker prohibits its products from being displayed in a negative light (gaudy colours, extremely dirty, damaged, etc.).
• Another automaker allowed one of its vehicles to be depicted in a racing title, so long as it did not incur damage (again, tarnishing the image of its product).
• A certain well known company who now owns an equally well known space opera franchise.. forbids any likenesses or verbiage that can be confused with their product.

Some authors (rightly or wrongly) prohibit mods from being used on "life servers", some prohibit re-textures, others prohibit the extracting of their PBOs. Again, rightly or wrongly, authors may assert their rights as they see fit and as they believe them to be. Once again, though, it brings us back to no license/EULA, which defaults to the most restrictive. 

I'm glad you tagged PuFu into this though as he is far more knowledgeable (from a personal and practical (Arma Modding) perspective). 

[.kju 3239]

all these cases are fine

[b3lx 161]

Very interesting real world examples you brought in. It shows that legally restrictions can actually be very tight.

Also the "life servers" example is interesting and I had forgotten about it, it is quite close to my examples 9 and 10 which were supposed to be "clearly" permissible, this shows that a default license can be more restrictive than I first thought.

Nonetheless there is some common sense going on: I wouldn't think people posting on arma photography section would have to ask every mod author for permission to use content in their photos, but I also can see that if an author takes a particularly hard dislike to a posted picture this may be asked to be removed.

 

On 8/3/2019 at 6:37 PM, .kju said:

all these cases are fine

Come on man, even case 1?😲

[.kju 3239]

yes of course

[PuFu 4591]

On 8/3/2019 at 12:48 AM, b3lx said:

Case 1: Making a new class in your own mod basing it on a class of another mod (  class myunit: soldier_othermod { )

Case 2: Making a new class in your own mod and assign it weapons or other items from another mod (class myunit { weapon = "othermod_weapon")

Case 3: Making a new class in your mod and add items by script 

Case 4: Making a mod that alters by config.cpp the lighting on another mod's terrain 

 

Case 5: Making a script that replaces objects in a terrain (hideobjectglobal and createvehicle)

Case 6: Making a script that puts your mod units in a another mod's vehicles

Case 7: Making a script that changes a texture on another mod's vehicle (setobjecttexture)

Case 8: Assigning a an insignia to another mod's unit (BIS_fnc_setUnitInsignia)

Case 9: Posting a picture of in game action depicting a mod's content

Case 10: Using contrast and colour settings that drastically change a mod's textures appearance. 

To start with, for any mod that doesn't have an EULA, the hardest one available applies - that most likely means Non Commercial and Non Derivative form.

 

I can only talk about from my own experience, mostly in relation to RHS legal troubles and its current license. From a legal POV, case 1 to 4 goes under derivatives. And since RHS mods are under CC-NC-ND license, that means, i legally have bounds for damages since that is direct breach of RHS EULA.

From a proper conduct POV, i feel it is a bit stupid to restrict derivatives within arma's community overall. We (RHS) tolerate reskins and other similar stuff that would otherwise go under derivative clause. We do reserve out right to enforce our EULA in any way or form (and we have, especially when i found ripped content from other games / mods / commercial use / fucked up reskins etc).
Extracting PBOs is legally equal to reverse engineering of data, and that is also covered by our CC EULA btw.

For 5 to 10, that goes under usage from a legal POV, and no, in general terms (unless you are one of these high end luxury auto makers with too much cash and a powerful brand to protect) that should be no problem whatsoever

 

I feel that most modders are doing it for their own enjoyment (creating stuff from scratch). The fact that people get joy out of that is a bonus, and if treated with respect, no one in their right mind should actually be bothered (that goes for case 1 to 10) and i feel that none of the above goes well outside what this community is about.
That changes the moment some random bloke makes money out of something that is released for free, or voluntary disrespects it (as i said, i have seen some very fucked up "retextures").  

Hope that helps a bit.

 

[b3lx 161]

Helps very much Pufu and thank you for the detailed answer!

[Nichols 243]

I ran into a similar situation when starting out wanting to make an updated version of the Black Hornet mod. The original author didn't really have a EULA that I could find so I reached out on various platforms but started a discussion with BI and got their legal beagle's perspective on would I be stepping on the original mod maker if I did it the way it is now. Turns out the original guy got back with me and actually gave me his entire file for the original. I used it to make a test to see what would happen with certain things done. Anyway it can be a long and winding road to what you want to do but common sense should be your guide.