I agree that a person has a right to charge for their work. I just feel mods are a real legal quagmire. The best way around all of this is a Pateron style system where a creator is supported but not directly charging for mods.
The issue is that mods often use some part of the original creation so ownership is a tricky issue. However if the company is willing to pay creators then I guess that is OK, like this case.
That’s a different legal problem as there are situations where if you don’t protect your trademark you can lose it. But I’m not a lawyer and don’t know if that situation would apply to mods.
Even in that case, it’s easy enough to solve: grant permission explicitly under the condition that the assets remain in the context of the game (eg, don’t export them to other games).
Consider other games that explicitly provide a blanket grant for people permission to use their game footage in videos (Team17).
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
I agree that a person has a right to charge for their work. I just feel mods are a real legal quagmire. The best way around all of this is a Pateron style system where a creator is supported but not directly charging for mods.
The issue is that mods often use some part of the original creation so ownership is a tricky issue. However if the company is willing to pay creators then I guess that is OK, like this case.
Why are you talking about legal issues when you’re replying to someone talking about moral ones?
Bethesda introducing an official way to sell mods solved the legal problem of using the game’s assets.
Solving a problem that doesn’t actually exist.
I fucking hate civil lawyers and MBA bros.
Just edited to comment for clarity on that. Thanks.
The modding community is the reason Bethesda has been able to get away with selling the same game for over a decade.
There are a million ways to solve the “legal problem”, such as “don’t initiate legal action against moddders”.
This wasn’t a problem that needed a solution.
That’s a different legal problem as there are situations where if you don’t protect your trademark you can lose it. But I’m not a lawyer and don’t know if that situation would apply to mods.
Even in that case, it’s easy enough to solve: grant permission explicitly under the condition that the assets remain in the context of the game (eg, don’t export them to other games).
Consider other games that explicitly provide a blanket grant for people permission to use their game footage in videos (Team17).