UPDATED 14/06/18 - *** Rules for User Made Mods and Edits of PDS games ***

[Castellon]

Is it possible to publish a self-made mod on another forum and not at paradoxplaza?

Don't see why not as long as you never mention that mod here at all, I mean how would we even know except to see it in the workshop and I already said we will not be petty when it comes to that.
Frankly you do not even need to use the workshop either so not really anyway we could even stop you making a mod on another site, short of legal action and that would be a remote possibility at best.
We are pro modding, these rules are not an attempt to limit you, rather to protect us from petty issues.

 

[Castellon]

You are free to use the German language forums here as well as the English Modding forum.
Don't worry I do not take offense of any kind.

 

[Castellon]

In fact, when modders have private/business/legal issue with paradox, who to contact ?

Depends on the specific issue, feel free to contact me with details and I can answer or refer you to the correct person.

 

[Castellon]

How much you wanna bet you're referred to Kallocain?

What he said.

 

[Castellon]

Torrent links are subject to removal. Maybe ask some of the guys that have large and popular mods what solutions they have found.

 

[Castellon]

I'm gonna hazard a guess *and I really hope I'm right* that based on their silence after opening this thread with a lot of responses that PI is reviewing the 7 pages of issues we've raised and are attempting to come up with an equitable solution that benefits our needs for mods and their need to protect their IP, especially since they opened this thread saying they wanted to get out feedback.

Again, I hope I'm right. Although I think it would be beneficial if they came up with ONE 'mssion statement' that set the goal for what they're trying to achieve, so that they could then weigh every rule/suggestion against it. If it's "Protect IP" or "Absolve liability" or "Reduce Bandwidth Consumption" or "Require free mods" or SOMETHING so we all (PI and players) knew what the point was.

This is pretty close, Formalizing the rules in one place and put in writing, is an attempt to level the playing field and have a common set of rules for everyone. Pretty sure we looked into those moddb pages and no one here would admit to having opened them, so they should not be considered official. We will look into solutions for you and appreciate the effort you have gone through. An immediate idea just from me, no idea if it is feasible or you have already looked into it. Can you have some of the extra content like music as a separate download, then host the main files (under 200mb) on Steam works with a note and link to download the extras if they are interested in those as well. You could then host the extras as a separate sub mod on Steam works, or as a separate download on your existing sources. This would severely lower the load on those sources. Also: No insult of any kind was intended, with my suggestion to ask mod makers of big project, it was merely a suggestion to "network" with them to see if they had encountered similar issues.

 

[Castellon]

Guys a reminder that this thread is about the rules, if posting related stuff, start a new thread, and PM me to look at it if I am needed.

 

[Castellon]

A clarification: as a few questions about using content from one of our IPs in a MOD for another of our IPs have arisen.
A final ruling has been determined from PDS:
No material from one IP(Game or DLC, includes any content in them) may be used in a user mod, unless that mod can assure only people with that other IP installed can use it. If doing that is beyond the technical ability of the particular mod maker or it is impossible then they cannot be used.

I will annotate the rules accordingly.

 

[Castellon]

Sounds very reasonable. Any update on copyright issues from rule #4?

Which issue are you referring to?

 

[Castellon]

Im not savant or mind reader, but I would hazard a guess RULE#4

That the question was about rule 4 was clear from the question, my response was to elicit what ASPECT of that rule was still not clarified.

 

[Castellon]

The relinquishing of copyright/licensing which could be at odds with international law. And especially the fact that enforcing that rule for original music/graphics/etc. is probably illegal - but that's only if someone is foolish enough to actually mod those things with the rule in effect.

I realize that sounds harsher than I meant it to; I just wanted to quickly summarize the narrative as it reads to us modders.

That is your opinion of the rules of law and how they are applied in this case. It differs from ours. These are the rules that will be applied on this site and Steam Workshop. This has always been our position and pretty sure I stated it before, which is why I was confused about an "outstanding issue"

One point I did clarify for a couple of people who asked questions by PM was that you can still have Credits. Example one member was making all new music for a Mod. He can still say in the credits for the Mods that he wrote, composed, performed, whatever the original songs and their names. Credit where credit is due, You just cannot include any kind of formal copyright notice in your mod.

 

[Castellon]

I simply can't understand why it can't be as simple as a basic rule between us modders that whatever is published on this forum can be used by other modders? (I mean, if you want to keep your mod creation to yourself, why post it here in the first place?)

Normal and decent courtesy then simply dictates that:
1. Permission to use some one else's work is always asked for anyway.
2. Permission is never unreasonably withheld.
3. Permission is never retracted.
4. Credit is always given.

This approach and attitude would encourage more and better mods, and enable a vast and widespread pool of modding knowledge, for the benefit of all EU4 modders. Right?

Essentially that is how it should work (In a perfect world), these rules are put forth for when it does not.

 

[Castellon]

You arent concerned that your opinion is contrary to the Berne Convention?

Despite the first sentence of the OP I cannot see how these rules encourage or benefit modders. No amount of marketing spin, doublespeak or PI fan sychophancy can conceal that these rules overwhelmingly limit modders. To PI’s credit in the past they have sold an open and easily accessible game engine which was very modder friendly. However I find their recent attitude and the rules restricting modders in the OP concerning, the main examples being:

-Protecting the DLC cashcow meant that it was not in PI’s best interests to continue to allow army sprites or map items to be moddable.
-Mods must be PI forum or Steam Workshop only
-Mod authors cannot claim any IP protection

Moreover these rules are not even been enforced in a consistent manner. Why have these onerous rules then not enforce for example Rule 6)?

It seems contradictory that although mods cannot claim any kind of license or copyright PI will delete a mod if it contains elements from another mod. As has happened in a few recent cases this fosters petty possessivness and a community that turns on itself and destroys mods rather than working together (e.g. permission granted then retracted, permission refused).

Places like the Nexus or even Total War forums have large and very successful modding communities and despite some quirky rules are no where near as draconian as PI’s.

Its understandable that Paradox what to cover themselves and protect their IPs but these modder unfriendly rules will end up driving modders away. Personally, along with many others I wont release anything here. PI's Rule 4) is also going to strongly discourage professional or semi-professional artists/coders releasing their mods. For example I cant see the excellent artist Danevang who was hired by PI to do the CK2 vanilla portraits http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?689357-Danevang-s-Saecula-Nova&highlight=Danevang being inspired to complete the unbelivebly brilliant work he had started under such conditions.

There is little enough incentive for modders but when a modder has no rights to anything they create (except against other modders) as PI illegally asserts its a cause for concern.

The games and players will suffer for the lack of good mods.

Again that is your opinion, it is not shared by us.
I would also take exception to some of your other characterizations.
And as for the nexus you mention they are not corporate run sites. Obviously a Fan-site is going to operate under very different set of rules than a Developer site, their legal issues are also totally different.

 

[Castellon]

You cant really dismiss PI rules which contravene international law as just a difference of "opinion"

What about addressing some of my other points? How come there is a ruling 6) "No 3rd party copyright in a mod" yet there are many mods clearly breaking this rule (I dont raise this because I want the those mods deleted, I raise it because I want consistent and clear rules that arent arbitrarily enforced).

Also how does PI reconcile the Rule 4) Mod cannot claim ANY IP protection [unless its against another modder in which case PI will delete / enforce IP protection against the other modder].

Again, I am not raising this point because I am favouring a free for all mod pinching bonanza, just highlighting that these rules are not consistent and do NOT overall make for a better modding community or help modders. They overwhelmingly restrict modders ... let me guess "difference of opinion"?



That is a fair point and I had considered that this might have been PI's intention (in making these onerous and unreasonable rulings) to drive/encourage fans to create an unaffiliated Nexus/ CivFanatics or totalwar type modding forum.

The difference of opinion is whether they contravene the law.
Rule 6 is in place and clear. If we get a complaint from an IP holder that a Mod on our site is using their IP without permission it will be removed Period no exceptions no arbitrary enforcement. Please advise me immediately of your source of information for any such outstanding complaint, as you seam to have sources for your claims that are not apparent to me, or mentioned by you.
Rule 4: Just because you do not claim it does not mean it does not exist, or that we cannot act on ours.

 

[Castellon]

I see where you are coming from. I am not posting here to try and "score points" against PI. It just that there are some, perhaps unforeseen consequences these rules have. Consequences which run contrary to the stated intention of "encouraging and benefitting modders".

The rules in the OP are very broad and preserve much "power" for PI.

As you say Rule 6 is clear (I wasnt disputing this) merely its application and your moving of the goal posts. PI allow several mods to be in clear breach of this rule yet will only enforce this rule when there is a complaint (from the IP holder or another moddder). Does this mean I can break the other rules until there is a complaint and its only at this point PI will enforce their rules?

Since PI will only enforce rule 6) when other modders complain this has fostered a petty, uncooperative and unpleasant modding community. As recent examples have shown with modders refusing permission, or granting permission then retracting and complaining to PI at which point PI will and has deleted mods.

And this is PI enforcing its ownership of one modders work against another mod maker.

You seam to be intentionally trying to misrepresent what I say.
Which EUIV Mod is in "clear breach" of rule 6, you just claimed that there are several, Name one please. I mentioned you are making claims with some kind of source unknown to me, and all you did was repeat those claims with no source to back them up, Which company has served us notice, I am currently not aware of any, and our legal department I am pretty sure would have notified me to remove it if we had, apparently you are better informed about it then me.
Also enforcing rule 6 has nothing to do with Modders complaining. I said IP owner complaints, All major sites will have this rule EG. Youtube (If you use 3rd party IP in your video it is subject to immediate removal) does this mean youtube is fostering "a petty, uncooperative an unpleasant community"

 

[Castellon]

First this is not the proper place for debates between members about specific past incidents. If I ask for details, you can provide them, just do not respond to each other, it will take us too far off topic for this thread.

 

[Castellon]

You seam to be intentionally trying to misrepresent what I say.

In my opinion I am not, and with all due respect you seem to be ignorant of what mods are been hosted in your forums and in what circumstances moderators are deleting mods and enforcing these rules.

Which EUIV Mod is in "clear breach" of rule 6, you just claimed that there are several, Name one please.

UE4: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?723025-MOD-The-Discworld
CK2 which we were told has the same rules as several high profile mods:http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...e-of-Thrones-(external-links-are-not-allowed)
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?624367-MOD-Elder-Kings-a-CK2-Elder-Scrolls-mod

I mentioned you are making claims with some kind of source unknown to me, and all you did was repeat those claims with no source to back them up, Which company has served us notice, I am currently not aware of any, and our legal department I am pretty sure would have notified me to remove it if we had, apparently you are better informed about it then me."

Wait what? Who is misrepresenting who? I said nothing about PI been served with notice by another company.

Also enforcing rule 6 has nothing to do with Modders complaining. I said IP owner complaints, All major sites will have this rule EG. Youtube (If you use 3rd party IP in your video it is subject to immediate removal) does this mean youtube is fostering "a petty, uncooperative an unpleasant community"

My CK2 mod was deleted because another modder said I was copying their work. Yet there are other mods which expressly state they have copied other mods work and not asked for permission yet have not been deleted http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?633659-Introducing-quot-The-Winter-King-quot so here is an example of where rule 6 does have everything to do with other modders complaining. Wouldnt this mod be taking down if the other modders complained about the use of their mods without permission?

TTPT nearly came a cropper with modders who game permission then retracted permission to use their map in quite petty circumstances. http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...D-The-Prince-and-the-Thane-1.092-Only/page469

Other major mods have been threatened with deletion by moderators because of another modders potential for prissy petty behaviour:
Fortuantely Korbah is a thoroughly decent chap and disaster was avoided:

I hope that the makers of the AGOT mod, will as soon as possible ask permission from Korbah to use the things he has modded for his The Elder Kings mod.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...ones-(external-links-are-not-allowed)/page306

I made the CK1 GoT mod and I was delighted and flattered that other modders found it of use and gladly gave the ck2 team permission to use what they liked from it. Should that mod exist in sufference that I might decide to withdraw permission and complain (as happened with TPTT/SWM)? These are some examples which you asked for when these rules are being applied selectively and in a manner creating an unpleasant un-coperative modding community.

You linked to 2 mods you are claiming violate rule 6. My response Proof please.
We do not act on IP infringement cases without proof let alone an allegation from source. Eg are you in possession of a copy of a cease and desist letter from someone that is making a claim of copyright infringement for one of those user mods? I mentioned this need to cite sources each time and each time you ignore it. This is what leads me to believe you are intentionally trolling the thread.

You say you make no claims of being served notice but then still say we have mods that violate rule 6, that is pretty much a contradiction.

The remainder of your discussion has nothing to do with rule 6, as using other user mods is not really anything to do with rule 6.
Rule 6 is mainly about the enforcement of registered trademarks, and copyrighted materials.


I see now each time you have been saying rule 6 You maybe referring to rule 5. Big difference between the two.
I do not examine every line of every user mod published. If a member has an issue with the use of their work, they are free to contact me directly and I will look into it, that is everyone, in every case, an even playing field, with no selective process about it.

Rule 6 is there for legal reasons, Rule 5 is more about being a decent human being as well as following the general rules of academia.
ie you do not take another's work and present it as your own (That's called plagiarism), seams pretty simple and if that is the rule you say fosters bad opinion and "a petty, uncooperative an unpleasant community" I will have to live with that, because I am very unlikely to change my mind on this point, and if you have been to any school of higher learning I cannot believe you are not very familiar with this concept.

 

[Castellon]

Huh. Well, that makes sense--not every case of inclusion is infringement; that's even specifically spelled out in copyright law. If Castellon is interpreting Rule 6 as something like

The Mod should not infringe on 3rd party copyrighted material,​

which is exactly what's legally disallowed anyway, it's only fair to word the rules in that manner.

This has already been discussed on the first page of this thread.

 

[Castellon]

I agree, its just that Rule 6 is stated as a blanket no 3rd party copyright. Castellon has now qualified its application to only when there has been a cease and desist. Similarly, Rule 5) will only be enforced when there has been a complaint.

I most certainly am NOT trying to get mods shut down for breaching these rules, what I am trying to do is get these rules clarified and clarity as to when they will be enforced.

I see rule 6 got cut off from my version when I pasted it in here. I have included the missing section.

 

[Castellon]

1) It has "use" because it is one of our rules. I will repeat my answer from just a few posts above.
Rule 5 is more about being a decent human being as well as following the general rules of academia.
ie you do not take another's work and present it as your own (That's called plagiarism), seams pretty simple and if that is the rule you say fosters bad opinion and "a petty, uncooperative an unpleasant community" I will have to live with that, because I am very unlikely to change my mind on this point, and if you have been to any school of higher learning I cannot believe you are not very familiar with this concept.
2) If the person granting permission requires a Copyright notice then you cannot use the work. Open/Common/Public domain etc. licenses are flat not allowed. However if it is a case apart from that in such an unusual case you could run it by me and I will take a look.
.exe refers to any file with core programming in it. if in doubt ask.