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

[tompalmer]

If I may ...

Well, first hello Grell74 And again thank you for the work on ck1 's GOT mod, you helped the team a lot.

On this point precisely I don't think it is true to say that paradox promoted our mod on those sites, it's some nerdy journalists who found a way to enter paradox universe thanks to the AGOT mod.

Yet it's true to say we can't post external links on our forum, but those are the rules anyway ... The whole understable reason behind all this circus is that paradox uses mods as DRM, as you need to buy the game to get the key to get the mod's topic.
That's one thing why the forum is very closed, and it is understable at the very least.

Paradox on the other hand has to compose with the modder's desires, they'd take part of the blame if a modder is conflicted with HBO, GRRM, Bethesda, Warner , etc ... So they forbide gifts and use of copyrighted contents (with fair use and authorisations exceptions).

To compose with the modder's frustrations, they make a large part of their game moddable.

The paradox (lol ?) is that mod become more and more complex and modders want more and more compensations as they take a lot of time and mod more than they play.

Then the clumsy thing from paradox is to have written a tacite rule " we can take your work whenever I want". Of course, and it has always been the case. In practice they mostly re-build ideas implemented from modders and you hardly see it.

What would become moraly unfair is to copy massive lines of codes and don't even notice the owned or credit him, that has never happened IIRC.


TL;DR : Paradox's position is understable.

Now what paradox should do is
1) let it go and cool it down
2) Make some concession with modders to give them more confidence

I also find some rules abusive as they are written, but what is done in practice is quite permissive.

 

[Grell74]

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/showthread.php?610007-Mod-A-Game-of-Thrones-%28external-links-are-not-allowed%29
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/showthread.php?608036-MOD-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/showthread.php?610007-Mod-A-Game-of-Thrones-%28external-links-are-not-allowed%29/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.

 

[Grell74]

If I may ...
I also find some rules abusive as they are written, but what is done in practice is quite permissive.

Well perhaps, but some things are not pemissive and of a nuisance to modders, like you guys not even been able to link your forum. Or as I mentioned the jeporady your mod was in when it came under claims your team was "Stealing from EK".

As you mention PI uses mods as a form of DRM, they also get sales and profits from players who buy the game just to play the mods. Whereas Modders are very clearly not able to profit at all from their creations in any way. These rules in the OP are all about PI having broad and far reaching rights and modders having VERY little... well pretty much none unless its against another modder, which is the point I have been trying to get across to Castellon.

If I may ...
Well, first hello Grell74 And again thank you for the work on ck1 's GOT mod, you helped the team a lot. [/B]

Glad I could have been of some help to such a great mod

 

[Aasmul]

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.


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/showthread.php?610007-Mod-A-Game-of-Thrones-%28external-links-are-not-allowed%29
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?624367-MOD-Elder-Kings-a-CK2-Elder-Scrolls-mod




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



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?

You don't really get it do you? Meneth and Keanon did not want you taking their mods.
There is a difference between "yours" and "mine", they worked very hard on those big mods hence they get to decide what can happen with them, and they didn't want you to take them, merge them and stick your own name on the result(with a crummy little note that you was "inspired by them" while 95% was their work).
The Winther King mostly took minor pieces from other mods and apparently the modders affected is okay with it, its their decision.

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/showthread.php?608036-MOD-The-Prince-and-the-Thane-1.092-Only/page469

Lets look at a hypotheical scenario.
1. A allows B to use his whole mod under a precondition that its core remains relatively unaltered.
2. Shortly afterwards A sees that something changes on B's side, and that it might make it difficult for B to keep within the agreement, and contacts B to hear if the arrangement still is possible to rely on.
3. B assures that the agreement will be kept, and that the new developments didn't mean that there were plans for expanding into an area that meant conflicting with the restriction.
4. On A's own initiative he offers to modify said precondition to makes it less restrictive on B, allowing for minor alteration but requiring A to be asked and okay beforehand if modifications was made above tweaking level.
5. B again updates A's part of his mod, due to a big(lets say 800+ hours of work) expansion that A just had made.
6. Right afterwards B then begins reworking and setting up discussions threads about how people want B to rework on a big scale the things that was covered by the precondition, without informing A.

now how do you think A feels?

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.

Your own sorry history of stealing other peoples mods hardly makes you qualified for any indignation. The very behaviour you displayed when you nicked Meneth and Keanons work without so much as a by your leave, and afterwards claimed you were in your full right to use their work, when they asked you to remove it, is exactly the sort of behaviour that has made a lot of us modders veary and protective of our own work.

If the rules were to be enforced as to fit your selectively applied butthurt the forum wouldn't be a very nice place for other modders.

 

[Grell74]

You don't really get it do you? Meneth and Keanon did not want you taking their mods.
There is a difference between "yours" and "mine", they worked very hard on those big mods hence they get to decide what can happen with them, and they didn't want you to take them, merge them and stick your own name on the result(with a crummy little note that you was "inspired by them" while 95% was their work).

Your own sorry history of stealing other peoples mods hardly makes you qualified for any indignation. The very behaviour you displayed when you nicked Meneth and Keanons work without so much as a by your leave, and afterwards claimed you were in your full right to use their work, when they asked you to remove it, is exactly the sort of behaviour that has made a lot of us modders veary and protective of our own work.

If the rules were to be enforced as to fit your selectively applied butthurt the forum wouldn't be a very nice place for other modders.

Whoa whoa "95%"?? where did you pull that out of? "stealing" I dont know what fantasy land of nastiness and delusion you are living in, but you are just making things up now.

Notice how I tried not to use any names or start any finger pointing, until Castellon specifically demanded I list examples.

There is no point even trying to discuss this with you as it would degenerate further off topic but thank providing an example of the type of pettiness and unpleasantness modders are capeable of.

 

[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.

 

[Grell74]

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.

Rule 6) simply says should not use third party copyright material. And now you are saying mods CAN use third party copyright up until (if ever) there is a cease and desist notice. There is no mention of that in the ruling which can and may cause confusion and uncertainty... e.g. should I keep working on my LOTR mod if the rules say no 3rd party copyright?

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.

Cheers for another personal put down (along with the accusation of trolling), the point here I was trying to raise is "decent human beings" are generally happy to work togeather, collaborate and share concepts. This ruling can/has been enforced at the behest of those who are not.

 

[VorpalNeko]

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.

I don't get that impression from his posts. Rather, I suspect it's simply that you and Gell74 believe different things about copyright law. I think his position is as follows: those mods make use of the intellectual property of such-and-such company, therefore they violate the rules. The first part of that statement is a very obvious fact. Whether the conclusion follows is what's in dispute.

In the US at least, two of the most common criteria for determining what is and what isn't actual infringement is (1) whether the allegedly infringing work negatively affects the marketability of the source material, and (2) how transformative the allegedly infringing work is. Some example cases here. I am not a lawyer, so I am not qualified to untangle how to affects game modding in any definitive way, so take the following with a grain of salt... but it appears obvious to me that those CK2/EUIV mods do not negatively affect the marketability of either Discworld or Elder Scrolls, and are fairly transformative besides.

Besides that, .

 

[Grell74]

I don't get that impression from his posts. Rather, I suspect it's simply that you and Gell74 believe different things about copyright law. I think his position is as follows: those mods make use of the intellectual property of such-and-such company, therefore they violate the rules. The first part of that statement is a very obvious fact. Whether the conclusion follows is what's in dispute.

In the US at least, two of the most common criteria for determining what is and what isn't actual infringement is (1) whether the allegedly infringing work negatively affects the marketability of the source material, and (2) how transformative the allegedly infringing work is. Some example cases here. I am not a lawyer, so I am not qualified to untangle how to affects game modding in any definitive way, so take the following with a grain of salt... but it appears obvious to me that those CK2/EUIV mods do not negatively affect the marketability of either Discworld or Elder Scrolls, and are fairly transformative besides.

Besides that, .

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.

 

[VorpalNeko]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Grell74]

OK so you have changed rule 6) from:

6) The Mod should not include 3rd party copyright material.

to now read:

6) The Mod should not include 3rd party copyright material, without permission of the copyright holder.

At least this double negative can give some re-assurance to modders working on fantasy and other settings the previous rule was clearly against.

It was exhausting enough getting this concession, so I will bow out and leave you and your abrasive manner to anyone else that might want to discuss the implications of obtaining "permission".

 

[MiltonS]

I'm still unclear as to how to use rules 4-6 (but mainly 4 & 5):

1) With rule 5, why do I need to obtain permission to use another mod's work? It's not their work, since they have to abdicate claims per rule #4. I understand it's "good manners", but that has little use in (quasi-)legal discussions.

2) 4 and 6 can also be somewhat contradictory, as many 3rd party licenses require the work to be distributed with an equal or more copyleft license. So even if I obtain permission in obedience to rule #6, I'm still prevented from actually using that permission per rule #4, unless I delete the license (which will then revoke the permission I obtained from rule #6...).

Also, on an unrelated to the above note, I think rule #3 should be clarified as to what .exe file it's referring to (I'm sure it's the actual game, but it is a little ambiguous).

Thanks for your work in clarifying all this for us, Castellon!

 

[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.

 

[Castellon]

...

It was exhausting enough getting this concession, so I will bow out and leave you and your abrasive manner to anyone else that might want to discuss the implications of obtaining "permission".

Sorry if you feel I was "abrasive", certainly not my intent when responding to you, see my points all hold I do not think it is necessary , but since it was part of my draft, I added it back in, How do I know what is and what is not 3rd party IP, unless that 3rd party tells me, which they would probably not do if you had permission to use it ...But if it makes thing easier to understand our intent I am happy to have it there, thank-you for helping to clarify the issue.

 

[seronis]

1) The mod may not have an external public forum, they can have one for their internal development use but not disclosed to the general membership here, nor allowing them to join.
- you have no grounds to make this request. rule effectively ignorable

2) Mod files should be hosted on a file share site designed for use by the public and or Steam Workshop.
- people can post their own files wherever they want. rule effectively ignorable

3) The Mod will not distribute the EXE file.
- makes sense. mods shouldnt need to distribute any of YOUR files after all

4) The Mod may not claim ANY kind of license or copyright of any kind (You can still have Credits).
- not something you have the rights to demand. rule effectively ignorable

5) The Mod should respect the work of other modders and not include any work without the consent of that modder.
- common sense, per my comment on #8 below

6) The Mod should not include 3rd party copyright material, without permission of the copyright holder.
- common sense, but anything that falls within 'fair use' also meets this requirement. fan works that dont use the ACTUAL media files from original source are mostly safe

7) The general rule is that if you are using anything from a DLC in a mod, you need to make sure that DLC is a requirement to be able to use the mod. If you want just the base game to be a requirement, nothing from any DLC's can be used.
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 Paradox 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 Paradox 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.
- Ludicrously stupid rule (though admitedly within your rights to request this). The mod works on ONE game. The person using the mod will own that game. Who gives a crap if they own anything else cause thats not what they are playing.

8) You may not charge to buy the mod or charge fees of any kind.
- unless a modder uses YOUR code to write their mod they own their mod, not you. This stipulation isnt legally valid and thus ignorable.

9) You may not solicit directly or indirectly donation in any form.
- ditto as #8

10) The Mod should be exclusive to the members of this forum and or Steam workshop.
- outright laughable request. the forums has nothing what so ever to do with owning a game and using mod.

First, We at Paradox love User modding and mods for our games and want to encourage you to do so, we see benefits for everyone involved.

I've only owned the game 2 days and while its pretty enjoyable im disgusted that you guys would have the nerve to start this post with the sentence I quoted and then to list a set of rules that completely contradict what you said a second before.

 

[Castellon]

You are free to ignore all those rules, but if you do you cannot list, advertise or distribute your Mod on this forum and for most of them on steam work shop. Pretty sure you are misunderstand some of those rules as well, for example Rule 7.

 

[dorimi]

i may understand why rule 8 exists but what's wrong with rule 9? Why it is ever exists? Any chance you would reconsider current drastic rules?

You are free to ignore all those rules, but if you do you cannot list, advertise or distribute your Mod on this forum and for most of them on steam work shop. Pretty sure you are misunderstand some of those rules as well, for example Rule 7.

that's sad. But i would gladly stop listing, advertise or distribute my Mods on this forum if rules would apply only for mods listed on forum and workshop at the same time. Any chance to break some rules while distributing mod on Workshop only (deleting every mod related thread on forums)?