I see many people take from the MODS folder and if I am not mistaken that is not the correct way to make a derivative if the mod allows it correct?

The correct procedure should be to contact mod author for files, so that player has the ex: TEXTURED.PNGS and not the TEXTURED.DDS as so the model doesn't give you a error like ex: COULD NOT LOAD FILE TEXTURED.DDS and end up having said derivative maker converting DDS to PNGS.



I am 100% against using the MODS folder.
Here is why.

1. You don't know who you are taking from so you cannot credit which ends up getting called out when it's in REVIEW state which wastes lfstech's time.

2. I consider it to be in bad taste to just spew all over a good mod with a tweak for 1000hp etc etc

3. Most likely can cause license issues.

Deriv mods have a "download original archive" button on the mod page which is where you get the complete assortment of files. You don't need to ask permission if permission is already granted (in the case of mods with derivs turned on) You only have to ask for files if derivs are turned off.

Quote from pärtan :

Deriv mods have a "download original archive" button on the mod page which is where you get the complete assortment of files. You don't need to ask permission if permission is already granted (in the case of mods with derivs turned on) You only have to ask for files if derivs are turned off.

Good point, I did not realize some of this. The "download original archive button" is only available on the website file archive and if so shouldn't it be accessible in the game.

We can look at several cases

-Ripping other's work and uploading it as derivative or integrating into another mod: highly discouraged, it harms the community, takes away from reviewer's time, sooner or later that mod will get caught for being ripped.

-Lost source files: if original modder lost the original archive, then he can download it from the LFS website

-Lost source files + corruption: while highly unlikely that the original archive can be lost from the LFS website, it is not impossible. In such case the original creator would have to resort to the mods folder.

-Private agreement but no access to archive: now here's a legit case where I would consider borrowing from mods folder to be legit. Lets say that the two modders come to a private agreement, however for some reason there is no access to the original mod archive. Then the one that creates the deriv. has to use the mods folder.

-Personal offline use: from time to time we all like to fool around, I see no harm if people are using the mods folder for their personal entertainment. As long as it doesn't get shared in any form, be it private or public.

-Educational: if it can be used to educate future modders/reviewers, I see no harm in that.

You can't just take someone else's work and call it your own, whether it's from the mod folder or not. I do agree it's kinda weird how it's pretty easy to load up a car and convert the dds, but at the same time, it's very educational in how mods are built, I'm all for learning how the best mods are created to apply some of the same techniques (read, techniques, no content re-used) to my mods. It can also help keep everyone honest, being it's a community-built mod with potential legal implications; having the ability to open up the veh file to see what's potentially hidden could surface a potential legal issue before others find it (like a config that isn't used, but is after review)

Honestly, we should be building up the manual with this knowledge, but that's a lot of work for a volunteer to document all these techniques. If the review process was dialled, including changes after review, we could encrypt the folder. Luckily, lfs is pretty unique so ripping models and using it elsewhere isn't that common to my knowledge.

Often when I ask mod creators for permission to use their model that doesn't have deriv on, they tell me to get it from the mod folder anyways instead of passing over the share files, it's just easier for them. I prefer the share files since the textures are all named properly making it much easier to work with.

Both, if i need physics like the rlt lga supertourer, i’ve asked to ivan_csx. If i create a car, sometimes i give the folder for testing. For the rest i use lfs website for seing the new updated cars, I choose one and i try it. I’m not okay with a closed encrypted system. SCAVIER give access to modding, that’s better than dlc system, or gran turismo cars. Some mods takes times especially at the beginning, lfseditor isn’t for all racers, you really need to learn before upload. It’s hard to find good mods. Burger, bed, piano, drift drift drift... Cat! Why? I prefer object mods with physics but we can’t use them on track editor. I hope track editor one day.

The question asked in the poll suggests that it could be acceptable to answer yes. This is not good as it is a starting point to spread ignorance.

Copyrights laws are clear on the matter, maybe u could read some
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/derivative_work

Another point is that using textures or parts from another mod doesnt constitute a derivative work by itself, but rather theft, unless author of texture or part explicitely allows copy.

And if you want to be totally clean legit, you must include all the licenses of all the parts and textures that u have used in a text file that must be distributed with your work.

From my experience however, textures copyright is unmanageable, everyone builds on other people work, sooner or later. Who takes care of license for a texture ?
So while the law is clear, it is not enforced on some specific things wich have been integrated in work/business culture.
In fact using textures/part from another work could also be interpreted as sampling, like in music, but am not sure, it would need some research.

Better stick to the law, and most of all, respect of other people work, specially in a small community.