In this post, we want to clear up some common misconceptions about the Intellectual Property (IP) rights involved when making and publishing mods on the Arma Reforger Workshop. Specifically, what you can control and what you cannot. We want to preface this by saying that we generally strive for a friendly and supportive modding community that shares their ideas and skills to make the content they want. Every modder has, at some point, benefited from the work of others - be it tutorials and documentation or learning from already published mods. At the same time, we recognize that people are rightfully proud of their creations and expect that others respect their IP rights when using their work in any form. We try to make this process as straightforward as possible, giving people the technical means to offer their mods as they intend and avoiding the necessity for reuploaded content through easy mod management for servers and in-game. This post is mainly concerned with usage with good and valid intent. Blatant malicious actions such as theft are not tolerated - more about that topic at the end.
Legal notice: This post contains Bohemia Interactive's opinion and interpretation of law as at the time of publication and is for informational purposes only. It should not be construed as legal advice and should not replace consultation with specialized IP rights lawyers in case of a dispute over content published to the workshop. Furthermore, this post should also not be considered as an extension of our binding documents, especially the Arma Reforger Workshop Terms of Use. While we cite the relevant EU regulations and rulings where applicable at the time of publishing this post, these are meant for further reading on the subject matter and do not claim to be a full summary.
Workshop Licenses
Q: Can mod authors restrict who uses their mod?
A: As mentioned previously (https://reforger.armaplatform.com/news/eula-faq) this is not against the Arma Reforger Workshop terms. However, we may choose not to host mods on the workshop that are restricting players/servers due to ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. Discrimination is illegal in the EU (Directive 2000/43/EC).
Bohemia Interactive does not become a party in a licensing dispute as we are not a party to the licensing agreement between the mod author and end user(s). Therefore, we will not assist in the enforcement of licensing disputes. For example: We will not track servers using the mod for you and/or ban them from the server list for using a mod against your custom license. Permission to host the content for the general public is granted to us through the Terms of Use of the Arma Reforger Workshop, which all uploaders must agree to before publishing. If you want to make a mod that is specific to your server/clan, then we advise you to choose "Unlisted" visibility while publishing and mention "Use only authorized on NAME HERE servers" in the license/mod description. Note: Charging money for mod use is against relevant EULAs and the Terms of Use of the Arma Reforger Workshop.
Enforcing usage terms can only be done in a non-malicious way. The mod's features can be deactivated if used on a non-authorized server/player, but it cannot negatively affect their experience. It must be as if the mod was not loaded at all. Watermarks in the UI may be possible if they do not hinder the general game experience. If in doubt about whether and how certain enforcement techniques may be allowed, it is advised to contact us beforehand and get clearance, so as to avoid any administrative workshop action.
Q: Can a mod author control how the mod is allowed to be played via the license? For example, if they insist that the max speed of their vehicles may not be changed.
A: In short: Not really. There are many things modders can do to tweak the behavior of all content in the game (including what the licensed mod might offer), without the need to re-upload data in a way they need to seek permission (more on this specific topic of configs in the IP section below). So the mod author can not get another mod taken down simply because they overwrote the config for their vehicles. The mod author could try and go after the end users that load the licensed mod and the "unwanted altering mod" at the same time, but whether it can be enforced is questionable. We do not intend for modders to try and control the players' gameplay. We understand that an author might want people to experience the carefully crafted balancing they spent their time on, but in the end, Arma Reforger is a sandbox that allows players to try things out - not always within realistic limits. If the author can not accept the user's choice, then perhaps the mod should not be made available on the workshop at all.
Q: Can APL-ND mods be reuploaded?
A: Mods licensed under APL-ND can, in fact, be reuploaded. "reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part, [...] but not Share Adapted Material." The goal of the license is to protect an original work as a whole with the given credit. Additional mirrors of the content that credit their origin are intended. The license is a "public" license after all.
Please note that mods licensed under APL-ND cannot be re-uploaded under a different license, as that would restrict the rights granted to users by the original mod's author.
We understand that some people have interpreted the license as "No Derivatives & No Copies" and we might offer a license version for that in the future. If you want to ensure that your own workshop listing is the sole location to download the mod, and no other reuploads exist, then you may use a custom license to only grant minimal permissions required to be workshop compatible. An example could be: "This content is made available only for non-commercial end-use in ARMA games without permission to monetize it in any way. This content may not be shared or adapted in any way or form."
Note: We are in the process of updating our Arma Reforger Workshop Terms of Service and are considering clauses that prohibit plain re-uploads of mods, regardless of if the individual license may generally allow its redistribution. We already store multiple revisions of mods that people may refer to in their configs. Reuploading causes problems with not being updated, not being credited correctly, and wasting storage for everyone. This change would imply the common expectation of "No Copies" without needing individual license changes for all affected workshop items. If you want to act before such a change may be made, you are free to update the license in the meantime.
Q: I am an author of a mod. Can I choose to start using a different license for my mod after publishing it under a certain license?
A: You may switch to using a different license. Please be aware that switching to a different license will not automatically terminate previously granted licenses. If you published your mod on the Workshop, the new license must also comply with the Workshop Terms of Use.
Q: Can I delete my mod from the Workshop entirely to revoke the license agreement?
A: You may choose to delete your mod from the Workshop. However, if it was permissively licensed at any point before deletion (e.g. via APL), credited reuploads of those old versions could still be uploaded by other users. There is no way to revoke those permissions. Carefully choose what license you want to make your mod available under before the first-ever publication.
Intellectual Property
As a mod author, you might not only want to use and tweak the vanilla game content but also create something that involves mods from the workshop from other authors. The following section looks at your options if a mod you want to use as a dependency is licensed under terms that forbid the publication of derivatives (like APL-ND). To even be considered a derivative (meaning “Adapted Material” in the language of the APL), the mod would have to meet 2 conditions:
It must be derived from or based upon the Licensed Material; and
[...] the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor.
Scripts
For the examples below, the following code is assumed to be part of a licensed mod you want to use, and this mod is added to your project setup as a dependency.
class APL_ND_LicensedMod
{
int GetReasonOfLife()
{
/*
Many lines of code here to do the work
.
.
*/
return 42;
}
}API calls
class MyMod
{
void PrintReasonOfLife()
{
// Use the existing logic
int reason = APL_ND_LicensedMod.GetReasonOfLife();
Print(reason);
}
}Looking at the definition of Adapted Material, it’s true that its conditions could theoretically be interpreted to apply to calls made to Licensed Material. However, since the APL-ND makes reference to Copyright and Similar Rights, this might not always be the case. For a work to clearly be a derivative, the original protected work must still be present in some protectable form as part of the expression (mod) you want to publish.
In the example set out above, the only traces of the licensed mod contained are the reference to it in the project settings and the line to call one of the exposed script APIs. The dependency definition is just a short string of letters whose purpose is primarily of technical requirement, rather than the creative expression of the author, and thus not copyrightable. And even though the other strings "APL_ND_LicensedMod" and "GetReasonOfLife" might appear more specific, they are usually also not protectable on their own. Copyright under Directive 2009/24/EC protects the expression of a program, such as its source or object code, but does not extend to ideas, principles, or functional elements like class and method names, which are necessary for interoperability (Article 1(2)). For example, in SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Ltd. (C-406/10), the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that neither the functionality of software nor the programming language constitute a form of expression and therefore are not subject to copyright protection. EU copyright law provides certain exceptions when you are not required to get the author’s permission for accessing the software with the aim of achieving interoperability between your mod and the licensed mod (see Article 5(3) and Article 6(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC).
Sidenote: Questions of interoperability may be viewed differently outside of the EU. For example, the use of API calls may be considered fair use in the USA (see, for example, the ruling in Google v Oracle).
If a mod author does not want their script APIs to be used in such a way, it is suggested that they use “sealed” on their classes to block inheritance and the “modded” keyword on a technical level. Similarly, member variables and methods of such a class should be “private” or “protected.”
Inheritance
class MyMod : APL_ND_LicensedMod
{
void PrintReasonOfLife()
{
// Use of the base class logic
int reason = super.GetReasonOfLife();
Print(reason);
}
}For the same reasons as above, inheritance may not be considered Adapted Material. Even though the technical means are different, the kind of usage remains the same. Some might expect that because "MyMod" would not compile without the "APL_ND_LicensedMod" present, it builds upon it and thus is a derivative. This thought process is not unreasonable but leaves out the consideration of what "MyMod" is actually doing on a technical level. The same mod would also work if an entirely different, but compatible mod was offering the same methods under the same names. Because this interoperability is possible, and the only common ground is the programming language used (which neither author owns) the connection simply can not be made that "MyMod" must be a derivative of "APL_ND_LicensedMod" and would be forbidden from publishing.
Override Using Modded Keyword
modded class APL_ND_LicensedMod
{
override int GetReasonOfLife()
{
// Tweaking the method for all callers
return super.GetReasonOfLife() + 1;
}
}In addition, the modded keyword setup above may not require permission from the original author in all cases. This can effectively alter the behavior of the licensed mod when loaded together with other mods, but it does not alter its integrity when everything else is unloaded again - nor are parts of their copyrighted material reuploaded. The only connection to the original materials are the identifiers in the context of programming, which on their own cannot be protected. Regardless, we recommend evaluating how such a setup would affect the licensed mod’s functioning and, if appropriate, consulting with the authors themselves. Mod authors who do not wish for such possibilities may again use the proper keywords in their script definitions to disable modification on a technical level.
Copying Significant Portions of the Code
class Copy_Of_APL_ND_LicensedMod
{
int GetReasonOfLife()
{
/*
Nearly identical code to the original copyrighted work, but ever so slightly changed
.
.
*/
return 43;
}
}Taking the source code of the licensed mod, applying some change to it, as the examples before did, and then re-uploading the entire class/method with this change contained is creating an Adapted Material, and as such, would violate the APL-ND license. The specific version of the source code was protected. If you cannot tweak the behavior of the licensed mod without re-uploading significant parts of it, then you cannot do it without permission. The usage of the “modded” keyword allows data to be modified before or after calling the original (unless it was explicitly sealed). That should be sufficient for most cases. If you find yourself in a situation where you start to copy many lines of code, you are usually doing something wrong. If you found a change to improve the original mod, it would be better to contact them and offer them the fix to implement rather than uploading your own version without the necessary permission.
If the licensed mod uses a license that permits derivative works (sharing of Adapted Material), you still must comply with that license and give appropriate attribution to the source.
Sometimes, there are only a few ways possible to solve an issue because it requires certain method calls in a certain order. So not every "similarly looking code" might be an infringement. This has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Indicators like choosing the same uncommon variable names, code comments, or otherwise non-obvious formatting of code can indicate that something was simply stolen. We recommend that modders try to resolve it with the other author first, as often it's cleared up without much drama.
Config Formats
The modding of config formatted text files (for example .conf, .et, or .ct, .ent) is similar to scripts. Because of how "overrides" and "inheritance" work for mods, such files must not contain the full original to reference or change its data. For example, the config below tweaks a small setting inside a very large config. The only reference to some copyrighted material is the original path of the file and some of the structure of it. "MyMod" must again not contain the copyrighted material to be compatible with it - and again, the dependency mod it references is theoretically interchangeable. Permission may not usually be strictly required to make small changes like this, but we recommend evaluating each issue on a case-by-case basis.
SystemSettings : "{45C53F06BA17238D}configs/Systems/SystemsConfig.conf" {
Systems {
SCR_GarbageSystem "{5F10E7EA29B0EDEC}" {
ProcessingIterationsMax 128
}
}
}Binary Formats
Utilizing mod files such as models, sound, and textures generally requires the author’s permission. There is no way to transform these files in any way that would not require including at least a substantial part of the original file. There is one aspect that we want to highlight and explain in a bit more detail: Re-textures.
Re-textures
"Re-texturing" refers to the kind of modding activity where existing models get visually updated by creating new texture variants and applying those to the original meshes. The goal often is to add more color variants or add clan logos, decals, and patterns for "personalization." In the case that a minor portion of the texture was overlaid with other data, but overall, the original appearance is unchanged, there is no debate about it being a derivative. As such, these basic re-textures require permission from the author (e.g. through the license under which the content was published).
Speaking about Arma Reforger specifically, using official game data for re-textures is generally anticipated (Workshop Terms Section 2). So you can upload and share your re-textures of vanilla vehicles as long as such content remains within Arma Reforger and its Workshop and complies with the relevant terms. Please note that transferring our textures (in original form or edited to any other games, incl. A3, DayZ, etc.) is not permitted.
This is a bit more involved for content from other licensed mods. If the mod is under a restrictive license like APL-ND, a simple edit of the original texture will not usually be allowed. However, there is an argument to be made about creating new textures from scratch that are UV map compatible.
In the example below, we took an alarm clock and its UV-unwrapped texture and creatively re-imagined it (done by a programmer; no artists were involved in the making of this).
None of the original pixel data exists in the modified texture. The only thing they have in common is the rough layout of where what is because the model data for reading the texture does not change, and it should still be displayed correctly when loaded in the game. It cannot be determined with certainty whether the picture on the right was created from scratch with trial and error for the placement or painted on top of the middle picture. On its own, the new texture is an original creation and, without further context, does not infringe on any rights. The main question thus becomes if the arrangement of shapes itself could be copyrighted.
Generally, if a work has been realized as a result of technical considerations that do not allow any creative freedom of the author, it does not fulfill the condition of originality, and therefore, it is not copyrightable (see CJEU judgment, C-683/17, Cofemel). However, if the author has made their own original 3D model from scratch and then created the UV map from it (e.g. through an automatic tool in Blender), it would be the first step (3D model creation) that allowed the “creative freedom” of the author. The UV map itself would just be a different form of expression for the existing copyrightable work = the model. Therefore, if the model is copyrightable work (it is original and also an objective expression of creation), the UV map from that model would also be copyrightable. If the original model/UV map itself is copyrightable, then it could be argued that the retextured model should be considered a derivative (or Adapted Material in APL terms). In that sense, if the original model were released under APL-ND, then the author would be entitled to prohibit the sharing of a retexture.
At the same time, the purpose of the No Derivatives clause is to protect the original work. It could be argued that this protection cannot be interpreted extensively as restricting the creative process of other authors, who could be making their own artistic expressions that coincidentally (or at least not proven otherwise) match the UV layout. A full replacement of all pixel data would mean none of the original author's expression is contained in the files of "MyMod." The general idea of laying out a UV map (whether done via automation or optimized by hand) can not be copyrighted. Only the concrete expression of that idea can be (aka the original unwrapped texture).
In conclusion: It is our opinion that if there is no trace of the original data in a final re-texture, such re-texture would not be a derivative in itself. However, the vast majority of re-textures shared for our games are minor edits to the original, often changing only small parts, usually overlaying a few shapes transparently on top. This, along with the usually compact UV maps that leave little to no room for transformations, would make it immediately clear, even to a random person who is not involved in modding, that the two textures are "versions of each other." And even if a full replacement would be legally possible, we strongly suggest that you seek permission from the author who spent the time to make the model originally. This also means that a modder that publishes (e.g. a vehicle mod under APL-ND) should think about whether they pro-actively put a disclaimer in place to allow re-textures for their vehicles.
Handling of Violating Mods
If, after all the above information is considered, there is still a clear violation of IP rights, the author of the mod (AND ONLY THEY) can do the following things:
Use the in-game workshop report functionality
... or when more complex information needs to be communicated, send a takedown notice (e.g. DMCA format) to takedowns@bistudio.com
For either option, some basic information should be included:
What the supposed source of the content is (links or mod IDs are appreciated)
If via Email: The original author account username (Displayed on the top right in the game's main menu)
What exactly is the mod violating (excerpt from the supposed violating files for us to compare to the supposed original)
Was there any effort made to resolve the matter with the uploader?
Contact info (preferably email) for our workshop administration and legal team to get back to
Digital signature to authorize action to be taken ADDRESS, DATE, FULL LEGAL NAME
If we receive a valid report, it will be processed within seven (7) business days (usually less). At the very least, you will get an acknowledgment in case we require further information before we can take any action. Reports that do not remotely satisfy the requirements will be ignored. Reports about infringements of third-party rights will be ignored. Only the author has the authority to request us to take action. We know that not everyone is satisfied with the current speed and responsiveness in takedown procedures. We are in the process of optimizing our report handling to ensure every case is dealt with in due time.
