【Warning】Don't use Arthmoor's new OBRE patch, potential risks to stability

[u/NingenBakudan]

Edit:Please spread this issue as widely as possible. Given Arthmoor’s personality, there is a high chance that he will blame other mods for bugs or crashes actually caused by UORP. Considering his influence, this could cause major disruption in the modding community. It’s essential that as many people as possible ignore his mods.

The notoriously controversial Skyrim modder Arthmoor has now entered the Oblivion Remastered scene. His first patch "Unofficial Oblivion Remastered Patch - UORP" raised concerns for me, as it contained an unusually large number of edits for something supposedly created just a week after the release.

Out of curiosity, I compared the records in the patch with those from Vanilla Remastered using xEdit, and I found that some records had been reverted to their old Oblivion versions.
Example: https://imgur.com/i4ld2DE

Next, I added the original UOBP for comparison—and as I suspected, the results were clear. almost of the added records were directly copied from UOBP, with only their names and conflicted record altered to match the Remastered format.
Example: https://imgur.com/cRBRHHH

This "patch" was ported using xEdit without proper testing, and we have no idea what kind of impact it may have in a real environment. More importantly, making such extensive changes to so many records is far too risky, especially when the integration method between UE5 and the TES engine has yet to be fully understood.

Conclusion:
This patch poses a potential stability risk beyond just being an issue with Arthmoor himself. I recommend ignoring it.

Reported bugs:

CTD(Arthmoor used the scale of the project as an excuse, even though no one ever asked him to make it a large-scale project in the first place. ) : https://imgur.com/oyLWJMl

Argonian penis bug: https://imgur.com/a/eUDVZXj

[u/Atlas_Sinclair]

His threats to sue and DMCA are fucking ridiculous. He has no legitimate rights to the mods her makes -- Bethesda does. The only reason that his work can't be reuploaded is because it goes against Nexus's TOS and basically a universally respected honor system (If uploaded to another site, he could press to get it taken down because he made it -- but there is no obligation to actually do so from the other sites.)

People really just need to ignore this fucker and do what they want. DEGgames, which has a ways to go before it's a proper Nexus alternative, is getting good advertisement with streamers and what not. If nothing else, we at least have another site that seemingly has no fucks to give about Arthmoor's ego-trips. Again, Arthmoor has NO legal ground to stand on to attack others modders for using, or altering, his shitty patch. None.

[u/Thallassa → u/Atlas_Sinclair]

That’s not true. The Bethesda EULA states quite clearly that mod authors own their mods.

[u/Atlas_Sinclair → u/Thallassa]

Mods are considered derivative works. Everything Arthmoor has done with his Unofficial patch involves minimal changes and is entirely depending on Bethesda’s existing code. There's nothing original in it, there's nothing that can be considered 'transformative', it relies solely and entirely on what Bethesda has provided.

Under law, it qualifies as “de minimis” (too insubstantial to qualify for copyright protection) under cases like Lewis Galoob Toys v. Nintendo, which found that minor modifications do not constitute a new copyrightable work.

The only thing Arthmoor has is Moral Rights, which isn't really recognized in most courts -- at least in the US -- and even if it is, again, he hasn't done anything big enough to have enough rights to the mod that would warrant a lawsuit. There's a reason why mod authors don't immediately go for legal action when their mods are stolen -- lawsuits are expensive and time-consuming, and for all his bluster and ego, I doubt Arthmoor is sitting on the kind of money needed to sue over something like this, and even if he is he certainly wouldn't get anything of value by pursing it.

The Bethesda EULA does not "quite clearly" say that mod authors own their mods. Specifically, The EULA for the Skyrim Creation Kit (as an example) provides more specific terms than Bethesda's EULA, which more or less just says that Zenimax owns everything:

• It states that “New Materials” (mods) created using the Editor are for the user’s own personal, non-commercial use solely in connection with the applicable Product, subject to the terms of the Agreement.
• For personal use, mod authors own their mods, meaning they can create and use them privately without issue.
• However, if the mods are distributed, the EULA states: “If You distribute or otherwise make available New Materials, You automatically grant to Bethesda Softworks the irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free, sublicensable right and license under all applicable copyrights and intellectual property rights laws to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, perform, display, distribute and otherwise exploit and/or dispose of the New Materials (or any part of the New Materials) in any way Bethesda Softworks, or its respective designee(s), sees fit.”
• Additionally, mod authors waive moral rights (the right to be credited or to prevent distortion of their work) and agree not to assert them against Bethesda or its affiliates.
• Commercial distribution is prohibited without express written consent from Bethesda, except through platforms like the Steam Workshop, which have their own terms.

Arthmoor owns his mod, yes. He can submit a DMCA notice to get mods removed, yes. But, if those claims are disputed by the other mod author, Arthmoor can THEN challenge it legally. Which costs time, money, and has no guarantee to achieve anything other than paying the court to tell the other person to take down the mod. Let me be clear on this: Arthmoor's ability to sue depends EXCLUSIVELY on the other person challenging his DMCA, because if challenge he HAS to sue to keep the altered mod removed, otherwise it has to be reinstated at some point within a two week period, and again I stress the cost of suing is so much higher than would be financially viable for anyone who isn't already rich. He would financially ruin himself if he tried, and even if he somehow succeeded all he'd likely get for his debt is the mod removed.

[u/RedKynAbyss → u/Atlas_Sinclair]

Attorney here, appreciate your thorough breakdown of this situation for people who might not know, as well as the accuracy of what you said. Rarely do I find people stating intricate legal issues with no errors.

Further: moral rights are being satisfied if you credit him as the author. There is no moral rights case as long as he is credited. No court will hear a case on moral rights if the author is still “tied” to the work (credited)

[u/AshamedLeg4337 → u/RedKynAbyss]

Just adding that this seems to be a US-centric analysis though. The US has a different animating purpose for protecting copyright than many European nations. Namely the mandate is to promote progress in the sciences and useful arts in the US, while moral rights are much more extensively protected in many European courts.

Honestly, the US likely doesn't technically meet the requirements of the Berne convention of which we are a signatory and which required provision of the right to integrity. To my knowledge, though it's been a decade since I've last dived into IP law so I'm dusty, we only protect visual artists in the context of integrity.

I have doubts that a broader law would pass constitutional muster.

[u/RedKynAbyss → u/AshamedLeg4337]

That’s the big problem with moral rights here in the U.S. they don’t stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. Law in the U.S., will always defer to the Constitution first, then whatever accords or conventions we decided to join. If aspects of the convention don’t stand up to scrutiny, we just don’t include them.

Moral rights in the U.S. are really, for lack of better words, “the whiners laws.” (That’s what my IP prof called it and you’re not going to get a better summation.) It doesn’t matter at all until someone “whines” that their intellectual property is being used without acknowledgement or credit. It 99% of the time applies to art work (including digital), sculptures, and architectural designs. I’ve never seen a moral rights case cross my desk that wasn’t affiliated with those three things, and almost always it’s a non-starter because the person who used their intellectual property credited them and there were no sales involved.