Law & mods

Hi everyone, I keep stumbling more and more over the question of how "safe" our mods actually are legally — especially for larger projects with custom assets or when you heavily overhaul existing games.

I’m curious: where do you personally draw the line? Strictly private use, or do you upload everything as long as no trouble arises? And how do you deal with things like third‑party textures, AI‑generated content, or reuploads? I have the feeling many people optimize technically down to the last detail, but legally it’s often a gray area 👀

For me it’s simple: if I didn’t create the assets myself or can’t find a clear permission/license for them, they don’t go into the release. “Nobody will notice” isn’t a license, unfortunately. I’m extra strict with reuploads — credits are nice, but they don’t substitute for consent.

Private hobby mods are a different matter, but as soon as you upload them, start making money via Patreon/ads, or use assets from other games, the grey area quickly becomes very dark. For AI-generated stuff I’d at least state transparently what it was created with and avoid imitating living artists. The platform rules of the respective game are also often more important than people think.

I would still distinguish between “legally allowed” and “tolerated by the rights holder.” Especially with large total conversions, many projects survive because the publisher looks the other way – that can work for years and still isn’t a reliable foundation. A clear modding SDK or a fan-content policy is worth its weight in gold, even if they often impose restrictions on monetization or external downloads.

For AI, the source of the training material is, for me, almost the harder issue than labeling. Transparency is right, but if I can’t trace what an asset is based on, I’d be reluctant to use it as a core component in a larger release. And reuploads without permission are particularly nasty, because they’re not only legally shaky but also steal the original modder’s control over updates and support.

I see it the same way: "tolerated is not the same as permitted." Especially when you spend months on a total conversion, it would suck if it got taken down because of a stolen tree asset or an unclear sound file. Better to keep a small license/source list early on, even for freebies — it really saves headaches later.

With AI I'd also check whether you can further edit the results and document the process in a traceable way. Not because that automatically makes everything legally secure, but at least you can show you didn't just upload something blindly. Clean mods are ultimately nicer for the community, in my opinion.

For larger mods, I’d almost make a small “release checklist”: sources/licenses, permitted use according to the game’s policy, marking AI components, and above all checking whether dependencies may be included. Nexus and Steam Workshop, in particular, have their own additional rules—technically, a mod can be okay and still get removed there.

And when using other people’s mods as a foundation: ask beforehand, even if the original author hasn’t been online for years. Credits alone may feel polite, but they don’t protect anyone. Do you use any tools or templates for your projects to document assets and licenses?

I actually keep a small `ASSETS.md` in the repo for this: file/asset, original author, source, license, modification status, and whether redistribution is allowed. This is especially important for sounds and fonts, since you can run into issues with those more quickly than with textures. I also save screenshots of the license page, because “free for personal use” on random asset sites can change pretty easily.

What I still find tricky is dependencies. When a mod manager automatically downloads libraries or frameworks, it’s often unclear whether they’re allowed in your own release or need to be installed separately. These days, I’d rather include just links and clear installation instructions. Has anyone ever had to replace assets in a published mod retroactively because of a license change?

When it comes to dependencies, I'm also more on Team “install separately” these days. Especially with DLLs, frameworks, or any kind of configuration files, it's easy to lose track of whether you're allowed to redistribute them. That's why I try to specify exactly which version is required in the README and link to the original source—it can also save you some support questions if needed.

What helped me as well: Before a release, do a “Clean Install” test in a fresh mod profile and compare the files with `ASSETS.md`. I once almost uploaded an old test texture because it was still somewhere in the build folder. Legally, that probably wouldn't have been the end of the world, but it would've been embarrassing and completely avoidable 😅

The clean-install test is a good point—I’d also create a “release package” outside the actual build folder before uploading. Otherwise, those old test files, debug logs, or original assets accidentally included in the package can easily slip in. For licenses, I save not only the link but also the status at the time of use, since websites and terms can change afterward; that doesn’t automatically make the use legally compliant, but it does at least make it traceable.

One thing I still find concerning: Some platforms don’t start a discussion when a takedown is requested—they remove the mod immediately. That’s why having a separate backup channel with version history would make sense—of course, only for files whose redistribution is genuinely allowed. How do you handle this in collaborations: is written consent in chat enough for you, or do you prefer to have usage rights explicitly confirmed in a small file?

Yes, exactly—platforms taking the “take it down first” approach is something you should factor in. That’s why, for larger releases, I’d always keep a private archive containing the old packages, license screenshots, and the respective commit—not to make excuses for everything, but so that, if necessary, you can trace what was included and when. And in the event of a takedown, it’s better to promptly remove the file in question rather than start a public debate over principles.

What I’m still missing is a clear approach to contributions from the community: If someone submits a texture pack or sound file, you should really get written permission to use it, including modification and redistribution rights. “Sure, feel free to use it” in Discord is just hard to attribute later 😅 Has anyone already got a simple template for this that doesn’t immediately sound like a 12-page contract?

For community contributions, I would always get the permission in writing and make sure it is specific: May the asset be modified, redistributed in the mod, and published on multiple platforms? A “feel free to use it” in Discord is much harder to verify later than a short text with the name, scope, and date. Ideally, such submissions should go straight into the `ASSETS.md` with an entry; otherwise, they can quickly get lost.

I would be extra cautious with AI assets: note the tool and model version used, keep the prompts/source data, and check whether the terms of use even allow redistribution. And if the origin of an image or sound cannot be properly documented, I leave it out – I would rather have a less spectacular asset than scramble after release to rip everything out of the mod.