For anyone interested, the actual version of Daggerfall Unity is available here:

https://github.com/Interkarma/daggerfall-unity/releases/latest

Installation instructions ( in case you need them ) You could provide an archived source code as a game extra.

That's a very confused article.

Derivative works are protected too, as long as they are sufficiently original.

Whether the derivative work infringes on the copyright of the original work is a separate question. If a modder makes a derivative work without permission, they may be infringing, but that does not mean the modder's own contributios are "free for all."

The linked article claims that mods are ineligible for copyright protections, but the linked Micro Star vs FormGen case which is supposed to justify this position does not actually address whether Micro Star's mod (or parts of thereof) is copyrighted and owned by Micro Star; it only addresses whether Micro Star infringes on FormGen's copyright. Typical low-effort corporate blogspam from someone trying to sell a service.

And legal; that's an important point.
Copyright doesn't attach to unlawful works.

Micro Star v. FormGen Inc. ruled that Micro Star infringed on FormGen's copyright by distributing the mods, but also categorized them as not-fair-use derivative works.

To the extend a given mod would be considered by a court a derivative work and not fair use, as Micro Star's, and hasn't been somehow allowed by the copyright owner of the original work, it is not lawful and therefore cannot claim any copyright on its own, however original the mod is.
The question then becomes: is it a derivative work, and if so is its distribution fair use?

That's my understanding at least, not being anything close to a copyright lawyer.

Obviously ;)
Quite the opposite actually in this case, as, even in the case where the mod as published by the original modder would be considered fair use, it most certainly wouldn't be in the case of GOG clearly commercial distribution.

I think there might be a little misunderstanding here.

The lawful works requirement refers to the derivative work as a whole. What it is saying is that if you make an illegal derivative, you do *not* get the right to copy that derivative work.

However, your own contributions to that derivative work are still protected by copyright. (As the quoted circular 14 states: copyright protection will not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully, but it does not say that copyright protection is void for the added parts that constitute original authorship.)

This distinction is important:

1. a modder is in many cases producing illegal derivatives which they have no right to distribute

2. however, the modder's own contributions are still protected by copyright, which means others may also not distribute the mod without the modder's permission

As a concrete example, if I make an original piece of music, it is without any doubt protected by copyright.

Now I might make a mod which uses said music as the background music on a certain level. The mod as a whole might be an illegal derivative, which means I may not distribute it (i.e. copyright does not protect my right to copy material which I had no premission to copy to begin with). However, the music (and any original levels, textures, models, etc. I made) are still without any doubt owned by me and protected by copyright. Thus, nobody else can distribute the mod either. Putting some original material I made (or someone else made and let me use) into a mod does not void copyrights on that material. This is what paladin181 means when they say "[mods] literally ALL have copyright protection unless it is explicitly waived," and this is also what I meant when I said derivative works are protected too: you (or GOG) don't get to copy it without the modder's permission.

For example: Pixelmon.
Minecraft Mod? Good, fine, dandy.
Minecraft mod using someone's trademarked items? Less good. Some companies are tolerate in the "look the other way sense".
Making money off said mod that uses trademarked or copywritten material? That's a very good way to get sued, quickly.

You're right that the original parts of a derivative work, containing otherwise unlawful (because previously copyrighted) parts, are copyrightable.
I guess the "misunderstanding" was that my previous messages seemed to imply that all parts of a derivative work containing even a small unlawful independent part would not be protected by copyright?

Anyhow, copyright still only applies to non-infringing parts of the work.
In the case of Daggerfall Unity, I guess every single part is a derivative of the original work.
For the mods that would create something we could consider original, say, a new village, quest, item, etc, I guess it'd be akin to Micro Star v. FormGen Inc. where the story would be considered an (infringing) sequel; whether each added element would be copyrightable on its own then would depend on how "intertwined" to the story, or to the copyrighted IP, it would be considered.

Yes, as long as they're entirely original (or lawful derivative works).
If the music is, for example, a reorchestration of the theme of the original copyrighted theme, it can't be copyrighted.
Most mods, but not all obviously, are likely to have few fully original elements.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying.

For anyone interested, resources I found about this very case:
* §507.2 The Scope of the Copyright in a Derivative Work
* §313.6(B) Unlawful Use of Preexisting Material in a Derivative Work, a Compilation, or a Collective Work
* SECTION 103. COMPILATIONS AND DERIVATIVE WORKS

The removed modpack was published without Interkarma's involvement. He repeatedly stated that people should not download it, as the creator (a random YouTuber) clearly disregarded his vision for the project and had no understanding of modding a Unity-based game.

Which honestly, should be ignored. Mods are cool, modders are great, but this formalisation of modding that's happened in the last 10 years is ridiculous. No one cared about this back in the day, and frankly...modders were just happy to have their mods used. Now we legitimately have people thinking that mods are protected by copyright which is such nonsense...

Mods should be freely distributed without any need or care for what the mod creator has to say. Accreditation is a nicety, nothing more.

Indeed.
Could already be lined up for the next round of GOGMods releases.

Mods are, by default, protected by copyright.

Any original work created by a human is eligible for protection, regardless of the form it takes. This includes derivative work as long as there is enough alteration, which mods typically are. Creators who want to protect their mods are legally entitled to do so and have the right to control where their work is distributed. This is a legal fact, regardless of what your personal feelings on the matter is.

They'd need to thus go through a legal process for actual copyright protection .. Which I highly doubt that many mod creator has and even then most mods use either assets from a game that's copyrighted or use imagery and brands that are copyrighted by another in such a way they'd need to go through a grueling legal process to actually prove they deserve copyright and that they aren't infringing on another's copyright

So ya maybe technically they have the right.. But they need to go through alot of legal channels that can be quite time consuming and costly .. Plus if they aren't careful can themselves get into legal trouble for the mods and such they are trying to copyright

Back in the days there was also a practice of burning CDs filled with mods and maps downloaded from the internet for popular games for a quick buck. And since everyone was happy about it, such CDs were affectionately called shovelware.

The actual copyright protection you speak of consists of putting - Copyright (C) *insert year here* *insert name of copyright holder here* and that is sufficient in the US to protect your work.

As long as your copyright posting can be shown to be before the copyright was infringed, like let's say I have a song that was copywritten in 2012 and I hear it in a commercial - I could go after the commercial firm and the company selling the product for copyright infringement here in the US. Would I? Doubtful, nobody gives a rat's ass who I am. But I could, and I could win if I prove I hold the copyright from before their use of it.

This works not just with songs, but with other IP such as novels, poetry, short stories, and yes, even digital works. You don't have a special copyright filing you have to pay for - you literally just type that it's copyright protected by you.

EDIT: Trademarks are the ones you have to file for.

You need to file for copyright proper or else you have no legal standing .. there is literal cases in movie history that do to not filing a copyright and/or trademark proper led to a big company having no legal rights to a film they made at all.. there is other cases too where do to copyright not done in a country lead to loss of it aswell and then their is not enforcing it leading to loss of it... then their is not renewing it aswell

I've published both books and music, and own the copyrights to both. I did not have to file with the copyright office. I can't speak for movies, but I assume mods are similar to music.

Unless copyright law has changed in the last 10 years, you literally just need to add it at the bottom to claim legal rights to it first.

Also I specifically said US, not worldwide.