Using assets from other missions

[DeTeEff]

Lately I have started to play some of the more recent missions and some of these have lots of "own"/unique textures.

Is it okay to use these assets (from released FMs) in one's own FMs? I'm referring to models/textures and sound etc, of course not chunks of the mission geometry or blatant plagiarism of readables etc.

I guess some people have designed or bought assets for themselves but is it okay to use these textures/models as long as there is no explicit note in a readme etc, that opposes such "borrowing"?

[Frost_Salamander]

Others can chime in, but it's probably best to check with the author to be on the safe side.

A central asset repository outside of core TDM is something we've never really tackled.  Having said that, I put stuff here when people ask or if I pester them to allow me to: https://github.com/orgs/thedarkmodcommunity/repositories

A good example is the paintings and tapestries from Amadeus and Wellingtoncrab: https://github.com/thedarkmodcommunity/cc0-paintings-tapestries/releases/tag/v1.0.0

[Amadeus]

The first step would definitely be to reach out to the mission author first. Some authors are really good about labelling licensing information on assets they use, but sometimes that's not always the case, so it would be up to you to check the asset yourself. Best practice is simply just to ask. If there is something that is labeled Creative Commons 0 or Public Domain, you're in the clear

[Bikerdude]

On 1/1/2026 at 12:15 AM, Amadeus said:

The first step would definitely be to reach out to the mission author first. Some authors are really good about labelling licensing information on assets they use.

+1 - I make a point of making sure all the custom sounds, textures etc are CC licences or compatible.

And I think I have also said I don't have a problem with other members of our community using stuff I have created, just credit me in the readme, and or hit me up via PM or via discord.

[demagogue]

Edit: Given the challenge from Wellington Crab below and looking at the license, I'm going to change this post. I'm putting my original post, which I'm now deleting, on a Google Doc here for reference, so you know what he's talking about. But I'll disown it now under scrutiny. I think some of the same points will come through, but they have to be put in the correct context with the TDM license as the baseline.

The main question is what to do as a default when the potential re-user doesn't know the status of an asset. But to talk about that, you first have to talk about the baseline of the license. 

So here's the relevant TDM license text.

Quote

Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all maps, textures, models, def files, audio
assets, and all other non-software components that are distributed with The Dark Mod
are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0
Unported license, as specified at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode
and described at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Any missions downloaded through the ingame downloader, the TDM website or external
sources are the property of their respective authors, and different licensing may apply.
Without explicit permission from the mission authors, you may not redistribute, modify
or reuse (parts of) these missions or the assets contained within them.

The following textures are licensed from cgtextures.com. These images may not be
redistributed by default, please visit www.cgtextures.com for more information:

So clearly if the author makes a different license explicit in their FM, then that other explicit license will apply. That's the baseline. It also adds this extra clause which goes beyond CC, "Without explicit permission from the mission authors, you may not redistribute, modify or reuse (parts of) these missions or the assets contained within them." This means FM assets are under a stricter license than the CC license mentioned above, with this extra clause. That also creates the default, if you have no information or unclear information, don't use the assets. 

This may add some practical complications in some cases when, e.g., if the author is using assets from a 3rd source and they mistakenly misrepresent the license (they think it's redistributable when it's really not), or if the author has made statements where it's a little ambiguous about when it can be redistributed, it's a partial statement (the default should probably be assume it's no unless very explicit though). 

I would say practically speaking, a lot of these issues can be addressed by asking the author directly for permission and getting explicit permission, or if they've made some explicit statement in their readme or a post or somewhere giving explicit permission, and if you can't find that explicit statement, it's all around best to not use the asset and just use some replacement that you know 100% is in the clear. 

The catch still hanging is when the asset is represented as redistributable when it really isn't. (The original mapper thought it was, but they made a mistake.) In that case, I think it's worth the mapper that wants to use it to do a little of their own due diligence to confirm that it's really redistributable, and again if it's not 100% clear, if there's any hints it might not be, it's best to not use it and use one you know is 100% clear to redistribute. 

Edit: Okay I guess there are a few more little technicalities. Because of the new clause, one could argue if the CC additions also still attach, especially Share Alike and Attribution (SA: you shouldn't change the license when you redistribute it, and A: you should give attribution in your readme). I think these may be implied, but even if it's unclear, it's common courtesy to do that anyway, and Share Alike probably includes that you have to get permission from the original author, not the redistributor, or if they modify it, both. Just try to be in good faith & respect everyone involved. 

Another possible little technicality is one might try to distinguish old FMs before the new clause and new ones after (do the old FMs also get the new clause), but anyway aside from the license, it's also probably fair to say it's TDM policy, so it's good to apply it to all FMs no matter what. 

[Wellingtoncrab]

@demagoguea lot of that information is incorrect frankly. FM authors do not have to adhere to the license structure of the base game within their fms, nor does the base games license get applied to assets within an fm package. They obviously *do* need to have the legal right to use the asset in the project - or they run the risk it will not be available from the mission download server.

Assets within the base game are not exclusively CC-BY-NC-SA either. Many of them are licensed - you can see these are specified within license.txt.

[demagogue]

I'm just looking at the language of the TDM license. (I'm quoting it above, so here I'll just link to it.) I'll change my above post to point to this, since this is the baseline one should start with. There are still some complications one could talk about, but this is the starting point. I'll try to think through it in my above post.

Long story short you're right, and I'll change my whole post above to reflect that.