Why are app mods often illegal, but Chrome extensions are seemingly not?
<p>It seems that app mods, such as for games, are generally considered to be derivative works and thus <a href="https://odinlaw.com/who-owns-my-game-mod/#:%7E:text=At%20their%20core%2C%20game%20mods,created%20is%20likely%20copyright%20infringement." rel="nofollow noreferrer">illegal</a>. Chrome extensions, though, don't have the same reputation, even for the well-known extensions that modify all sites by default. Is this modified user experience on copyrighted sites not a derivative work? Vimium, for example, modifies the navigation experience and is enabled for all by sites by default. Grammarly, as another example, modifies text fields when a user is typing into them. Grammarly also makes a lot of money, which it seems like would open it up further to litigation.</p>
<p>How is it that distributing a mod of a copyrighted desktop app seems to be generally illegal, whereas distributing a Chrome extension that modifies copyrighted sites is not generally discussed as illegal?</p>

<h2>Because <a href="https://policies.google.com/terms" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Google</a> expressly allows it</h2>
<p>Even if a Chrome extension were a derivative work (which I’m not convinced they necessarily are), the copyright owner has allowed them.</p>

copyright intellectual-property software derivative-work