All Trainz Content that has ever released has the right to remain publicly available who's with me?

tctrainz said:
this "Creator doesn't want their content redistributed" thing is complete bullshit there should not be any valid reason to remove already released trainz content if it was made publicly available at some then it must remain publicly available by moral obligation no matter what no ifs ands or buts you are actively erasing a part of trainz history if you remove already released trainz content
Click to expand...

That is precisely why those decisions are rightfully left to the original creator. It isn't up to you what others do with their own creations. if they choose to share them great. if they decide not to at some point, you should be able to accept that and find or make a replacement. full stop. It is simply not your call.

tctrainz said:
I mean why would you want to erase a part of your legacy from existence it just seems counterproductive to me we cannot allow future generations to denied of Trainz Content no matter how old it is period
Click to expand...

It would be far more counterproductive to think you can determine what an author does with their own work. This kind of attitude especially if enacted in any way would be a creation deterrent. There would be fewer items created at all if indefinite distribution were mandatory. Then there are support issues and functionality questions that already cause problems as they are when a creator decides to move on from trainz.

Good luck
 
pware said:
I did a search for assets created by user tctrainz (id: 248438). Found none on the DLS
Click to expand...
tctrainz said:
https://sites.google.com/view/mannco-tf2s-thomas-content/home/my-content You can find all that on my site :)
Click to expand...
If you believe that all assets should be public domain then why have you not uploaded any of your work to the DLS where they will be more readily available to the Trainz public instead of having to search for web sites that may not be in existence for very long?
 
norfolksouthern37 said:
That is precisely why those decisions are rightfully left to the original creator. It isn't up to you what others do with their own creations. if they choose to share them great. if they decide not to at some point, you should be able to accept that and find or make a replacement. full stop. It is simply not your call.



It would be far more counterproductive to think you can determine what an author does with their own work. This kind of attitude especially if enacted in any way would be a creation deterrent. There would be fewer items created at all if indefinite distribution were mandatory. Then there are support issues and functionality questions that already cause problems as they are when a creator decides to move on from trainz.

Good luck
Click to expand...
I have 2 thing to say
1:
https://archive.org/details/vanishing-culture-report https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/29/opinion_column_better_digital_archives_needed/ may this stuff remind you of why it's important to preserve trainz content and why deleting already released trainz content is a bad idea
2: I honestly don't think that rereleasing forgotten trainz assets would deter trainz creators that much. progress should never have to come at the expense of erasing history
 
(self appointed) Trainz historian here. Whilst tc"i like blue funny choo choo"trainz here is on (to) something, i do support that creators should be incharge of their items. Landrvr1 was a generous man keeping his items in circulation via our community. Looking for lost content? Better make use of the internet archive if the site is now just a "burning memory".
 
I agree that preserving creative works (including TTTE) is important and once the copyright has expired it should be freely available for all to use but with an obvious exception.

Beethoven's symphonies, for example, are now out of copyright so any orchestra can now play them without restrictions but that does not mean you can freely distribute a recent recording of his 9th as played by the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra as the copyright of that recording is owned by the Berlin Philharmonic.

Putting this in Trainz terms: assuming copyright is for 20 years (but that will vary between countries - 50 years applies in some places) then any assets created in 2002 are now out of copyright and can be used without restrictions. If a creator modifies one of those assets, say replaces the original bitmapped textures with PBR textures of her/his own creation, then that creator now owns the copyright on that particular version of the original asset. If he/she used PBR textures created by someone else then the situation is not as clear-cut.
tctrainz said:
I honestly don't think that rereleasing forgotten trainz assets would deter trainz creators that much.
Click to expand...
That is your opinion and you may well be correct but based on what evidence?
 
pware said:
Putting this in Trainz terms: assuming copyright is for 20 years (but that will vary between countries - 50 years applies in some places) then any assets created in 2002 are now out of copyright and can be used without restrictions.
Click to expand...
Very interesting point! Does the copyright term apply for the country in which the author created the asset or for Australia where the asset was uploaded to the game (ie. 'published' to the internet)? If 20 years applies, does that mean assets uploaded before 12th March 2005 (as I write) can now be reused without permission to the original authors? As the years go by, this could become very interesting for those of us who like to reuse assets!
 
Paulsw2 said:
Does the copyright term apply for the country in which the author created the asset or for Australia where the asset was uploaded to the game (ie. 'published' to the internet)?
Click to expand...
Countries that have signed the Berne Convention on Copyright have agreed to extend to creators in other countries the same copyright that covers their own citizens.

So, if a country has its copyright protection expire 25 years after the creation (or registering) of a work or intellectual property then the same protection (25 years) applies to all works imported into the country, even if the original country has a different copyright period. So it is possible that the same work can be protected for 25 years in some countries, and 30 years or 50 years in other countries.
 
Last edited:
pware said:
Countries that have signed the Berne Convention on Copyright have agreed to extend to creators in other countries the same copyright that covers their own citizens.

So, if a country has its copyright protection expire 25 years after the creation (or registering) of a work or intellectual property then the same protection (25 years) applies to all works imported into the country, even if the original country has a different copyright period. So it is possible that the same work can be protected for 25 years in some countries, and 30 years or 50 years in other countries.
Click to expand...
I thought it tends to run from the death of the creator, not from the time of creation?

UK copyright
 
grazlash said:
Australian copyright is 70 years after the death of the creator, I do not know of any exceptions to make the term shorter.
Click to expand...
In general that is correct but there are a few exceptions. Broadcast material (e.g. sporting events), for example, if they were made before 1 May 1969 (when a new law was passed) are now in the "Public Domain" but those made since then have an expiry of 50 years from the date of the first broadcast.

There is a document on the complexities of Australian Copyright laws at https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/dimoacc/factsheets/INFO023.pdf?t=2410112406
 
pware said:
In general that is correct but there are a few exceptions. Broadcast material (e.g. sporting events), for example, if they were made before 1 May 1969 (when a new law was passed) are now in the "Public Domain" but those made since then have an expiry of 50 years from the date of the first broadcast.

There is a document on the complexities of Australian Copyright laws at https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/dimoacc/factsheets/INFO023.pdf?t=2410112406
Click to expand...
This is similar, if not the same as in the US. Copyrights can be renewed by families, publishers, and others associated with the works. In case of printed works, such as sheet music and books, the editor and their family can also put a copyright hold on the work. I'm not sure how this applies to digital works because that's a whole new realm. AI content-creation brings in a whole new world with the AI "acquiring" artwork for manipulation, companies such as Adobe have gotten in trouble for doing this and had to put in restrictions on it.
 
How about this, are Elvis recordings still copyrighted even though he passed away in August 1977? I guess they are. But there are cases like bendorsey who passed away and now all of his stuff is in the public domain I believe. You don't need to ask anyone permission to repaint, modify, and upload his stuff.
 
If the US law is the same as here (and I don't know the answer to that) then Elvis's family owns the copyright until August 2047.

In the case of Bendorsy I have reskinned or remodelled some of his assets but I always asked and received his permission first. The config.txt files of his assets (the one that I checked) contain a license tag

license "This item is offered free of charge for your enjoyment. It may not be sold or used in any commercial venture. It may be re-skinned for your personal use."
Click to expand...

This applies to personal use only, not to uploading a remod or reskin to the DLS. So I would guess that his family owns the copyright until the statutory period expires.
 
rwk said:
How about this, are Elvis recordings still copyrighted even though he passed away in August 1977? I guess they are. But there are cases like bendorsey who passed away and now all of his stuff is in the public domain I believe. You don't need to ask anyone permission to repaint, modify, and upload his stuff.
Click to expand...
And I believe it isn't in the public domain whatever that is just because he died.

Cheerio John
 
I am amazed at how many ancient writings can be purchased on amazon or thrift book sites, but you still can't find them on public domain sites. Even though some of these writings are over a thousand years old, someone apparently still holds rights to it.
 
Forester1 said:
Even though some of these writings are over a thousand years old, someone apparently still holds rights to it.
Click to expand...
My interpretation of that would be:-
  • if the purchased document contains a translation of the original text into a modern language (e.g. English) then copyright applies to the translation and is owned by the translator.
  • if the purchased document contains an image or a written transcription (in the original glyphs, cuneiform, etc) of the original manuscript (which would be likely) then copyright applies to that image or transcription and is owned by the photographer or transcription artist.
Addendum: I would suspect that the reason why ancient manuscripts are not on "public domain" sites is that they would have to include an image of the original and/or a translation. Both would involve copyright.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top