Copyright and Licencing of Assets.

[iannz]

Hi All,
I was editing a tunnel asset made by Auran (just changing the track to the track Im using in my layout), all fine, then I went to edit a similar styled one which turns out is from a different author and noticed lines and lines of copyright blurb.

The 2 config files are identical line for line and word for word (apart from the copyright blurb), same attached track, even the mesh files have the same names etc.

I have to admit, I'm pretty new to getting in and modifying things and understanding the way assets are made up. but to me it looks like it has had a new texture and that's it and as a result this author is calling it his/her own.

Part of the blurb reads.

No aliases, no reskinning, no other modifications of this creation by anyone WITHOUT the written consent by the author, that is me, ____________________.
The use of any of my original textures and meshes used with my creations is strictly prohibited without my written consent. Breaches WILL BE prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and reported as well to N3V Games.

So, Im not a detective, but whats the chance your config file is the same as Auran's asset (which doesn't contain any copyright info), line for line and your mesh names are exactly the same?

And if all that has happened is that it has been reskinned, when can you call it your own and add your own copyright rules to it?

Personally, anything I edit is for my own use and pleasure on my layout and wont be uploaded because I consider its not mine to do so (as much as I would love to share the items that I have modified/fixed with the community). And even if I did have permission to modify and upload something from the author, I wouldn't do so without crediting the original author. But that's just me.

What's the general rule and code of ethics regarding content and modifying etc. and calling it your own?

Cheers
Ian

 

[SailorDan]

Personally, anything I edit is for my own use and pleasure on my layout and wont be uploaded

... then you can ignore the copyright notice.

A modified item is copyrightable if the modification creates a new work. What degree of modification is required in order for the asset to be considered a new work for copyright purposes is pretty much unanswerable until the copyright owner takes the matter to court. There are all sorts of guidelines, but they are applicable in particular circumstances, and usually difficult to apply to Trainz assets.

The only Auran guideline I am aware of is that an asset will infringe copyright if it contains "any 3D meshes or textures created or distributed by Auran that have not been substantially modified" which implies that both the mesh and the textures can be derived from the original, but must have some modification.

To highlight the question, consider that for a traincar the mesh is the critical portion of the asset but for a tunnel the mesh is usually trivial and the skinning is what distinguishes different assets. Does that mean that reskinning a traincar does not create a new work, but reskinning a tunnel does?

 

[KingConrail76]

... then you can ignore the copyright notice.

A modified item is copyrightable if the modification creates a new work. What degree of modification is required in order for the asset to be considered a new work for copyright purposes is pretty much unanswerable until the copyright owner takes the matter to court. There are all sorts of guidelines, but they are applicable in particular circumstances, and usually difficult to apply to Trainz assets.

Not true. In the United States, it is 20% deviation in all aspects to make a derivative work Copyrightable by the secondary Author. Very clear cut.

... The only Auran guideline I am aware of is that an asset will infringe copyright if it contains "any 3D meshes or textures created or distributed by Auran that have not been substantially modified" which implies that both the mesh and the textures can be derived from the original, but must have some modification.

This "Auran" (Actually written by Auran before N3V) legal jargon refers to uploading the exact same object as the original to the DLS under your own KUID number. Typical "repaints" of rolling stock for example, do not need to have the Mesh files modified to "pass the test" of that Rule. The original intent was aimed at the assets that Auran provided in a format useable in a 3D Modeling suite, that were intended to help teach asset creation by giving you a finished product to disect. Assets downloaded from the DLS can not have their Mesh files altered without special software, and a whole lot of knowledge, skill and effort.

... To highlight the question, consider that for a traincar the mesh is the critical portion of the asset but for a tunnel the mesh is usually trivial and the skinning is what distinguishes different assets. Does that mean that reskinning a traincar does not create a new work, but reskinning a tunnel does?

This is a ridiculous statement. Neither item would exist without the Mesh file AND the Texture file. And both items can and should be treated equally, in terms of 3D Modeling and the use of Textures to add details that will help in reducing the overall polygon count. Take for example a 100 car train of highly detailed rail cars, which will have a much greater impact on Computer performance, than a 100 car train of moderately detailed rail cars with superior texture quality. Having 5 or 6 HIGHLY detailed tunnels on a Route on the other hand, will have a far lesser impact on total Computer performance than having 5 or 6 minimally detailed tunnels, with superior textures.

 

[KingConrail76]

Hi All,
I was editing a tunnel asset made by Auran (just changing the track to the track Im using in my layout), all fine, then I went to edit a similar styled one which turns out is from a different author and noticed lines and lines of copyright blurb.

The 2 config files are identical line for line and word for word (apart from the copyright blurb), same attached track, even the mesh files have the same names etc.

.. snip..

What's the general rule and code of ethics regarding content and modifying etc. and calling it your own?

Cheers
Ian

Answering your last question first: If you didn't create it from scratch, it isn't yours. Period. any modification of someone else's work is called a "derivative", and must be substantially (20% in the USA) different from the original before you can claim Rights to your "derivative" of their work.

With regards to the first part of your post, I'd be curious to know which one was created FIRST. Did Auran/N3V take someone's work, and remove the disclaimer, repaint it and call it their own, OR, Did someone take an Auran/N3V asset, repaint it, and illegally lay claim to it, with an un-enforceable, and down right silly EULA. ??

Additionally, anything uploaded to the DLS is done so in agreement of the current N3V licensing agreement, which gives N3V an unlimited exclusive license to do whatever they wish with your content, without your further knowledge or permission. This would apply to the first scenario, where the Original Author uploaded a Tunnel asset, with that silly and un-enforceable EULA, which they agreed to allow N3V an exception to by agreeing to the Upload Policy. N3V in their full legal Right, may have then removed the silly EULA, and released it under their own EULA.

 

[SailorDan]

Not true. In the United States, it is 20% deviation in all aspects to make a derivative work Copyrightable by the secondary Author. Very clear cut.

I don't know where you got that from, but quoting a figure for an amount of change to a mesh or an image makes no sense. I could change the RGBA values of 100% of the pixels in an image and the difference would be indistinguishable. I could translate a mesh so that every single vertex was different, but it would still be the same mesh.

And I wasn't talking about derivative works - that's a different topic altogether.

This "Auran" (Actually written by Auran before N3V) legal jargon refers to uploading the exact same object as the original to the DLS under your own KUID number. Typical "repaints" of rolling stock for example, do not need to have the Mesh files modified to "pass the test" of that Rule. The original intent was aimed at the assets that Auran provided in a format useable in a 3D Modeling suite, that were intended to help teach asset creation by giving you a finished product to dissect.

It actually refers to uploading a modified version of the asset, because you can't upload it under your own KUID if you haven't modified it. It gives a bit of guidance as to what changes are required as a minimum. If you know of some additional comments that might help clarify things then by all means post them, but note that the reason for making the original comment is irrelevant. Only the actual comment means anything.

Assets downloaded from the DLS can not have their Mesh files altered without special software, and a whole lot of knowledge, skill and effort.

So what? The amount of skill or effort required, or the use of special tools, has no effect on determining whether or not the changed work is infringing or not. The decision is based entirely on how different it is from the original.

This is a ridiculous statement. Neither item would exist without the Mesh file AND the Texture file. And both items can and should be treated equally, in terms of 3D Modeling and the use of Textures to add details that will help in reducing the overall polygon count.

You are making an assumption about where the copyright resides. The meshes, the images, config.txt and the complete asset are separately coyrightable. Whether or not each item makes sense on its own, or whether or not you need all items to make a complete asset, is quite irrelevant.

Take for example a 100 car train of highly detailed rail cars, which will have a much greater impact on Computer performance, than a 100 car train of moderately detailed rail cars with superior texture quality. Having 5 or 6 HIGHLY detailed tunnels on a Route on the other hand, will have a far lesser impact on total Computer performance than having 5 or 6 minimally detailed tunnels, with superior textures.

I can't figure the point you are trying to make with that comment but I don't think it has anything to do with trying to assess how much as asset has to be changed without being an infringing copy.

 

[mjolnir]

Friends,

One thing to keep in mind with respect to intellectual property (in the case of Trainz, primarily related to copyright) is that there may be several different answers given by members of the Trainz community, and they might all be right because the persons offering the different answers live in different copyright jurisdictions, and the laws between the two do not agree. This is further complicated by jurisdictional questions. Suppose an asset made and uploaded to the DLS by a Trainzer in the UK, is downloaded by a Trainzer in New Zealand. Where does the copyright reside? The UK? NZ? USA?

"Wait", you exclaim, "how does the USA possibly come into play here?" Because the DLS is (or at least was, last time I knew for certain) hosted by Softlayer (formerly known as "the Planet"), which is domiciled in the USA. Further, there are issues of enforceability. I deal in my "day job" with a law firm which is involved in Intellectual Property law, and one time when making a pick up I asked about enforceability of a copyright infringement in the US. First of all, it is a requirement in order to pursue a case of infringement in the US that the copyright must have been registered. According to copyright circular 1, without registration, there is no enforceability in the US courts. Next there's a little matter of representation. The law firm I deal with would requirement of a retainer in the amount of USD 25,000, and if the case went to trial, would require an additional trial retainer of US $100,000. As far as registration is concerned, when I last looked, I could not find a single Trainz creator who had registered any content.

We as a community have self policed ourselves, and I expect this will continue to be the case.

ns

 

[ColPrice2002]

Hi,
Just to add to the above post:-

Within English law copyright is automatic I.e. there is no need to register it, the author/creator gains copyright as soon as the item is created.

The difficult part, legally, is proving the date of creation...
I believe that EU legislation is harmonising national laws, but this takes time..

(I use "English law" rather than "UK" because both Scotland and N Ireland have their own legislative powers...)
regards to all

Colin

 

[mjolnir]

Colin, it is also true in the US that copyright is automatic from the date of creation. However, in the US, having the copyright, and enforcing the copyright are separate issues. In the US, while the copyright exists from the time the protected property is created, in order to enforce a copyright in the courts requires that the copyright first be registered.

But there are also separate issues regarding exactly what is copyrightable, and what is not. These things vary, too, from one jurisdiction to another.

ns

 

[pcas1986]

... but whats the chance your config file is the same as Auran's asset (which doesn't contain any copyright info), line for line and your mesh names are exactly the same?

...

Given that the tags must, by definition, be similar, I would have thought the odds would be very high. Likewise, the IM would very likely be called "tunnel.im".

What's the general rule and code of ethics regarding content and modifying etc. and calling it your own?

Cheers
Ian

(statement deleted. see next post)

I cannot imagine that N3V/Auran would bother taking someone's asset, removing the copyright notice and distributing it as their own. They don't need to as the uploader has already given them permission as mentioned.

Some of these "copyright notices" are almost farcical. The only copyright notice I might use, if I choose to use one, is this. It basically means that you can use my stuff for any purpose, including commercial, providing I am acknowledged as the author. Given the amount of help I have received from numerous sources, including these forums, I usually try to acknowledge others in my asset description.

 

[pcas1986]

While installing T:ANE CE-1 today, I noticed the copyright notice looked a little different so I pasted it into an editor. This section seems to address the original questions:

5    Authorised Use of the Software


5.1    The rights granted to you under clause 4 are subject to the following authorized uses of the Software.


5.2    Certain of the Trainz Modules and accompanying editors and exporters allow you to create your own assets for use by the Software by either:


(a)    creating a completely new artistic work; or


(b)    modifying an existing asset provided by N3V or a third party.


5.3    In the case of 5.2(a) above, you can distribute (for free or for payment) such works as you see fit with no requirement to seek N3V's approval or consent provided that you will cease to distribute such works as N3V reasonably considers are not new works.


5.4    In the case of 5.2(b) above, you can only distribute (for free or for payment) those works that are reasonably considered to be substantially different to the original work on which the new work is based. In the event of a dispute over what is considered to be 'substantially different', N3V's decision is final.


5.5    If you submit a work to the Download Station, N3V may, in its absolute discretion, choose to include a work that you have created under the terms of Clause 5.2 (a) and 5.2 (b) in a product it distributes (for free or for payment). If N3V includes a work you have created in a product it distributes, it will place your name in the credits for the relevant work.

I do not know if this has changed from earlier versions but, in any case, it seems reasonable.