Copyright - It really means something you know

[Sourdough]

Copyright is not something that needs to be applied for, nor does it need a symbol, license or any other identification.

True...but you'd be dumber than dirt if you didn't...it'd be hard to go after someone who takes it if you didn't apply for a copyright, and didn't indicate it was copyrighted or identify yourself as the owner. It would be as easy as proving the money you dropped was your's if someone else picked it up...

Requesting permission to alter, manipulate etc another persons content for distribution is not only common courtesy, it is a legal requirement.

Punishable by what....a sternly worded post..?

These "copyright" threads seem to show up every so often....They usually turn into a contest to see who knows more about copyright laws....

 

[BLueNeon]

Sorry BN, but I think you are wrong, I was using the facts to explain an issue, so what that prjindigo may have changed things. I don't believe that is still the case with the model I made from his mesh. His statement to me was that the mesh could not be used for release of certain railroad skins because of a license agreement he had. To me, that would not have changed and therefore still governs the future release of my model using his mesh. As such, I think it is completely relevant and appropriate to use as an example.

If you want to continue to ignore the issue at hand by trying to nitpick so called "facts", then feel free. I am illustrating a point and a continuing problem for the hopeful betterment of the community, something which others seem to agree with.

Tony

ROFL ..

If you were serious about " betterment of the community " you'd follow Rogers generous example . No need then for you to get all bent and wave that plastic badge around when some excited youngsters post screenies.

And you are NOT the only person with any of Rogers work ...so there should be need for me to tell you that I'll do as I please .

BN

 

[Barry]

True...but you'd be dumber than dirt if you didn't...it'd be hard to go after someone who takes it if you didn't apply for a copyright, and didn't indicate it was copyrighted or identify yourself as the owner. It would be as easy as proving the money you dropped was your's if someone else picked it up...


Punishable by what....a sternly worded post..?

These "copyright" threads seem to show up every so often....They usually turn into a contest to see who knows more about copyright laws....

So looks like three choices, go payware..
or email your content to people you know, on request who understand what you are making and what it is about.

Or make content for one and all on the understanding that probably very few will ever acknowledge your content or even give it a moments thought.

If I was still making content for trainz or using the program I know which one of the choices I would now go for.

B

 

[leeferr]

without the original author's explicit permission, it still just boils down to theft. Those that never created anything seem to find that a difficult concept to comprehend sometimes. Legalities aside, taking and using something without permission is just plain wrong, always has been and always will be.

 

[pommie]

without the original author's explicit permission, it still just boils down to theft. Those that never created anything seem to find that a difficult concept to comprehend sometimes. Legalities aside, taking and using something without permission is just plain wrong, always has been and always will be.

So all creators have permission from all rolling stock builders to copy their design and from all railroads to copy there paint scheme, yeah right, there seems to be a lot of Hippocrates's around here.

Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones.

And anybody saying that they went and measured the rolling stock so you didn't copy their design is just juvenile, no sorry, that is insulting juveniles.

I do agree with having to ask for permission to reskin, but please do not state that you own the copyright on the mesh (of an actual item), because you don't, its a copy of the original copyrighten drawings/item.

Have fun

Cheers David

 

[paulhobbs]

I do agree with having to ask for permission to reskin, but please do not state that you own the copyright on the mesh (of an actual item), because you don't, its a copy of the original copyrighten drawings/item.

If I create a mesh using drawings then it's my mesh, not anybody elses. The copyright applies the to the drawings, not the mesh.

Paul

 

[johnwhelan]

I do agree with having to ask for permission to reskin, but please do not state that you own the copyright on the mesh (of an actual item), because you don't, its a copy of the original copyrighten drawings/item.

Have fun

Cheers David

If I draw a landscape in charcoal I have a copyright of the drawing which is a representation of the landscape. If I paint in oil or water colour the same thing, take a photograph on film or digitally the same. A screenshot I would think is the same whether taken from the monitor by an external camera or internally via the computer.

Are you proposing that if I use a different media such as GMAX to create a representation suddenly I don't have copyright rights to my work? On what grounds?

Thanks John

 

[S301]

however, have you not copied the design to create your mesh?

I hate to say it, but I seem to have a feeling that I've seen this all happen before... Of wait, I have. And it practically DESTROYED the Australian MSTS scene...

By the way, is your mesh based on the drawings? Then, is this not copying the drawings/designs? Who owns the designs?

Zec

 

[pommie]

If I create a mesh using drawings then it's my mesh, not anybody elses. The copyright applies the to the drawings, not the mesh.

Paul

What you did was to copy a set of 2d drawings into a one 3d drawing, and if what you say is right then anyone can create a re-skin for that mesh stating that they have not violated your copyright (of the mesh) by doing a different skin, you cannot have it both ways.
And you stated that the copyright applies to the drawings, yet you admit to using those drawings WITHOUT permission, in other words breaking that copyright, the same as you are accusing others of.

If I draw a landscape in charcoal I have a copyright of the drawing which is a representation of the landscape. If I paint in oil or water colour the same thing, take a photograph on film or digitally the same. A screenshot I would think is the same whether taken from the monitor by an external camera or internally via the computer.

Are you proposing that if I use a different media such as GMAX to create a representation suddenly I don't have copyright rights to my work? On what grounds?

Thanks John

representation being the operative word, that is not an accurate copy, and even then if you depict a company logo in a way to bring disrepute on it they can, and have, successfully sue.

take a photograph on film or digitally the same.

Wrong on so many counts, please go and have a read on the legal aspects of photography, copyright and the rights of people, owners of property, and what applies the most here, company logo's.
Just to give you an example, did you realize that its illegal (in most prarts of the world) to take photographs of government buildings and/or officials, just because they don't enforce it doesn't mean its not there.

Please do some reading of the subject before making a statement as fact.

Cheers David (who's other hobby is photography)

Edit please remember I do agree that a creator should be asked, it is just the fact that some are citing legalities that they just do not have that has me bewildered.

 

[paulhobbs]

What you did was to copy a set of 2d drawings into a one 3d drawing, and if what you say is right then anyone can create a re-skin for that mesh stating that they have not violated your copyright (of the mesh) by doing a different skin, you cannot have it both ways.

And you stated that the copyright applies to the drawings, yet you admit to using those drawings WITHOUT permission, in other words breaking that copyright, the same as you are accusing others of.

I haven't copied a set of 2D drawings into a '3D drawing'. I've created my representation of the original object using the drawings (which I purchased) as a guide. You can't possibly say that the mesh is a 'copy' of the original drawings. Are you seriously suggesting that people can't buy a set of drawings and make their own model out of metal, wood or cardboard? I just don't see the difference.

Technically in some parts of the world (but not in Germany, because when you buy a scanner you pay a licence fee to scan in stuff for your private use) scanning the drawings into a computer is an infringement of copyright. However, unless I directly use the scanned drawings as part of the skin then the mesh is my work and my copyright.

A skin using portions of my original skin would be an infringement of my copyright. A completely new skin would not be as it it the work of the reskinner - what he cannot do is distribute or modify the mesh without my permission.

Paul

 

[Heaton]

"..even then if you depict a company logo in a way to bring disrepute on it they can, and have, successfully sue."

That would come under trademark law. Dilution of the brand.

Just a point.

Actually, corporations will pursue small-scale trademark infringements more vigorously than copyright, as in order to retain the rights to use said trademark, these rights have to be enforced, whereas nobody loses copyright entitlement however many unauthorised copies are made.

Ignoring unauthorised use of a registered trademark means you can lose the right to use it exclusively.

 

[BLueNeon]

"..even then if you depict a company logo in a way to bring disrepute on it they can, and have, successfully sue."

That would come under trademark law. Dilution of the brand.

Just a point.

Actually, corporations will pursue small-scale trademark infringements more vigorously than copyright, as in order to retain the rights to use said trademark, these rights have to be enforced, whereas nobody loses copyright entitlement however many unauthorised copies are made.

Ignoring unauthorised use of a registered trademark means you can lose the right to use it exclusively.

Correct on all points .

I use this site for access to Trademarks ..http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/ and to obtain the relevent permissions before using any brand name.

BN

 

[Greg_Hargreaves]

Did you get permission from the railroad before reskinning your locos? Copyright does exist on the real thing and by copying the graphics designs without permission you are breaking the law just as surely as in reskinning someone elses mesh. At least one manufacturer of decals here in UK has got in legal trouble over this, and the situation now as I understand it is that they (and other manufacturers of railway products) have to pay a license fee to the copyright owner. Computer models would be treated just the same. As long as it is for your personal use then that is ok, but if you are distributing items via the DLS then you MUST get permision and pay any license fees to the train operating company first.

Dave Bird

The situation is the same here in the USA. To make an item in Union Pacific colours (or in that of any railroad merged into UP: WP, D&RG, SP, and so on...) they require you pay them a small fee. Ever notices in Model Railroader that UP items cost about $5.00 more than does the exact same item in different paint? Auran also states that you may reskin a loco for the DLS using to any railroad except that of Union Pacific, persumably for the same reason. Other roads like BNSF anc CSX don't require fees, but do ask that you get a licence for the use of thier logos first.

World of Trainz by Phil_C is has great examples of this. He clearly states that all the items he sells on his website are licensed by CSX, BNSF and the UP.

As for copyright, I see it as this:
-The mesh belongs to the person who created the mesh
-The reskin-image belongs to the person who created the reskin-image, minus any corporate logos
-If the owner of the mesh doesn't want to cooperate to release his item in different colours, than all the reskinner can do is release the reskin-image as a stand-alone 'kit'

Example: You can buy (download) a car (locomotive mesh) from the licenced dealer. You can buy a really nice after-market kit (reskin) of some kind from a third party. The dealer (owner of mesh) may not want to sell the car with the kit installed, so the maker of the kit (reskinner) only sells the kit by itself, and its up to the owner of the car (us) to install the kit after we aquired both separately.

Clear as mud?

 

[wgkandsk]

Send me $5.00 and I will describe how you can make any RR logo as a DECAL that will work in Trainz; then your legel.

 

[johnwhelan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwhelan
If I draw a landscape in charcoal I have a copyright of the drawing which is a representation of the landscape. If I paint in oil or water colour the same thing, take a photograph on film or digitally the same. A screenshot I would think is the same whether taken from the monitor by an external camera or internally via the computer.

Are you proposing that if I use a different media such as GMAX to create a representation suddenly I don't have copyright rights to my work? On what grounds?






representation being the operative word, that is not an accurate copy, and even then if you depict a company logo in a way to bring disrepute on it they can, and have, successfully sue.

take a photograph on film or digitally the same.

Wrong on so many counts, please go and have a read on the legal aspects of photography, copyright and the rights of people, owners of property, and what applies the most here, company logo's.
Just to give you an example, did you realize that its illegal (in most prarts of the world) to take photographs of government buildings and/or officials, just because they don't enforce it doesn't mean its not there.

Please do some reading of the subject before making a statement as fact.

Cheers David (who's other hobby is photography)

Edit please remember I do agree that a creator should be asked, it is just the fact that some are citing legalities that they just do not have that has me bewildered.

Nowhere did I say I was including a company logo or a government building. I accept the fact that a company can have a copyrighted logo. One reason I prefer working in 1890 is many of the original copyrights have expired.

I think the point I was trying to make is that the mesh is a representation that gives information about a model and I can see no difference between that and an oil painting. If I am permitted to make a representation of a scene or object either by an oil painting or creating a 3D model then I think it is reasonable to say my work is then protected by copyright and I don't think we are disagreeing on that point unless you are saying that what is permitted in some media is not permitted in others? If so on what grounds?

I think we can agree that Australia may have different ideas about copyright than other countries. Microsoft and other companies (USA) again have their own ideas about copyright which are currently not the same as Canada.

Or are you simply saying that practically every item in Trainz and other simulators is illegal since they are representations of something that some one owns?

Cheerio John

 

[trw1089]

Jeez you lot, settle down!

All my point is that if others have worked hard on creating something, all it takes is some courtesy to ask first before you want to change it.

BlueNeon - you obviously still can't see that I was illustrating a point. For goodness sake let it go about Roger's stuff. I never mentioned anything about anyone elses use of Roger's work, only the agreement that he and I made as a case in point. So what if things changed subsequently.

Tony

 

[Zwabberaar]

Jeez you lot, settle down!

All my point is that if others have worked hard on creating something, all it takes is some courtesy to ask first before you want to change it.

BlueNeon - you obviously still can't see that I was illustrating a point. For goodness sake let it go about Roger's stuff. I never mentioned anything about anyone elses use of Roger's work, only the agreement that he and I made as a case in point. So what if things changed subsequently.

Tony

You opened a can of worms with this topic. It will not be easy to get them back into the can now.

 

[leeferr]

You opened a can of worms with this topic. It will not be easy to get them back into the can now.

Ain't it the truth. This topic has been discussed many times before with the same result.

Pommie, my comments were related to original meshes. I don't use drawings to create my meshes. The meshes I create are MY creations. I'm well aware of drawing copyrights as I probably have over 3000 drawings copyrighted myself as an Architect.

I think some people here are confusing copyrights with trademark infringements. I've even seen this issue confused with Patent protection in some threads of the past.

Just my penny's worth:wave:

 

[BLueNeon]

Hey Tony

Incorrect pal , I can see the point you are making and the reasoning behind the example used

Unfortunately others may not have been aware of the license change and it would have nice to see some of the same courtesy you ask for used to point out the change - simple as that.

You're posting is ALL because a couple of kids posted some pics and got all hyped about their work - cut em' some slack , this could have been dealt with in a better manner , use the PM button .

So ... everyone should ask , hmmm ... did you ask for permission Tony ??

BN

 

[Greg_Hargreaves]

So ... everyone should ask , hmmm ... did you ask for permission Tony ??

BN

Okay... Whoa, time-out for a second. I don't know how good of friends you two are, but that sounds like one heck'vua piece of bait. :n:

Let's keep this thread friendly and infromative, not snarky (I don't like snarky ). We do need to figure out what would be in violation of copyright (and maybe even trademark rights), as so no more toes get steped on between content creators. We can pick at our sins and judge others afterwards... :hehe: