Ethics

[NSWGR_46Class]

Another thought as far as intellectual property goes, isn't the image of something as much a part of the intellectual property as the product itself? And as such, did we all obtain permission from the various locomotive manufacturers, car manufacturers, railroads, et al, for the use and possible profit from, the images and visages, paint schemes and heralds of said entities in our own little universe?
So in that sense, isn't this entire operation kind of a "criminal" enterprise?
(granted you scratchbuilders are exempt from this)

I have been thinking along the same lines, I know a few USA railroads have sueed model makers for not having permission to use there trade marks. I think if you are making paywear reproductions of ie; a EMD SD9 for example are you not charging for a someone eles, EMD's, intellectual property .

Australina law, and that is what N3V is saying we must apply is quite strict on the reproduction of some ones intellectual property in a diffrent format or meida.

 

[Vern]

Ok here is the question does it work both ways - am I able then use payware assests and then have them on a freeware route.

Good point as this is exactly what is happening with Railworks, due to the lack of freeware assets route builders are buying payware routes then referencing assets from those in their own freeware projects.

Note, referencing as the end user of the freeware route needs to buy and install the payware, the items are copyright and can't be distributed. However in this case the reverse situation applies as the payware developer actually gains sales, from people buying their route to obtain the assets, who might not otherwise have done so, rather than a payware developer who populates his route with freeware profiting from the inadvertent genorosity of others. There is at least one exception though, with a US developer being unhappy with the practice has tried to lock down use of his scenery assets for use by others.

Another way of looking at the situation is would a payware route builder reference content from another payware route? Probably not, so why should freeware asset creators be treated with any less respect?

 

[johnwhelan]

While I'm not a lawyer or familiar with Australian law, I do know some fundamental principles of law here in the US. You can sue anyone for anything, period. And I'm sure you'll have no shortage of lawyers willing to sue anyone for anything on your behalf. But one of the first things the lawyer is going to ask you is "What harm has befallen you because of this individual's actions?"
Has he obtained money that, in his absence, would have otherwise gone to you?
Is he claiming that your specific creation is his own, or using it as a component in a larger creation? If his "payware product" is your creation on an empty baseboard, you may have a case. The more "other" items he adds to the product, the less of a contribution your item becomes, and as such, the likelihood of your case succeeding diminishes.
Has his inclusion of your creation in his product diminished or tarnished your reputation?
Have you been accused of a crime as a result of his actions?

Without harm being demonstrated, the chance of any civil lawsuit succeeding is very slim at best. The notion that you can give something away, and simultaneously retain control over it is going to be a tough sell, regardless of any license agreement written.

As far as this being a criminal act, if you live in an area that has the time and the resources to prosecute someone for violating the license agreement of something someone gave away for free, run for your life. In most places, I believe littering is considered a more severe crime.

Another thought as far as intellectual property goes, isn't the image of something as much a part of the intellectual property as the product itself? And as such, did we all obtain permission from the various locomotive manufacturers, car manufacturers, railroads, et al, for the use and possible profit from, the images and visages, paint schemes and heralds of said entities in our own little universe?
So in that sense, isn't this entire operation kind of a "criminal" enterprise?
(granted you scratchbuilders are exempt from this)

If the law was as straightforward as most people think it is, we wouldn't need lawyers.

In my case I have given an undertaking that the textures will not be used for commercial gain. There are two types of licenses available for the same images the first is for commercial purposes and involves a payment varying between $500 and $2,000, the second is for non-commercial purposes where the images are made available without charge but copyright is retained.

My reputation may suffer as I have given an undertaking that apparently I am unable to give according to N3V which damages the chances of me obtaining permission for other textures and photographs that could be used as textures on freeware items.

If someone purchases the payware route and the textures magically appear then the copyright owner reasonably expects to be paid the commercial license fee for the textures. Money has changed hands and the textures are used.

So some one should be paying the commercial license rate for the textures.

Textures are often licensed in this way in the hope that a freeware license will bring the textures to the attention of people who are creating payware.

If some one manually augments a payware layout with my work or one that uses copyrighted textures that are licensed for freeware there is no issue money has not changed hands.

I knew a software salesman once who said the easiest sales he had were to companies who were using his product without a license. There was no discussion about price or number of copies.

Cheerio John

 

[mrscsi]

I have been thinking along the same lines, I know a few USA railroads have sueed model makers for not having permission to use there trade marks. I think if you are making paywear reproductions of ie; a EMD SD9 for example are you not charging for a someone eles, EMD's, intellectual property .

Australina law, and that is what N3V is saying we must apply is quite strict on the reproduction of some ones intellectual property in a diffrent format or meida.

And all this would be relevant IF the hypothetical payware route builder were actually bundling the freeware asset into the CDP file of the hypothetical payware route.

Then there could be talk of lawsuits and suing and damages.

But as long as the hypothetical payware route builder merely makes a map that for all intents and purposes is blank, the actual CDP file does not contain anything other than the map coordinates and a list of assets on the DLS, there is no copyright being harmed at this point. Because the hypothetical payware route builder is using the freeware on the DLS as it WAS DESIGNED to be used, by registered users of the game who have access to the DLS.

This is what I think everybody's missing or maybe they're not missing it they just want to complain about it. They freely put their creations on the DLS for registered users of the game to use to their hearts content.

If a hypothetical payware route builder builds a route and sells it and all it does is allow a registered user of the game to pull freely available assets from the DLS into a map there is no copyright infringement, the system is being used as it was designed to be used, as it was advertised that it would be used, and how it works.

If they were downloading all the content from the DLS and packaging it up into the CDP file of that payware route, I'll be on board, that's wrong and shouldn't be done.

I don't think there's any payware creators who would complain one bit if someone referenced a piece of their payware in a payware route and actually put a pointer on where the purchaser of that payware route could obtain that asset. That would be free advertising for them.

Because I think a lot of the people having issue with this actually THINK that people will be buying a payware route for THEIR content. And I'll reiterate if anybody knows of any particular individual who will buy a payware route to get content that they can get on the DLS for free, please send me their names, I'll be glad to take their money:hehe:

People are not going to buy a payware route for a piece of content that they can get for free on the DLS, they're going to buy the route because for whatever reason they either can't create the route, don't want to create the route, or for whatever reason find it easier to buy the route versus building it themselves. They're not buying it for a building or switchbox or locomotive or any piece of content, they're buying a payware route.

 

[mrscsi]

If someone purchases the payware route and the textures magically appear then the copyright owner reasonably expects to be paid the commercial license fee for the textures. Money has changed hands and the textures are used.

Again if they are packaged in the CDP you got a lawsuit. If you have uploaded them freely and voluntarily to the DLS for registered users of Trainz to use, and that is how they're being pulled into that route, I think you're gonna be wasting money trying to sue and may get stuck with the court costs and legal fees of the person you're trying to sue.

Because in your example above makes no distinction in the actual action of what happens between the payware route and a freeware route. The asset or texture magically appears.

So if people make a freeware route that uses the exact same system as the payware route do you expect to get paid as well?

If they were somehow hacking in the your system where you had all your precious content and taking it without your permission and putting it onto a base map. I would be with you, but we're talking about content on the DLS.

It would be like me putting a sign on my car and leaving the keys in it and the sign says "PLEASE TAKE ME FOR A TEST DRIVE" and then filing a police report , reporting it stolen when someone does.

Because you put the content on the DLS freely for all registered users of the game to use and by putting it there you're begging them to use it.

And then you get mad because someone charges for a base map that may have your kuid listed in it to be pulled from the DLS. I really just can't see it. I'm sorry

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

And all this would be relevant IF the hypothetical payware route builder were actually bundling the freeware asset into the CDP file of the hypothetical payware route.

Then there could be talk of lawsuits and suing and damages.

But as long as the hypothetical payware route builder merely makes a map that for all intents and purposes is blank, the actual CDP file does not contain anything other than the map coordinates and a list of assets on the DLS, there is no copyright being harmed at this point. Because the hypothetical payware route builder is using the freeware on the DLS as it WAS DESIGNED to be used, by registered users of the game who have access to the DLS.

This is what I think everybody's missing or maybe they're not missing it they just want to complain about it. They freely put their creations on the DLS for registered users of the game to use to their hearts content.

If a hypothetical payware route builder builds a route and sells it and all it does is allow a registered user of the game to pull freely available assets from the DLS into a map there is no copyright infringement, the system is being used as it was designed to be used, as it was advertised that it would be used, and how it works.

If they were downloading all the content from the DLS and packaging it up into the CDP file of that payware route, I'll be on board, that's wrong and shouldn't be done.

I don't think there's any payware creators who would complain one bit if someone referenced a piece of their payware in a payware route and actually put a pointer on where the purchaser of that payware route could obtain that asset. That would be free advertising for them.

Because I think a lot of the people having issue with this actually THINK that people will be buying a payware route for THEIR content. And I'll reiterate if anybody knows of any particular individual who will buy a payware route to get content that they can get on the DLS for free, please send me their names, I'll be glad to take their money:hehe:

People are not going to buy a payware route for a piece of content that they can get for free on the DLS, they're going to buy the route because for whatever reason they either can't create the route, don't want to create the route, or for whatever reason find it easier to buy the route versus building it themselves. They're not buying it for a building or switchbox or locomotive or any piece of content, they're buying a payware route.

You missed my pointe I was asking about rolling stock not routes.

As to my content on a paywear route -- if I am asked and I will be given credit go for. I am not going to be asked or not given any credit ---- I would not be really happy.

I am not after money just credit where credit is due for my creations.

I have had one person up load a beta item of mine on to the dls and tried to pass it off as his own work so anything like this is a bit of a rough spot to me. And even to this day this item is still there getting downloaded under some eles kuid, even after it was pointed out to Auran/N3V and the person admitting there guilt.

 

[mrscsi]

You missed my pointe I was asking about rolling stock not routes.

As to my content on a paywear route -- if I am asked and I will be given credit go for. I am not going to be asked or not given any credit ---- I would not be really happy.

I am not after money just credit where credit is due for my creations.

I have had one person up load a beta item of mine on to the dls and tried to pass it off as his own work so anything like this is a bit of a rough spot to me. And even to this day this item is still there getting downloaded under some eles kuid, even after it was pointed out to Auran/N3V and the person admitting there guilt.

And I understand your angst, but in reality it's apples and oranges. Because what John is talking about is someone who takes the time to create a map, then they assemble all the little pieces either built-in to the game or on the DLS, then they save that to a CDP file. Now that CDP file does not contain any material from the DLS inside of it.

It merely contains a list of kuids and coordinates.

That's the commodity that we're talking about here, we're not talking about content on the DLS being sold, we're not talking about other people's assets being bundled and sold. We're talking about a CDP file that contains a list of kuids and coordinates.

That CDP file is the property of the person who created it. They can do whatever they wish with it. It doesn't belong to John, it doesn't belong to anybody except the person who created it.

If they sell that CDP file to a registered user of Trainz, that person will be able to utilize the download station to its fullest and pull all the content that they are authorized to pull being registered users if they sell it to people who are not registered users of Trainz, they can't get those assets and they just don't show up in the route.

That's just how this works, but I guess John thinks that people will buy a payware route strictly for a piece of his content that he has on the DLS. I just can't agree with that because I don't know of a single individual who would buy a payware route to obtain a piece of content that is freely available on the DLS. I just have not met someone that dumb yet, I still hope that I do one day and then I can use their money to make my retirement even more grand. But I just don't think suckers like that are born anymore:hehe:

 

[Accipiter777]

I'm wondering... the people who create prototype engines, have they asked Norfolk Southern, Union Pacific, BNSF, and all the others, permission to use thier image for this simulator? Does Auran have the proper permission to make money from these images? Or the 3rd party payware I've seen here n there of engines... One could say the DLS is like Napster was. I see McDonalds, Arbys, Wal-mart etc... as objects. I dont get how someone can steal an image, then complain that someone used it in a route and ask's money for it.

 

[mrscsi]

I'm wondering... the people who create prototype engines, have they asked Norfolk Southern, Union Pacific, BNSF, and all the others, permission to use thier image for this simulator? Does Auran have the proper permission to make money from these images? Or the 3rd party payware I've seen here n there of engines... One could say the DLS is like Napster was. I see McDonalds, Arbys, Wal-mart etc... as objects. I dont get how someone can steal an image, then complain that someone used it in a route and ask's money for it.

Auran/N3V isn't making any money off of content, they sell a simulation where users have the ability to create said content.

That's where they make their money.

Because again if you buy anything for a particular piece of content, I've got some stuff I want to sell you, just let me know what you want and I'll sell you the information on where to get it.

Because that's all a map or route is, it's a concise list of object kuids and coordinates. It's nothing more than that.

But to really answer your question I think the major railroad companies and suppliers are going to merely dismiss third-party content and payware model builders because in actuality it would cost more to sue them than they could ever recover.

 

[mcguirel]

Reference and therefore utilization of the asset thru either imbedded object or reference to the objects still means the asset is in fact being used in the Payware Route.

I am sorry but I must disagree completely with Windwalker. Utilization regardless of how the utilization is generated has everything to do with personal licensing. If the license states Freeware Only Routes, then the license is what it is by the creator. If I were to Alias a Payware Route just hypothetically ( can't be achieved but same or extremely similar principle ), I am utilizing the Payware Route thru a Reference therefore I am legally then not breaking any laws, licensing, or have made money illegally thru someone else's hard work because it is a reference only, right? I do not think so.

We who provide the content on the DLS give permission only to N3V for utilization and subsequently affliated members who have the great privilege of making Built-In Routes ( Something I desired, but was never accepted by N3V).

Intellectual Property Laws atleast in the US and adopted by many other countries states utilization of the intellectual property must comply with licensing of the property by which the developer has listed.

 

[Accipiter777]

Auran/N3V isn't making any money off of content, they sell a simulation where users have the ability to create said content.

That's where they make their money.

Because again if you buy anything for a particular piece of content, I've got some stuff I want to sell you, just let me know what you want and I'll sell you the information on where to get it.

Because that's all a map or route is, it's a concise list of object kuids and coordinates. It's nothing more than that.

But to really answer your question I think the major railroad companies and suppliers are going to merely dismiss third-party content and payware model builders because in actuality it would cost more to sue them than they could ever recover.

Auran sold the software that contains the image. Just like when you buy a game with music in it... they need permission dont they? Just look at the "Built in" content.

 

[Accipiter777]

"But to really answer your question I think the major railroad companies and suppliers are going to merely dismiss third-party content and payware model builders because in actuality it would cost more to sue them than they could ever recover."


Same for those 3rd party payware providers.

 

[mcguirel]

"But to really answer your question I think the major railroad companies and suppliers are going to merely dismiss third-party content and payware model builders because in actuality it would cost more to sue them than they could ever recover."


Same for those 3rd party payware providers.

Thus the reason many are leaving the Content Creation arena due to the elaborate work necessary today.
Content Creation by the members on Auran / N3V was the main attraction for atleast my gess 50% of us and how much available content could be available to the community to make Routes.

Now Routes are not as popular as when this game became a popular ticket, and if they are they are infact Payware.

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

"But to really answer your question I think the major railroad companies and suppliers are going to merely dismiss third-party content and payware model builders because in actuality it would cost more to sue them than they could ever recover."


Same for those 3rd party payware providers.

Oh I have no doubt this is the case but which gets us back to the topic of the this fine thread and debate. Does it make it ethical to rip of someones work just because there is nothing to stop you.

 

[mrscsi]

"But to really answer your question I think the major railroad companies and suppliers are going to merely dismiss third-party content and payware model builders because in actuality it would cost more to sue them than they could ever recover."


Same for those 3rd party payware providers.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Strictly hypothetical mind you.

If Union Pacific were to take a third-party payware creator to court and somehow get in front of a jury, it might look like Goliath beating up on poor little David.

If a payware creator were to actually get a user in front of a jury it might not look so one-sided.

But payware providers don't upload to the DLS. Most if not all have really no way of preventing their creations from being pirated all over the place. The only thing they're controlling is download, and as such they are as prone as anybody to get ripped off, but I guess they accept that risk because they're creating payware.

A hypothetical payware route however contains nothing, EXCEPT for a list of kuids and coordinates. No pictures, no content, no license infringements in any way shape or form in its CDP form.

If someone were to buy it and have it on their PC it doesn't contain any of those images or trademarks in its CDP form.

If they import it into Trainz and they are not a registered user or are a registered user but do not have access to certain versions of content contained in that list of kuids, they don't show up in the route in the game.

The only way that anybody would have access to that DLS content via a hypothetical payware route, would be if they were authorized by virtue of being a registered user of that version of Trainz to get the content anyway.

That's what makes the argument silly on its face.

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Strictly hypothetical mind you.

If Union Pacific were to take a third-party payware creator to court and somehow get in front of a jury, it might look like Goliath beating up on poor little David.

If a payware creator were to actually get a user in front of a jury it might not look so one-sided.

But payware providers don't upload to the DLS. Most if not all have really no way of preventing their creations from being pirated all over the place. The only thing they're controlling is download, and as such they are as prone as anybody to get ripped off, but I guess they accept that risk because they're creating payware.

A hypothetical payware route however contains nothing, EXCEPT for a list of kuids and coordinates. No pictures, no content, no license infringements in any way shape or form in its CDP form.

If someone were to buy it and have it on their PC it doesn't contain any of those images or trademarks in its CDP form.

If they import it into Trainz and they are not a registered user or are a registered user but do not have access to certain versions of content contained in that list of kuids, they don't show up in the route in the game.

The only way that anybody would have access to that DLS content via a hypothetical payware route, would be if they were authorized by virtue of being a registered user of that version of Trainz to get the content anyway.

That's what makes the argument silly on its face.

Funny you say that as UP have done just that and they won --- take a look at the UP web page.

Even Auran had to get UP permission for some of the items in a previous trainz 2009 iirc

 

[Lots_Trains]

Union Pacific use to hot on models using there brand.

Union Pacific tried few years back to sue a model making company that was making millions, UP lost and has backed off on this now. I read a good article on that can't find it now.

I now beleive BNSF is now hot on this and want moneies paid to there heritage projects. Boy dosn't Buffet earn enough. With case law on it now you think they would back off.

Cheers

Lots

 

[Euphod]

Eventually all our Yellow and Gray locomotives will say "Onion Pacifier" on the sides!

 

[mcguirel]

Union Pacific use to hot on models using there brand.

Union Pacific tried few years back to sue a model making company that was making millions, UP lost and has backed off on this now. I read a good article on that can't find it now.

I now beleive BNSF is now hot on this and want moneies paid to there heritage projects. Boy dosn't Buffet earn enough. With case law on it now you think they would back off.

Cheers

Lots

They were quite successful against MTH, Atlas, and Lionel.

 

[leeferr]

We're mixing things up a little bit here between trademarks and copyrights I believe. The laws on the two are separate. The Union Pacific logos and heralds would normally be covered by trademark, not copyrights. The design of various locomotives would be covered by copyrights. Who now holds the copyrights from ALCO, BALDWIN and LIMA?

We're going to get so wrapped up around the axle on this that pretty soon, everybody will be too scared to create anything. We've got to let a little common sense and courtesy prevail. The problem is that these traits are not always existent. This debate has been interesting, and at times humorous, but are we really resolving anything. I warrant that we'll be talking about this same subject next year, the year after that, ............

Mike