Ethics

[Retro00064]

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

But would they not be crunchy and make our eyes water if we chewed on them? :'(

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

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

Thats Intresting as I was under the impression that UP did in fact win - UP do allow you using the logo for models if its for personal use only.

Union Pacific Railroad has filed a lawsuit against two model train manufacturers, claiming trademark infringement and unfair trade practices.
At issue are U.P.'s current shield logo, its Building America slogan and its locomotive colors of yellow, gray and red. U.P. holds trademarks for the use of the designs and colors on products.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Omaha, claims that Lionel LLC and Athearn Inc. are selling model trains bearing the logos and colors and that those products could confuse or deceive consumers. U.P. asks for the companies to comply with the trademarks and for unspecified damages

this was June 2004
CSX charges $0.33 cents for use of it logo on a model rail item


http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/licensing/index.shtml

 

[Euphod]

You are so right Mike, that's why I suggested a poll would serve as well...

I propose that anyone producing freeware that they feel should not be used in a payware route should NOT upload it to the DLS, and should make it clear in the license that the item is NOT to be used in a payware route, AND only make it available from a third party site, AND consider making it payware.

Done.

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

......."M.T.H. Electric Trains and Union Pacific Railroad are pleased to announce that they have amicably settled the trademark infringement case that UP filed against M.T.H in Omaha, Nebraska federal court. The settlement benefits both parties, as well the entire model railroad industry. It allows Union Pacific to continue to protect its intellectual property, and authorizes M.T.H.'s use of Union Pacific's trademarks and paint designs on model train products and accessories. Union Pacific has also decided to change its trademark-licensing program so that model railroad manufacturers will no longer have to pay a royalty, and will enjoy a perpetual license to use Union Pacific trademarks and paint designs on model railroad products.".........

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

You are so right Mike, that's why I suggested a poll would serve as well...

I propose that anyone producing freeware that they feel should not be used in a payware route should NOT upload it to the DLS, and should make it clear in the license that the item is NOT to be used in a payware route, AND only make it available from a third party site, AND consider making it payware.

Done.

Ok why can it not be noted in the liceance that it not to be used in PW routes and we just respect that ? I do not want my stuff in a PW routre with me knowing about but I still totally agree with the DLS and wish to support it.

 

[Dean_Forest]

Without getting into all of the legal things, wouldn't it be simpler for the route creator to just ask whether it is ok to use the content in a payware route, if anything it is just polite to do so.

 

[Dermmy]

The title of this thread is 'Ethics' but it has degenerated into a discussion of 'Legalities'. The two questions are almost opposite:

The Ethical question is : "Should I use this content in a way the original creator prohibited irrespective of the legal position?"

The Legal question is "Can I get away with using this content in a way the original creator prohibited irrespective of the ethical position?"

Even asking the second question makes your ethical position quite clear...

Andy

 

[airtime]

I would love to buy payware routes, especially British routes...

However, I would not be willing to buy a route that you have to visit the DLS for each and every dependencie, I just believe this would put me off and most probably many others from buying the route in the first place, I believe when you buy a route, you should get the entire route from start to finish, with everything included...

Lets just imagine buying the Virgin Voyager pack from Railwaves for £16.95, only to find out you have to go to the DLS to get the couplers, the bogies, the passengers and other bits and bobs just to get one coach working, would you be bothered buying it in the first place, luckily enough when Railwaves says you get the Virgin Voyager pack, you get everything for those who maybe unsure...

The only problem with the above statement is, if you include other creators content, and then charge for it, this could in fact frighten a lot of creators off from Trainz, or alternativily, the creators could start charging for every piece of content they have, via there own websites, and withdraw everything from the DLS, so everyone loses out...

The only way I can see maybe a positive out of a negative, is if route creators donate there routes to N3V for testing, and then N3V make a Train Simulator add on route pack, which N3V charge for, which then includes all the items and the routes themselves, and as a thankyou to the content creators who had items included in the routes, they get a free lifetime first class ticket, but, if they already have a FCT, they get there money reimbursed for the FCT, or a voucher for another item from N3V.

That way the creators are happy, and N3V make some money to be able to improve Train Simulator further.

The above is only my take on things, however there may be a more agreeable solution to this problem.

Joe Airtime

 

[Euphod]

Ok why can it not be noted in the liceance that it not to be used in PW routes and we just respect that ? I do not want my stuff in a PW routre with me knowing about but I still totally agree with the DLS and wish to support it.

That sounds reasonable, however, it appears that by uploading to the DLS, your license is considered co-opted by Auran's...

 

[bassist118]

Couldn't N3V produce some generic assets that could be used in payware routes, these could then be replaced by who-ever downloads the route, or can this be donw with the built in assets?

I've had to spend money on books and resorces (espically for the Kemsley - Sittingbourne Light Railway) to produce some routes too, and with having the kids every weekend with no financial help (while their mother chongs substancies) I greatly need to replace some funds soon..... I also havn't got the time to learn asset creation.

There is also another side to this debate I don't think has been touched on yet... If every pay-ware route has custom assets peoples hard drive would fill up extremely quickly.

Thanks guys



Andy

 

[johnwhelan]

Couldn't N3V produce some generic assets that could be used in payware routes, these could then be replaced by who-ever downloads the route, or can this be donw with the built in assets?

I've had to spend money on books and resorces (espically for the Kemsley - Sittingbourne Light Railway) to produce some routes too, and with having the kids every weekend with no financial help (while their mother chongs substancies) I greatly need to replace some funds soon..... I also havn't got the time to learn asset creation.

There is also another side to this debate I don't think has been touched on yet... If every pay-ware route has custom assets peoples hard drive would fill up extremely quickly.

Thanks guys



Andy

The built ins for the most part are from the DLS. Very little content is created directly by N3V. Ask nicely and many content creators will give you permission to use an asset change the understood rules which is what appears to have happened here and people get annoyed.

Some of my assets it doesn't matter too much to me if they are used in payware routes or not but others where I am using the texture fires under license I am very concerned.

For those assets that have taken a considerable amount time and effort I would much prefer they weren't used.

Cheerio John

 

[norfolksouthern37]

but as already discussed, if the items are not distributed with the payware then it doesnt matter if the texture files are under a special license. the user will either go to the DLS and get your item, or go to the DLS and get your item... oh wait thats the same thing, so no harm done.

 

[domsarto]

• Should all creators of a route sold as payware have free access to assets created by another - No
• Should the creators of routes created for the purpose of been builtin to a version of trainz ask the creators of those assets for permission to use same - Yes
• Should NV3 use assets created by others and uploaded to DLS as freeware as builtin items to a trainz version - No

Auran were very cute in creating a licence that allowed them to make money off the blood sweat and tears of the asset creators, knowing that 99% of creators will not read the licence, thereby handing over there assets to Auran to do with them as they please. One of the reasons I no longer create assets for the DLS.

Reading the replies to the original question, there is possibly a split 50 / 50.

I would put it to you the only people who should have a say on the use of freeware DLS assets in a payware route should only be creators of assets not the free loaders who just sit back and download and download and download.and complain when there is an error in an asset they have scrounged of the DLS for free, or langers who send snide emails to creators who have objected to others having access to there assets been giving by NV3. Another reason I no longer create for the DLS

Thanks for allowing me to rant here, I am now off to work on my marine fish tank, having a few problems with polps, not a big as the problems with polys I had with assets

Dominic

​

 

[WindWalkr]

Auran were very cute in creating a licence that allowed them to make money off the blood sweat and tears of the asset creators, knowing that 99% of creators will not read the licence, thereby handing over there assets to Auran to do with them as they please. One of the reasons I no longer create assets for the DLS.

* We specifically keep the DLS license very clear and short, so that it's easy for everyone to understand what they are and are not allowing us to do.

* The Trainz community (including the Trainz team) have used the DLS as a resource for content for the past 10 years, so unless you're completely foreign to the community you should have a fairly good idea of what putting something on the DLS entails.

* We do offer compensation for the route creators and major content providers who work with us to create the built-in content. It's true that we do not hunt down the creator of every single item used by these routes, but some people seem to be of the opinion that we take everything from the community and give back nothing. That's very misinformed.

cheers,

chris

 

[pommie]

Should all creators of a route sold as payware have free access to assets created by another - No

So you are saying that for a payware route ALL the content should be done by the route creator, how many years for a small payware route ???

Should the creators of routes created for the purpose of been builtin to a version of trainz ask the creators of those assets for permission to use same - Yes

As a lot of those creators have moved on or have changed their email address, how can this be accomplished ??

There has been a lot said for/against in this thread, but lets try to at least be reasonable about what is wanted, from both sides, John has a legitimate query and we should be discussing that, not having the never ending fight about freeware in a payware route, I do have my opinion on this, BUT, this thread is about Johns concern about the use of the copy-written textures, lets keep it there.
My opinion on Johns concern is even though I don't care who uses my content, or for what, doesn't mean that the wishes/requests of the creator should not be adhered to, its a matter of respect not legality, but it seems that respect is in short supply around here.

Cheers David ... who would like a Trainz for Linux

 

[Deano5]

"free loaders who just sit back and download and download and download.and complain when there is an error in an asset they have scrounged of the DLS for free, or langers who send snide emails to creators who have objected to others having access to there assets been giving by NV3. Another reason I no longer create for the DLS"



Dominic

.
I find this to be very offensive to those of us who do not have the ability and knowledge of graphic creation. I also cannot find the part on the box where it say's " After purchasing Trainz plus a FCT, you must learn a graphics creation program".
I could very easily put some points here too, but I do not want to offend anyone at all, but then what would it matter as I'm just a low down freeloader with no right at all amongst you Oh so mighty creators of the world.
Thank you also for my rant.

 

[Dean_Forest]

As a lot of those creators have moved on or have changed their email address, how can this be accomplished ??

In many cases though, the content may have been created to 2004 standards or earlier and may not be as good quality as building the item yourself in Blender to modern standards.

 

[ZecMurphy]

Very interesting reading here...

However, a few comments... First, this was intended as a discussion on ethics and not legalities. These are distinctly different.

As was said earlier, they lead to two different questions (although these can be viewed different):

For ethics: "Should I use an item created for free in a payware asset, even if included only as a reference in the kuid-table, without first obtaining permission from the creator, if they so require it"

For Legalities: "Can I legally use an asset released as freeware on the DLS in my payware asset?"

Personally, I'm finding this conversation interesting, as I'm facing similar questions. In my free time, I'm slowly working on a pack of payware Victorian Railways wagons. Being freight wagons, they require loads... I've made some of them, others are built-in, however there are some on the DLS that I rather like. The first thing I did was made a list of ever commodity that I liked, and suited the wagon. From this, I removed all assets that expressly prohibited the use in payware (I really don't feel like arguing, and wish to respect their request). The user can always add them, themselves, from within Surveyor, or by editing the asset (not preferred in this case)... The list became much shorter, however I still have a nice list. Closer to release, I will contact each of the creators to obtain permission to use their asset (but not include it in the pack, it will need to be downloaded from the DLS - a 'download helper' link would be provided). The asset is still freely available. If a creator says no, then I'll have to remove it (and possibly make my own). If a creator requests royalties, then I will discuss it further (depending on the discussions as to if it is viable or not). I may end up removing it, and possibly make my own similar item, based off a prototype. By using a freeware asset, I would be attempting to make the payware a little more affordable...


Now, a different matter I wish to address. This is aimed at John, who is saying he has assured the owner of the 'texture' that it will not be used in a 'sale'/'commercial' release. I would recommend reading the Terms and Conditions of uploading to the DLS, as by uploading to the DLS, you give N3V permission to use that asset in commercial releases (e.g. in an add-on pack, or as built-in content in a 'full' release of Trainz). Hence, technically, you cannot keep this promise at all, as you've already given N3V permission to do exactly this. As you've also noted, we're now hosting/selling some payware ourselves. It's possible this may expand, possibly to include routes, etc...

I also noted a comment from CaptainEnglish earlier regarding Skipper's content. Please rest assured, I'm working on this. However, I've been awaiting some information, which was supplied tonight (I hope to sort it out early this week ).


That said, personally, I feel the moral/ethical requirement to obtain explicit permission from the creator. However, I also feel that a built-in asset could be used (the person having already, effectively, paid for the asset with the purchase of the software - my personal payware requiring at least one DLS asset to work...). A little more difficult with TS12 of course, which has much of the old built-in's now on the DLS.

Of course, would you consider a 'freeware' route that uses payware, as payware? E.g. Murchison. I can freely download this from SirGibby's website, but still need to pay for some assets for it to function correctly. Does this make the route payware? If so, what if I make my own route using the payware assets? Does it become payware (even though I make the route freely available)? Am I then unable to use one of John's (for instance) assets in my freeware (but requires payware) routes?

 

[johnwhelan]

Now, a different matter I wish to address. This is aimed at John, who is saying he has assured the owner of the 'texture' that it will not be used in a 'sale'/'commercial' release. I would recommend reading the Terms and Conditions of uploading to the DLS, as by uploading to the DLS, you give N3V permission to use that asset in commercial releases (e.g. in an add-on pack, or as built-in content in a 'full' release of Trainz). Hence, technically, you cannot keep this promise at all, as you've already given N3V permission to do exactly this. As you've also noted, we're now hosting/selling some payware ourselves. It's possible this may expand, possibly to include routes, etc...


That said, personally, I feel the moral/ethical requirement to obtain explicit permission from the creator. However, I also feel that a built-in asset could be used (the person having already, effectively, paid for the asset with the purchase of the software - my personal payware requiring at least one DLS asset to work...). A little more difficult with TS12 of course, which has much of the old built-in's now on the DLS.

Of course, would you consider a 'freeware' route that uses payware, as payware? E.g. Murchison. I can freely download this from SirGibby's website, but still need to pay for some assets for it to function correctly. Does this make the route payware? If so, what if I make my own route using the payware assets? Does it become payware (even though I make the route freely available)? Am I then unable to use one of John's (for instance) assets in my freeware (but requires payware) routes?

So I gather from this if I supply a list of kuids that I don't have a license for the texture to be used in payware these can be removed from the DLS? Because I am unable to sub license something that I don't have myself. I'll look through my assets and supply a list to the Helpdesk, that way by removing them N3V will avoid any legal liability issues. It also demonstrates that I have brought the matter to your attention in a timely manner so reduces my exposure.

My take on built-ins is provide the asset is also available for free on the DLS I can live with this, to me the game engine is being sold and the asset included.

I see no issue with using the assets in a freeware layout such as Sir Gibby's that also uses payware content. No charge is being made for the layout.

Thanks

Cheerio John

 

[Vern]

As I noted earlier, using payware in a freeware route - providing it is not distributed therefore requiring the user to purchase or already own said payware - is not quite the same issue. It's happening in RW all the time. I also specifically bought Murchison 2 with the intention of using it as an asset pack for any future Trainz routes I might create. (As well as enjoying the lovely scenery of course ).

To recap, the least that a payware author using freeware DLS assets should be doing, is seeking permission if not already given and offering a gratis copy of the finished route to all contributers.