Ethics

[NSWGR_46Class]

A voice from the new guy.

I just strated with Trainz about a week ago. Shoot, I'm so new, I still don't know how to create the content yet for myself, let alone upload it to auran.

However, I have read this entire thread and this is one of the most bussiest two way streets I have ever ran across.

First, I must agree with John. As a US citizen, our copy right laws here are very strict. If I simply add a persons image to my website I can be sued for copyright infringements. It appears that John is simply stating that it is not ethical, and should be prohibited without consent. Seems fair to me!

Yet, on the other hand, according to the Distibution Policy line 2.1 (a)
N3V reserves the right to distribute the assets as free ware or payware. It is at there discretion. Therefore, unfortunately, any copyright licences or royalty claims have been forfeited and the only one that would have a leg to stand on would be N3V for selling the content that they have been granted full rights to. And if N3V is employing some of these people to create routs fo them. Well, again, the rights have been waived according to the policy.

This still does not make it ethical. Though, ethical is to being human, as the law is to being simply a documentation.

Did you read the part about that N3V in an Australian company so thats it Australian law in the sate of QLD that applies noy what ever the local is in your area.

 

[leeferr]

Did you read the part about that N3V in an Australian company so thats it Australian law in the sate of QLD that applies noy what ever the local is in your area.

I've read that and it may well be true if you have a beef with N3V, but if it involves a violation of a copyright that I created in the U.S. and distributed, and someone besides N3V violates that copyright, then the laws where the copyright was created will definitely be in play. It may even apply if N3V violates the copyright. Just because you agreed to something when you upload doesn't necessarily make it enforceable. As we all know, you can sue anybody (except the gov't) for anything. You might not win, but it doesn't stop you giving it a try. This is a legality issue though and what the OP was questioning is 'ethics' not 'legality'. They are totally separate issues.

Mike

 

[amigacooke]

Sometimes I wonder if the adults forget what it is like to be a kid and dream of running a steam locomotive down the tracks,

Yes I remember. Of course it was good old Hornby stuff back then. I remember learning that you are not entitled to stuff just because you want it.

I remember saving up or waiting for birthdays or Christmas. I remember the anticipation that was nearly always better than the actuality. I remember learning the value of money.

All good lessons.

 

[Retro00064]

Slightly different subject, but how can anyone in a license forbid you from customizing there objects(not to distribute mind you) for your own personnel use, however they B**** and moan if they see it altered...

SORRY Ever hear of fair use? It is on my machine I can do very well what the hell I want with it. It is FREEWARE. What are you going to do sue me for lost profits? Or for taking something free and changing it for myself?

Sorry but that is by far out of anyone's jurisdiction to even be allowed to put that into a license, freeware OR payware..

Payware is even worse. I bought it I can do what the hell I want with it(short of redistributing it)

Very good point. Seriously, one who thinks that he/she can control the end user like that must have too much self-pride and/or a desire for control.

Regards.

 

[pommie]

OK, lets get something straight, just because it is free doesn't mean it is in the public domain.

Public domain = no cost, free of copyright, you can use/alter/distribute/sell it as you wish.

Open source = usually no cost, free of copyright, you may use/alter/distribute/sell as you wish, but may only distribute it with the Open Source agreement, that is you may not copyright it, think Linux, Unix, Gnu etc

Free = no cost, creator holds copyright, legally and ethically you must respect the copyright/license.

Payware = creator holds copyright, legally and ethically you must respect the copyright/license.

Please do not confuse "Public Domain" with "Free", if there is no license or copyright in with the content it is "Free" not "public domain", the only way it can be in the public domain is if the creator puts it there in writing.

Just a note, my opinion warning, while a creator can ask/request that the content not be used in payware that is all it is, a request.

John, I do not think you have any problems with the textures in question, my reasoning is that the route creator could of easily used other content/textures, therefore they are not making money from anyones content, just the work they put into placing the content reference points into the route, but please remember this is just my opinion and if I knew as much about copyright as some here claim to, I would be a very rich lawyer :wave:

Cheers David

 

[mezzoprezzo]

Yes I remember. Of course it was good old Hornby stuff back then. I remember learning that you are not entitled to stuff just because you want it.

I remember saving up or waiting for birthdays or Christmas. I remember the anticipation that was nearly always better than the actuality. I remember learning the value of money.

All good lessons.

(My emphasis in red)

Unlike Trainz, which endlessly delivers more than anticipated.

Some of the results in Surveyor turn out so much better than planned; it is an endless source of amazement and surely one of the reasons for its great success.


Back on topic:

Re-use of assets provided by their creators free of charge, and then being used for redistribution from any source involving payment, is IMHO totally wrong.

It has the same kind of “wrongness” and immorality about it as the unhappy practice of the theft of charity bags put outside of private houses or charity shops, so that the donated contents can then be shamefully sold on for profit.

The originators of the assets should have their wishes, creations and original intentions respected.

If you want to use assets for payware, I believe you should either get permission or make it yourself.

 

[Lots_Trains]

Slightly different subject, but how can anyone in a license forbid you from customizing there objects(not to distribute mind you) for your own personnel use, however they B**** and moan if they see it altered...

SORRY Ever hear of fair use? It is on my machine I can do very well what the hell I want with it. It is FREEWARE. What are you going to do sue me for lost profits? Or for taking something free and changing it for myself?

Sorry but that is by far out of anyone's jurisdiction to even be allowed to put that into a license, freeware OR payware..

Payware is even worse. I bought it I can do what the hell I want with it(short of redistributing it)

I couldn't agree more!!! There is so much crap written on here about copyrights, if its not distributed whats the problem.

For OP, John I really don't know what your problem is here, you have aquired the rights to distribute the texture as freeware, this you have done, in totally good faith. That is really the end of your involvement in the matter. If someone uses it in a payware route, it really is a matter between the payware route creator and the person who had the original material. It is between them to sort out.

Cheers

Lots

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

So does this mean I can count you out of being a potential customer? I was counting on you being my only customer:hehe:

Well yes/no/maybe:hehe:

 

[IsambardKingdomBrunel]

Okay but since your new I guess you can't tell me really how having an asset in a payware route versus a freeware route any different?

You are just being pedantic now.

A. The freeware route is not gaining any monetary reward from someones FREE content

B. If you want to make money out of the rest of this "so called community". Then do it without freeloading from people who have spent many hours creating FREEWARE content. Without a thought of making money from their own creations.

I could not careless whether the freeware asset is only a reference in a kuid list. The intent is to make monetary gain by selling a route, with the least possible effort required. By blatantly using freeware content.

IKB.

 

[johnwhelan]

Those images that John used that he put on the DLS freely are still intact and being used as they were intended regardless of which type of route is accessing them.

Not quite, the license and interpretation have changed over time. Some of the content was uploaded before the current license.

Cheerio John

 

[johnwhelan]

For OP, John I really don't know what your problem is here, you have aquired the rights to distribute the texture as freeware, this you have done, in totally good faith. That is really the end of your involvement in the matter. If someone uses it in a payware route, it really is a matter between the payware route creator and the person who had the original material. It is between them to sort out.

Cheers

Lots

I totally agree with your statement from a legal point of view. However rather than have the original copyright owner have the hassle of chasing numerous payware route creators I think its better to avoid the problem altogether. It also means ethically in the future I am unable to say to someone I'd like to use your photographic work and no payware is involved.

Cheerio John

 

[johnwhelan]

Now that is a fair question years ago, I had someone upset with me as I had reskined his item when the license said that he did not want this to happen, but by cloning an item in CMP and then editing the texture I had no need to open the config and read his notes.

Do I get the impression that since N3V is now saying you can do anything you like with any of the DLS content you no longer need to have permission to reskin?

Cheerio John

 

[Dermmy]

You never needed permission to reskin for personal use, but surely you are not suggesting it is now acceptable to reskin for distribution? Copyright law is LAW and over-rides any EULA, and the copyright on the mesh and the original texture surely vests with the original creator? If the EULA claims otherwise I suspect it can be challenged. Transfer of legal title surely involves more than clicking an 'OK' button...

Andy

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

You never needed permission to reskin for personal use, but surely you are not suggesting it is now acceptable to reskin for distribution? Copyright law is LAW and over-rides any EULA, and the copyright on the mesh and the original texture surely vests with the original creator? If the EULA claims otherwise I suspect it can be challenged. Transfer of legal title surely involves more than clicking an 'OK' button...

Andy

You would be surprised what is allowed under Australina Law -- unlike in many places in the world we do not have the right of protection of ones own image. I have just been on a course as a Govenment officer, on when and were I can in the course of my duites officaly ask someone not to take my photo and when and where do I have the right to take your photo. And what it all boils down to it under our law, if your going to do something stupid in a public place its all Youtube fodder and there really nothing you can do about it.

 

[Beattie]

Heres were I am going to just state what it should be and thats all it should be.

There only needs to be protection when freeware and payware are sold to others and thats all it needs to be end of story. You don't need permission to reskin unless your posting online to others.

This is the tired side of Beattie what a thread

 

[paulzmay]

I totally agree with your statement from a legal point of view. However rather than have the original copyright owner have the hassle of chasing numerous payware route creators I think its better to avoid the problem altogether. It also means ethically in the future I am unable to say to someone I'd like to use your photographic work and no payware is involved.

Cheerio John

Surely the greatest issue is that any item on the DLS can be built-into a future version of Trainz and sold by N3V. If your textures come with a non-commercial clause, then this must surely be a bigger roadblock than the issue that someone might reference them in a payware route. Lets face it, they can still do the same thing if your assets are on a 3rd party site.

Legally, I really can't see why it should be a problem if DLS assets are referenced in a payware route. Morally, I would expect any conditions in the config file to be respected as a minimum, irrespective of the legalities.

Just my 2c

Paul

 

[wreeder]

You never needed permission to reskin for personal use, but surely you are not suggesting it is now acceptable to reskin for distribution? Copyright law is LAW and over-rides any EULA, and the copyright on the mesh and the original texture surely vests with the original creator? If the EULA claims otherwise I suspect it can be challenged. Transfer of legal title surely involves more than clicking an 'OK' button...

Andy

You're thinking of a copyright in an all or nothing way and that is wrong. In truth a copyright grants the creator all rights to all possible uses of their creation. So that means that the copyright holder may sell or give away some limited right to use his or her creations to someone else as spelled out in a legal contract. For example, a writer that writes a short story may sell the right to publish his story in the USA to a magazine. This right would only cover the original printing and not any reprints. The writer stills holds the copyright and may seek to sell the same story to a British magazine under the same terms.

This is in fact what is happening with the N3V EULA. You are by uploading your copyrighted creation to the DLS granting N3V the right under your copyright to use your asset in the manner as spelled out by the EULA. You're still the holder of the copyright.

This is exactly why John is concerned. He feels that he might have granted N3V the right to use his assets which contain textures that are themselves copyrighted by someone else. Hence he feels he didn't have the right to enter into that agreement with N3V. Since I don't know the details, I can't offer an opinion on the matter.

Now contract law unlike copyright laws is agreed upon by most countries since it is the basis for international trade. In the simplest terms, a contract is valid if both sides understand the deal and agree to the terms of the contract. It can be either an oral or written contract or in the case of most EULAs a simple click of the mouse. Now it has been argued that no one reads the EULA before clicking but most courts have held them to be a binding contract because they contain the statement that you have read and understand the EULA and by clicking through you are stating that is true.

William

 

[aardvark1]

Will there ever be a final answer to the questions posted here?

The other question might be.... IS there a final answer?

Regards,

 

[leeferr]

Will there ever be a final answer to the questions posted here?

The other question might be.... IS there a final answer?

Regards,

In short, No. This debate will go on and on and will be resurrected from time to time. As long as people are involved, there will be differences of opinion. These opinions are developed over a lifetime and no amount of debate on this subject here is likely to change anyone's opinions. The world is full of lawyers because people can't agree on what's legal and what's not. The issue becomes even more cloudy when it comes to what's ethical and what's not. It's interesting to read though.

I think that there will be one result though. There will be those that won't upload to the DLS any longer, which I quit doing months ago, and there will be those that stop creating routes altogether except for their own use.

Mike

PS: I went back and checked some of my content on the DLS and saw that I had included a 'non-use in payware' phrase in some of my licenses. I did this when I was young to Trainz and really didn't understand that a route is just a map with coordinates for content placement. I would go back and change them all, but I can't due to N3V's prohibition on uploading 2.4 content. So to be clear, I'd just like to say that anyone can use any of my freeware content in payware routes as long as the content is not redistributed or embedded in the .cdp of the route.

 

[Pencil42]

Do I get the impression that since N3V is now saying you can do anything you like with any of the DLS content you no longer need to have permission to reskin?

Cheerio John

No; while N3V has a license to redistribute work that has been uploaded to the DLS; that license doesn't automatically transfer to anyone who downloads that work.

N3V isn't saying *you* (as in the downloader) can do anything you like with the content, just that *they* can give / sell it to whoever they like.

Curtis