I'm gonna vent here

[leeferr]

My opinion on it is if the engine is out there freeware you should automatically have rights to reskin it and put on download station. I mean why not its out to the public why have permission to use it when its freeware the original mesh? Am I the only one seeing this. I mean now if you reskining payware and uploading that's a whole another ball park.

That isn't the way that it works. As others have stated, it's freeware to be used in accordance with the licenses. It is not in the public domain and I think that's where some get confused. Whether you agree or not, the content creator still controls what happens to their content unless they specifically release it.

Mike

 

[btvfd]

if you want permission! if i have anything you really want to re-skin, retouch or just simply make it better, then do it but all i ask is that you send me a link to the new kuid and give credit where credit is due also use your own kuid because i do not own your new idea.

remember to follow the rules and limitations if any as i had to do the same.

side note:
retouch = to enhance without loosing the original image.
re-skin= to change or completely alter the appearance of the original image.

good luck and happy railroading

Jim F.
BTVFD

 

[CaptEngland]

1st I need to be clear that I'm not a copyright lawyer. I just play one on TV, no wait, that's still not right. Oh yes; I've looked into it a bit after some dealings.

Copyright law carries from county to country (and even state to state here in the US). However the law you need to follow is your governing laws (for me it's Michigan & US) as well as the laws for the original creator of whatever your reskining; as he would be filing in his local court, not yours. That being said it's bloody hard to do that.

Here is the US it is deemed 'ok' to reskin something without permission as long as it stays on your computer. However from my understanding (and maybe someone from there can clarify more) in UK reskining it at all without permission is illegal.

There is also the matter of screenshots, I've been told that in the UK screenshots of 'personal' reskins are technically redistributing.

Hi PerRock,

Sorry to shorten your post in a quote (Which I hope is not copyright, BTW) :hehe: , but the person who told you that screenshots and re-skins are illegal in the UK is speaking out of their bottom (or Fanny, as I believe our American Cousins call it!). If it was, then there would be no British content ever made. Besides that, good post!

@ all.

At the end of the day, what people should realise is that there's a lot of people into our hobby who find thinking 100% correct a challenge (perhaps due to a disability) and also this game has a lot of young kids who don't know right from wrong yet!

Yes it is wrong if someone does not ask permission,but is it right, that without knowing the full facts about someone who uploads a reskin without permission, that person should be banned for life, only for us to find out later that the person (hypothetically speaking) was a kid with learning difficulty's who is now locked out of their one enjoyment in life?

As someone has said, I take it the reskin is a very poor one so I would guess that the person who has done it is not very old, or has learning difficulty's. Perhaps someone should ask them politely that they should ask permission next time?

Regards.
CaptEngland (© & ™ 2012 worldwide and the whole universe and other universes and dimensions (no reskinning my posts allowed, so there )).

 

[Beattie]

The only reason I say that is because 60% of the peoples work I look at is not here and gone and that work is freeware. So I am stuck there when it comes to reskins from there work to use on the dls. I really wish in the future then people just straight out say you can go ahead and reskin it and upload it or no it would make reskining 10times faster and get things going a lot smoother.

 

[ZecMurphy]

Hi All

First, for IKB, my comments weren't actually directed at you. They were for all who are looking at this thread, and for a few others that were making it personal.

As to permission, if the creator is no longer able to be contacted, then your reskins will be personal use only, unless they've publicly stated that permission is granted for reskins (a few creators have 'announced' via the forums that their content can be reskinned, etc), or their license does allow the reskins to be released.

Please also remember, some creators do include in their license that screenshots cannot be shown of reskins. Always best to check the 'license' section of the asset for any additional restrictions (or allowances!). Some licenses may grant permission to release, but only via the DLS (there are a few that I've spotted of these actually).

There are reasons beyond being 'annoying' for people requiring reskinners to contact them to obtain permission. Often due to licenses/agreements between the 'original' creator and another part for some content in the asset (e.g. scripts, texture parts, mesh parts, etc), which may not include permission for others to use them in reskins.

Or the original creator may have the same item in production, but with 'correct' mesh changes to suite that variation (my VR T class is a good example, with further liveries requiring further mesh changes...).

Or, they may have 'psd' files that they can supply to make your reskin a lot easier, particularly where shadowing or weathering is involved.

 

[Euphod]

All good points Zec, thanks. I know I have been asked for permission to reskin items I have already reskinned, but I don't own the mesh or the model, so I can't grant permission.

 

[Gandalf0444]

Hi All

First, for IKB, my comments weren't actually directed at you. They were for all who are looking at this thread, and for a few others that were making it personal.

As to permission, if the creator is no longer able to be contacted, then your reskins will be personal use only, unless they've publicly stated that permission is granted for reskins (a few creators have 'announced' via the forums that their content can be reskinned, etc), or their license does allow the reskins to be released.

Please also remember, some creators do include in their license that screenshots cannot be shown of reskins. Always best to check the 'license' section of the asset for any additional restrictions (or allowances!). Some licenses may grant permission to release, but only via the DLS (there are a few that I've spotted of these actually).

There are reasons beyond being 'annoying' for people requiring reskinners to contact them to obtain permission. Often due to licenses/agreements between the 'original' creator and another part for some content in the asset (e.g. scripts, texture parts, mesh parts, etc), which may not include permission for others to use them in reskins.

Or the original creator may have the same item in production, but with 'correct' mesh changes to suite that variation (my VR T class is a good example, with further liveries requiring further mesh changes...).

Or, they may have 'psd' files that they can supply to make your reskin a lot easier, particularly where shadowing or weathering is involved.

Perhaps it would be beneficial to make the license easier to find and read for the newbies. I mean how can you know anything if you have to jump through hoops to find the license? If I was a new person how would I know to open CMP, find the piece of content, open for edit in explorer, either open the .txt file named license, or open this "config.txt" file that I don't know what it does so do I really dare open it? Then If I do scroll down to try and find the license.
Or the other option open the asset in this "content creation manager" that I have no idea what it does and do I want to risk it when I just got trainz working?
Something for the community to think about here. How you can you read something that you have no clue is there, or how to access it? Seems to me like signing a contract from 5000 miles away without knowing I even did so....

Unless it is directly in the description on the DLS (which 99% of the content does not have) in most cases you CANNOT be held to the license, as it is essentially a contract which you cannot agree OR disagree to if you cannot see, read, then understand the thing to begin with.

 

[clam1952]

Perhaps it would be beneficial to make the license easier to find and read for the newbies.

You just click the button that says View License in the assets details panel, you don't have to open for edit etc.

 

[Gandalf0444]

You just click the button that says View License in the assets details panel, you don't have to open for edit etc.

Point still stands how would a newbie know to do that? Still not presented in a CLEAR manner.

 

[ZecMurphy]

In effect, there are actually a few licenses...

First is basic copyright. If I don't put anything into the license, then I still have basic copyright on my artwork (note, exact copyright law will vary, however for Australia this is automatic).

Second, is any additional restrictions (or allowances) I place onto the content in the license tag. You points about finding this 'license' information are valid if I were to just redistribute another person's content without modification. However, as soon as you introduce modification of the content, you are already taking most of those steps. You are just skipping the reading of the license section in the config.txt file (you'll need to open the config somehow, either with notepad/etc or CCP, to change the name...). Many creators put a 'full' license in here, so as to make it clearer.

The license in the 'config.txt' file is available by opening the 'asset details' panel, then clicking on 'view license'. The asset will need to be selected of course.

Third is if you are uploading to the DLS, there's the DLS terms and conditions (aka, the DLS license agreement). Namely, the DLS terms and conditions (which are agreed to when uploading) require you to obtain permission from the original creator (if you are the original creator, then hopefully you've given yourself permission!).

Now I am going to pick your reply apart a little, so as to clarify my answer on it.

If I was a new person how would I know to open CMP

This is outlined quite nicely in the Manual. You'll also need to open CM to be able to redistribute the content in the first place, let alone reskin the content...

find the piece of content

Again, the ability to do this will be necessary to actually redistribute, modify/reskin, or download the asset...

open for edit in explorer

Again, the ability to do this is necessary if you wish to reskin or modify the asset. It's at this point that simply 'redistributing' an asset (without modification) would be an easy mistake for a new user. And is one that is understandable. When it does happen, we explain the situation, remove the item from the DLS, and all parties are happy (we haven't actually banned the user, and they generally will have learned something ).

either open the .txt file named license, or open this "config.txt" file that I don't know what it does so do I really dare open it?

Well, if you are reskinning for the first time, you'll generally be following a tutorial, which will tell you to open the config (either with a text editor or CCP) to rename the asset. Even if you aren't, you'll generally want to rename the asset, and you will normally end up here. The license is quite often near the top or middle of the config, and on many items this will fit onto the screen.

Then If I do scroll down to try and find the license.

This is simply taking some effort. And if following a tutorial, then the tutorial should be explaining that you should head to this.

Or the other option open the asset in this "content creation manager" that I have no idea what it does and do I want to risk it when I just got trainz working?

I would be wondering if anyone who 'just got Trainz working' would actually be attempting reskinning at all... If they are, then they will (again) quite likely either head to CCP or a text editor to open the config file so that they can rename their item.

I do agree, a new user will not always see the license section. However, that doesn't give them permission to do what they like. If you don't see the speed sign, does that give you permission to exceed the speed limit?

However, if/when they upload to the DLS, they do agree to a license (by ticking, or clicking on, a button that says "I have read and agree with..." or similar), which does specifically state that you must have permission from the original author.

 

[sparky15]

If you're that picky about how someone may use content you put out there for free for them to use, don't put it out there for free for them to use.

 

[Gandalf0444]

the speed sign, does that give you permission to exceed the speed limit?

However, if/when they upload to the DLS, they do agree to a license (by ticking, or clicking on, a button that says "I have read and agree with..." or similar), which does specifically state that you must have permission from the original author.

Point made, however there still needs to be a clear way to present the license. There is no legal way to either AGREE or DISAGREE with the license until it is already on your computer, in which case if you don't agree with it the only way to not have to is to not do anything the license says not to, OR delete it from the computer. Granted there are other licenses you agree to. I.E. the one to access the DLS in the first place etc.

But those you have the OPTION to agree or disagree to. These you do not have that option until it is to late, and if you don't agree then you simply cannot access the DLS(or if trying to install a program, it will then not install and will quit)

If I made a contract up with you Zec, but did not show you a copy and did not give you any chance to agree or disagree with it's terms and conditions. Such as this: By agreeing to this contract Gandalf0444 assumes possession of all property owned by Zec Murphy and can then do with the property as he wishes." Now you of course would not agree to that if you saw the contract up front. But if you never had it presented to you clearly. I.E. email, a fax, or in this case a prompt of some sort that you cannot skip, how would you know what it said, and that only way that you could find out what it says is to agree to it, then after agreeing you then get the copy of the contract, but by that point it is to late, you agreed.

The analogy you used about the speed limit sign does not really fit this situation, as if you didn't see the speed limit sign how do you know you were speeding? Not to mention in a lot of places there aren't speed signs for a mile or pending where you live so how would you know what the speed was if you turned on in between 2 speed signs?

Another argument is that most people do not know the basic copyright laws.

 

[ScottPhillips]

So, I am completely new at this and wanted to give my perspective. For the record, I am no kid (just turned 40), have no disabilities (that we know of anyway...). I am just a guy who likes computer sims/games/3d modeling/artwork, etc. I am just learning how to get this thing running and just figuring out what a kuid missing dependency faulty blah blah is.

I have no idea how to view the licenses or what rights/responsibilities they give me. I will however attempt to learn and comply.

These processes are very complex and there are many options available to changing content. This seems to be by design. It allows everyone to make their own adjustments in the way they are most able. It allows for a lot of talented people to show off their incredible work. It also opens up the 'world' to hacks and the indifferent. That, to me, is the cost of doing business.

It seems to me if you are uploading content to share, you are opening that content up to be modified at your own risk. It would be your responsibility to monitor and police the license/copyright issues. I am not yet aware of the methods available to limit what can and cannot be changed.

 

[ZecMurphy]

Hi Gandalf0444
I do understand what you are saying, however in the case of the license in an asset, there is no need for you to read/agree to this, unless you are going to actually modify the asset... This license is not changing the ownership (as with your license), it is establishing it (e.g. "by using this asset, you agree that you will not modify/reskin/redistribute this asset").

The DLS/Trainz license agreements actually give the user a few things that some may try to prevent with their license agreements, and these DLS/Trainz license agreements overrule these. Namely, they allow you to use the content within Surveyor/Driver.

Hence, there should be no need for you to read the license in the asset unless you are specifically modifying the asset.

Now, one area that could be improved is to have a 'license agreement' so that you can modify an asset (or at minimum, clone an asset that isn't under your userId). However, common sense should dictate that you check for a license before hand, hence such a feature isn't implemented. Same as the DLS does require you to have permission, and hence this is effectively stipulated when uploading the content (to the DLS).

As to the speed sign analogy... You get a speeding fine by going above the speed limit. Saying you didn't see the speed sign doesn't mean they let you off the ticket (at least not in Aus...), you should have been concentrating on the road (and the signage of the road). Turning onto a road between speed signs doesn't permit you to break the speed limit (generally, the road type will allow you to approximate the speed limit, and you should then go slightly under this till you see a speed sign).

 

[Euphod]

The analogy you used about the speed limit sign does not really fit this situation, as if you didn't see the speed limit sign how do you know you were speeding? Not to mention in a lot of places there aren't speed signs for a mile or pending where you live so how would you know what the speed was if you turned on in between 2 speed signs

I'm sure any Police Officer would be glad to explain this to you. As for those that believe they should be able to "occupy" some else's property (or model) just because it was originally released as freeware I believe you are being very short sighted.
Any modeler that releases a piece of content freeware should be praised and celebrated, and at the very least afforded some respect for what they've made. I know reskinners are anxious to turn something already made into something that represents the vision they have, but asking for permission is a small courtesy that we can all afford.
Lacking the smallest of respect, courtesy and appreciation of the modeler's work, they may just decide that their future releases should be payware, or at the very least located off the DLS, which is inconvenient to all of us.
Is it really too much to ask for permissions, or should everyone just get everything they want without the tiniest act of appreciation?

If you believe the latter, please let me know what color your tent is, and are you a member of the drum circle?

 

[sparky15]

57 to go.........

 

[Gandalf0444]

Hi Gandalf0444
I do understand what you are saying, however in the case of the license in an asset, there is no need for you to read/agree to this, unless you are going to actually modify the asset... This license is not changing the ownership (as with your license), it is establishing it (e.g. "by using this asset, you agree that you will not modify/reskin/redistribute this asset").

The DLS/Trainz license agreements actually give the user a few things that some may try to prevent with their license agreements, and these DLS/Trainz license agreements overrule these. Namely, they allow you to use the content within Surveyor/Driver.

Hence, there should be no need for you to read the license in the asset unless you are specifically modifying the asset.

Now, one area that could be improved is to have a 'license agreement' so that you can modify an asset (or at minimum, clone an asset that isn't under your userId). However, common sense should dictate that you check for a license before hand, hence such a feature isn't implemented. Same as the DLS does require you to have permission, and hence this is effectively stipulated when uploading the content (to the DLS).

As to the speed sign analogy... You get a speeding fine by going above the speed limit. Saying you didn't see the speed sign doesn't mean they let you off the ticket (at least not in Aus...), you should have been concentrating on the road (and the signage of the road). Turning onto a road between speed signs doesn't permit you to break the speed limit (generally, the road type will allow you to approximate the speed limit, and you should then go slightly under this till you see a speed sign).

I do agree with you on on the speed sign issue, sorta

But I do think it would be beneficial for all to implement a "license agreement" so that you can modify the asset. Reason being it would close a lot of loop holes that could be exploited if it came to a law suit. Would it be annoying? Yes indeed, very. But if the people are way to over protective over the stuff they have made, then it is a necessary evil. But common sense does not always dictate anything. When it comes to law you cannot rely on common sense, it has to be laid out in front of you, otherwise the offender could possibly get off the hook if they had the resources to hire a decent lawyer or a team of them.

 

[Gandalf0444]

I'm sure any Police Officer would be glad to explain this to you. As for those that believe they should be able to "occupy" some else's property (or model) just because it was originally released as freeware I believe you are being very short sighted.
Any modeler that releases a piece of content freeware should be praised and celebrated, and at the very least afforded some respect for what they've made. I know reskinners are anxious to turn something already made into something that represents the vision they have, but asking for permission is a small courtesy that we can all afford.
Lacking the smallest of respect, courtesy and appreciation of the modeler's work, they may just decide that their future releases should be payware, or at the very least located off the DLS, which is inconvenient to all of us.
Is it really too much to ask for permissions, or should everyone just get everything they want without the tiniest act of appreciation?

If you believe the latter, please let me know what color your tent is, and are you a member of the drum circle?

I think you missed the point Ed. I am backing asking permission:hehe: I am a creator myself. I am simply saying that in order to make it harder to just release stuff, and force people to ask permission that there should have to be a way to view the license so people are 100% aware that it is there, and what it says(even if they don't read it they cannot say it wasn't there and not presented to them)

 

[Euphod]

I think you missed the point Ed. I am backing asking permission:hehe: I am a creator myself. I am simply saying that in order to make it harder to just release stuff, and force people to ask permission that there should have to be a way to view the license so people are 100% aware that it is there, and what it says(even if they don't read it they cannot say it wasn't there and not presented to them)

Apologies Gandalf, the latter part of my post was not directed at you, and I never have considered you as one of "those that believe..". I understand your point.

I will offer this though: I have worked in the construction trades for a great part of my life, and have witnessed ladies wearing fur coats sitting on a bench that was festooned with "Wet Paint" signs like barnacles on a tramp steamer. I have seen business men repeatedly jabbing away at an button in an elevator that was clearly marked as "out of order". I have seen people taking risks with their lives by venturing into areas that were roped off and labeled as dangerous, do not proceed, life protection equipment required past this point.

I don't think having the information readily and easily available will make a damn bit of difference.

I know when I update my Adobe installation, I don't bother to read the EULA, even though I have to check the box to claim I have.

Human nature, and by nature...we're not really that smart.:hehe:

 

[Gandalf0444]

Apologies Gandalf, the latter part of my post was not directed at you, and I never have considered you as one of "those that believe..". I understand your point.

I will offer this though: I have worked in the construction trades for a great part of my life, and have witnessed ladies wearing fur coats sitting on a bench that was festooned with "Wet Paint" signs like barnacles on a tramp steamer. I have seen business men repeatedly jabbing away at an button in an elevator that was clearly marked as "out of order". I have seen people taking risks with their lives by venturing into areas that were roped off and labeled as dangerous, do not proceed, life protection equipment required past this point.

I don't think having the information readily and easily available will make a damn bit of difference.

I know when I update my Adobe installation, I don't bother to read the EULA, even though I have to check the box to claim I have.

Human nature, and by nature...we're not really that smart.:hehe:

LMAO...very valid points Ed.:hehe: My dad was a contractor before he had a heart attack..he witnessed similar events, such as when he was going to be spraying paint onto a house using a high powered paint sprayed, with a very slight breeze once in awhile, he put up signs in the driveway so if any visitors to the owners can they would know not to park in this area.. Safe to say someone parked there and there car then had white paint spray marks on it.:hehe: When they first got out of the car me and my dad ran over and said please don't park there, if you can move your car about 5 feet to the back you will be fine. Nope ignored us.