Licensing

[sparky15]

John,
The DLS upload policy is ingenious. It assumes free use of objects while placing the burdens of copywrite for all objects on the uploader. In other words, not their fault if copywrites are infringed, the uploader was supposed to take care of that, not them. It's spells that out pretty plain. You assume responsibility under the DLS policy when you submit an item for upload.

If you have questions, all you really can do is upload to a third party, not for profit site. You maintained, and offered, the content for free in spirit with the original creator's intentions. What someone did with the asset after download is on them, not you. Any questions are now between the original creator and that person who used it. You offered it in good faith and are not responsible for what the other party did with it.
The DLS assumes full control of content for their use once uploaded to them. You agreed when you pushed the button to upload.
You have two choices. Only use textures where their use may not be violated by the DLS upload policy or host on third party sites. Either way, you carry the burden or possible infringement should someone become upset. Weigh what is more important to you, CM access or fear of a lawsuit and decide accordingly. Not being on the DLS is not an end all or fail safe. People who want the content will get it. Been proven time and again.
As far as SOME of the arguments here and the other thread, already had one creator take his toys and go home. Forum lawyers can say what they will, but, if the creators leave, you have nothing left. All the great content we have on the DLS and in game came from someone who took the time to give it to us. Don't see how it's so hard to respect their wishes, legal or not.


Dave........

 

[mrscsi]

Well the only reason I weighed in on the last thread or on this thread is not out of some disrespect for content creators. The only reason I weighed in was because there were individuals claiming that route builders who choose to build routes for a fee and who are playing completely by Auran/N3V's rules were being called freeloaders, thieves, unethical etc.

I understand that common courtesy would dictate that you would contact somebody. Problem is (and it's been explained before in both threads) some content creators won't even reply, others tell you to go get screwed and then others demand a piece of the pie.

Now while all of that is well and good, and if a route builder chooses to go that route, they can. But the simple fact of the matter is that they're not required to if they are not packaging up the actual asset into the CDP file.

The rules of the game have not changed in a good number of years if at all, the content creator does not own or have any right to the actual kuid number assigned to that asset. As such they have no claim of a payware route creator that includes that kuid number along with a set of coordinates inside a route CDP.

This isn't something that changed yesterday or last month or last year, it's been that way as long as I've been using Trainz and that's been eight years now. There were routes like Modula city and one of the other big demos that was included in the 2006, neither of those routes used 100% self-made assets. Both pulled assets from the DLS. I don't recall ever seeing a big outcry back then.

Now I'll reiterate once again for those who don't know my position, if a route builder downloads an asset from the DLS and includes that asset in the CDP file, that's WRONG and they should be hunted down and hung. But if the only thing a route creator is doing is including a kuid number and a set of coordinates in the actual CDP file that they are selling, that is 100% well within all accepted licenses and policies that Auran/N3V has in place.

To call people playing by the rules freeloaders, thieves, unethical etc. for simply using the system as it's intended is entirely uncalled for and rather childish in my opinion. It's doing nothing but driving a wedge between two factions of content creators because route building is content creation just as well as modeling an asset in Max is.

Because one content creator chooses freely to put his creations on the DLS for the open and free use of all of those registered users of the simulation is their choice, but they cannot then dictate to other content creators who have found a market for their creations. That's what it appears to me that is trying to take place.

Because the route creator is not selling, distributing, modifying or reselling the other content creators content. He is merely selling a list of kuid numbers and coordinates so that the registered user of the simulation can save time placing assets that they are entitled to use under anyone's software license who has content on the DLS.

 

[pommie]

Your totaly correct Sir and that is why some of us are treating this thread with the due respect it commands..

Thanks for the offer aardvark1, but I have plenty left over from the locked thread

Cheers David

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

Cheers David

I see I am not the only one ROFLMAO

I am still working how they got the roo to finish the first stubbie of XXXX let alone the next four - even with out having to force him to drink number 6

 

[AJ_Fox]

I'm not sure any of these threads are really going to accomplish anything, but not being one to close or move threads without good reason, I would say can we move on to something else?

Cheers

AJ

 

[pommie]

Sure thing...................moving on............................

My desktop

When is Trainz going to work in Linux/Wine ?????????????????

Cheers David

 

[meatloaf747]

I hope that kangaroo that knocked back that 6 pack (of stubbies) is not driving tonight. There's enough coon's on the road as it is...

If he is, I hope he ate some popcorn to help soak up the grog... :hehe:

Cheers, Mac...

 

[IsambardKingdomBrunel]

Sure thing...................moving on............................

My desktop

When is Trainz going to work in Linux/Wine ?????????????????

Cheers David

I would be interested in knowing this ?

IKB.

 

[johnwhelan]

I'm not sure any of these threads are really going to accomplish anything, but not being one to close or move threads without good reason, I would say can we move on to something else?

Cheers

AJ

Depends what you expect them to accomplish.

One of your posts that I quoted and was deleted in another thread mentioned that a route could include a loco.

I think what we have determined is that certain content should not be uploaded to the DLS which from a content creator's point of view is important information.

We've also determined that kangaroos prefer stubby bottles.

Cheerio John

 

[Barry]

I have moved on, as only now make Blender content and routes in it's game engine, for myself and possibly occasional meshes I may make available, under the condition they are NEVER used in payware. No doubt all my previous made content will have to stay on Trainz DS, although certainly not made originally (almost 10years ago), for myself or for others to make profit from on by any means, including reference to content through a kuid when loaded.


Barry

 

[Beattie]

I see I am not the only one ROFLMAO

Lol this form is a beach party lets party:hehe: . Oh no I slipped on my own laugther how did I do this?? No idea but this is golden form say tuned to your weekly daily dose of drama .

This is Beattie with the news have a great day.

 

[johnwhelan]

I have moved on, as only now make Blender content and routes in it's game engine, for myself and possibly occasional meshes I may make available, under the condition they are NEVER used in payware. No doubt all my previous made content will have to stay on Trainz DS, although certainly not made originally (almost 10years ago), for myself or for others to make profit from on by any means, including reference to content through a kuid when loaded.


Barry

I think this post is interesting as well as it shows the original intent of many content creators was that their work should not be used in payware and that was their understanding at the time it was loaded to the DLS.

Over time Auran / N3V's interpretations have changed.

Cheerio John

 

[WindWalkr]

Over time Auran / N3V's interpretations have changed.

Not in this regard, no.

Our intention for the DLS has always been to provide a resource to the wider community, and not just to a particular segment of the community.

chris

 

[johnwhelan]

Not in this regard, no.

Our intention for the DLS has always been to provide a resource to the wider community, and not just to a particular segment of the community.

chris

It seems odd that judging from the number of licenses that basically say no payware that so many content creators have not been aware of this for so long.

Cheerio John

 

[leeferr]

It seems odd that judging from the number of licenses that basically say no payware that so many content creators have not been aware of this for so long.

Cheerio John

I believe that it's a simple matter of creators not understanding how routes are packaged. I know I certainly didn't when I started creating and uploading. I had some of that same 'non-payware' language in my content. Now, since I understand how a route is put together and packaged, I have no problem with my content being referenced in a payware route. The downloader of the route still has go the the DLS to get the content

John, all of this just sounds to me like the real issue is that you're anti-payware. The only way that I can see for a payware creator to abide by your wishes is to go through all of their DLS content and delete anything that has a non-payware clause since you certainly can't tell from within surveyor if a piece of content has that restriction or not. Also, as far as I'm aware, there's not a way to read the content license before I download it from the DLS. I have to download it first and then read the license.

Kind regards
Mike

 

[paulhobbs]

It seems odd that judging from the number of licenses that basically say no payware that so many content creators have not been aware of this for so long.

Cheerio John

Have you got an example of such a licence? That's certainly not what my licence said (the one you quoted earlier in this thread)

Paul

 

[leeferr]

John
I'm still confused by your premise on using your content in a payware route. Let's assume that I create a payware route that DOES NOT include any of your content because of your non-payware desire. A member purchases and downloads my route that does not include a reference to your kuid and after downloading, he replaces a piece of content that I have in the route with one of your non-payware pieces of content into the route or adds some of your content. Does this violate your desire. The content is now being used in a payware route. I didn't gain financially in the process, but it's still a payware route. Nothing has changed in the route in the process except the addtion of a reference.

Mike

 

[mcguirel]

You have an absolutely valid point Leefer.

This is one reason I am not keen of the replacement tool, but this issue does not even remotely override the benefits of the replacement tool.

As I changed my Usage Request on UltraTrack to a more liberal stance, I just feel that people should do thier best to honor an individual's request to the best of their ability.
With this in mind, I still say you have an absolute valid point.

 

[johnwhelan]

John, all of this just sounds to me like the real issue is that you're anti-payware. The only way that I can see for a payware creator to abide by your wishes is to go through all of their DLS content and delete anything that has a non-payware clause since you certainly can't tell from within surveyor if a piece of content has that restriction or not. Also, as far as I'm aware, there's not a way to read the content license before I download it from the DLS. I have to download it first and then read the license.

Kind regards
Mike

My problem is purely textures, I obtained permission to use certain textures on the premise that they would only be used for freeware. One photographer was very clear and very emphatic on the point, if there was any question of payware then I didn't have a license to use the textures.

I actually buy payware from time to time and I think there is a place for it, but the issue at the moment is how to resolve the texture issue. N3V have drawn my attention to the fact that assets uploaded to the DLS now have to be available for inclusion in payware layouts, fine and I've drawn to their attention the fact I don't have the appropriate licenses so could they remove some content from the DLS.

Cheerio John

 

[Gandalf0444]

My problem is purely textures, I obtained permission to use certain textures on the premise that they would only be used for freeware. One photographer was very clear and very emphatic on the point, if there was any question of payware then I didn't have a license to use the textures.

I actually buy payware from time to time and I think there is a place for it, but the issue at the moment is how to resolve the texture issue. N3V have drawn my attention to the fact that assets uploaded to the DLS now have to be available for inclusion in payware layouts, fine and I've drawn to their attention the fact I don't have the appropriate licenses so could they remove some content from the DLS.

Cheerio John

That maybe true but your asset with the texture is NOT the item being sold. The route is the item being sold(unless the asset is packaged into a CDP along with the route) However if it is sold in a copy of trainz itself then I can possibly understand your argument.