Licensing

[Pencil42]

Well, I disagree with the assumption that freeware has a value of zero, but that depends on the artist. :hehe:

I'm not sure I follow. By it's very nature, freeware is available for a price of $0. You could seek an injunction to halt distribution, but I think you'd have a hard time proving any monetary damages or loss.

You can't legally download freeware and then sell it for a profit, you can't legally profit from derivative work without permission from the creator of the work that your work is based on.

You may be confusing copyright and licensing.
Copyright has to do with the (re)distribution of an asset. It does not cover how that asset is used; in fact, courts in the US* have specifically said that a copyright holder cannot exert control over the use of their item. With respect to copyright, selling it for a profit or giving it away freely are both violations.
Derivative assets can definately be sold without permission. They generally need to be transformative with a substantial amount of original work, or fall under 'fair use' guidelines (or the original has to be ineligible for copyright protection.)
Licensing would control what you can and cannot do with an asset.

primary reason I never went payware is because i didn't think there would ever be enough money in it for the aggravation involved.

Heh, I hear you

Curtis
* Yes, I know the DLS is specifically under QLD law :wave:

 

[bchester]

I have read, and re-read both this thread and the "ethics" thread and need to know if I am missing something here!

John says that he uploaded a piece of content which uses an image (texture) created by someone else. This person has stated to John that he can freely distribute the created object on the condition that the object can not be used in any payware items. Do I understand that correctly John?

I have created several routes now. All for my own personal use and will never be distributed by any means. The creation of a route requires hundreds, thousands or even hundreds of thousands of objects. These can be simple ground textures, more complex grasses and shrubs, trees, buildings, track, industries, cars (or is that carz), roads, bridges.... The list goes on.

If a route developer (creator, what ever) wants to use someone elses object, it has always been required ( well, that may be a strong word but it was always assumed) that he/she would contact the creator of said included content for permission to include. Sometimes this permission is actually spelled out very clearly in the license included in the config.txt. Content manager now displays the config.txt as soon as you click on an object. It is there to be seen by any user.

Any route builder and especially payware route builders are well aware that the included content is what makes or breaks the route! They have included it because it makes the route look good! That is what makes a payware route salable! Whether an object is actually packaged in the cdp or simply referenced makes no difference (well, really there is but for this argument it doesn't). The inclusion of the object in the payware is breaking a license agreement!

Sadly, the route has already been sold, but the creator of that route, now having been informed, should stop selling the said route until each and every object has been checked and authorized for use in said payware. In the case that John is making the object should be permanently removed from the route and a public apology made to the creator of the original texture.

My two cents!

Bricey

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

If a route developer (creator, what ever) wants to use someone elses object, it has always been required ( well, that may be a strong word but it was always assumed) that he/she would contact the creator of said included content for permission to include. Sometimes this permission is actually spelled out very clearly in the license included in the config.txt. Content manager now displays the config.txt as soon as you click on an object. It is there to be seen by any user.

Well in fact from what I understand this has never been an Auran/N3V requirment.

As far as I know content manager does not show the config if you click on a item, it gives you the option to, but would the average user know to go looking for a licence that controls the use of the content in a config.

In Johns case I think he was more upset that he had given his word that something was going to happen only to learn that in fact it was out of his control.

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

The inclusion of the object in the payware is breaking a license agreement!

Bricey

N3V states otherwise

 

[sniper297]

"I'm not sure I follow. By it's very nature, freeware is available for a price of $0"

Lemmee see if I can clear it up. I got a 1998 Dodge Neon, if I drove it to the junkyard tomorrow I could probably get $200 bucks scrap price for it. Blue book price is about $2000 bucks. If I donated it to one of them charity things, I would get $0 for it - so what is its VALUE? Assume I gave it to a charity, and someone stole it - can't charge the guy with Grand Theft Auto because the car is worth $0? It's worth at least $200 for the scrap metal even if it's wrecked, regardless of the price paid for it, and if it was in running condition at the time it was stolen, it has a value of $2000 bucks in the felony charges, what the victim paid for it or what I sold it for is irrelevant to the value.

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

Sadly, the route has already been sold, but the creator of that route, now having been informed, should stop selling the said route until each and every object has been checked and authorized for use in said payware. In the case that John is making the object should be permanently removed from the route and a public apology made to the creator of the original texture.

Bricey

No -NO route has been sold -
No apology is needed
Nobody has to stop selling anything.

 

[bchester]

No -NO route has been sold -
No apology is needed
Nobody has to stop selling anything.

It had been stated that the texture was seen in a payware route! If it has been seen in the route, has it not been sold? If the route has not yet been sold then I really am missing something! How can it have been seen if not sold?

Bricey

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

It had been stated that the texture was seen in a payware route! If it has been seen in the route, has it not been sold? If the route has not yet been sold then I really am missing something! How can it have been seen if not sold?

Bricey

The story so far ..John had given his word to an owner of textures that the textures would only be used in a not for profit manor...

John then found out that this may not be the case and that said textures many turn up in a pay for use route and he was not happy about this as he see's his word as his bond..

John was told that in no way could he be held accountable for this

But he was still not happy

He then posted a new aggrement === the first post in this thread and asked others to comment on this ===

Some of us were more interested in drunk Kanageroos in Queensland and popcorn than what the thread was really about

But as we all now have learned, as we read the postings that when it comes down to, if you use a free item in a paid route your not ripping anybody and not breaching any N3V rules even if the config say otherwise, as long as your only pointing the route user to get the item off the dls and not including it in a package -

and the big ending

The Moral to the story ----- if you really do not want your free items ending up on a pay route do not put it on the DLS

And now back to normal services

 

[leeferr]

It had been stated that the texture was seen in a payware route! If it has been seen in the route, has it not been sold? If the route has not yet been sold then I really am missing something! How can it have been seen if not sold?

Bricey

You said that you're read and reread both threads. Are you sure?

If it was seen in a payware route, then the purchaser of the route had to go to the DLS to download the content with the texture separately from the route. The content was not sold because the route did not contain the content with the texture, only a reference to it. The only exception to this would be if the creator of the route actually packaged the content with the route in which case, I would be up in arms along with John. If you're not familiar with the makeup of a route, take a look at the config.txt file for any route and you'll see a list of kuids that are referenced in the route. There are separate files (.trk, .obs, .gnd) that have a list of coordinates on where to place each piece of content. There is not any actual content in a route .cdp unless the route creator purposely packages it with the route.

I hope this clears it up a little for you.
Regards
Mike

 

[mrscsi]

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.

Tried that reasoning with him in two different threads now, I don't think you are gonna get through:hehe:

 

[mrscsi]

Money has changed hands and when the route is installed the texture can be seen.



Cheerio John

I knew you were going to get here eventually.

Think about this John, money changed hands, before those textures could ever be seen anyway. In order for those textures to have ever been seen on the DLS MONEY CHANGED HANDS.

So in essence everything on the DLS is payware anyway.

Because you're not going to access the DLS, until you pays your money

In the form of buying the simulation

So you lied to your friend, your feeling bad about it, and you want all route builders to suffer as a result. I really think this is all it boils down to. You didn't explain to your friend every possible aspect of what you were going to use his texture for and now you don't know how to explain it to him in a way that's going to matchup or jive with what you originally told him.

That's a personal dilemma not one for the Trainz community. Because if you want to make it "money changing hands" then every asset on the DLS is technically PAYWARE. If "money changing hands" is going to be the definition and standard, then you've been a payware creator all along:hehe:

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

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.

As it has been stated many times, putting an item on the DLS and your agreeing for N3V to use it how ever they like - even for them to use your item in any release of trains or sell it in anyway, shape or form.

Not happy with this,
then do not put it on the DLS
.... full stop end of story......

 

[mrscsi]

It had been stated that the texture was seen in a payware route! If it has been seen in the route, has it not been sold? If the route has not yet been sold then I really am missing something! How can it have been seen if not sold?

Bricey

A payware route contains no assets, it contains a list of kuids and coordinates.

That's what I think you're missing. I could build a payware route and include every asset on the DLS in it, but when I package the route for sale it has absolutely no assets in it, just a list of kuids and coordinates.

What makes the original argument so funny "that the texture was seen in a payware route" how does he know the end-user didn't put it there themselves?

The other thing I find funny are all the other content creators jumping up and down calling other people freeloaders, thieves etc. when it is just not case. Claiming that someone buying a payware route for the assets it contains, is like saying I'm buying a house because of the kind of nails that were used to build it.

It's an absolutely ridiculous assumption that people buy a route map for the assets (if any) that it may or may not reference in a kuid table.

How are payware route builders supposed to highlight all the fancy DLS content we include? Are we to take screenshots of every item and say "this is what our route includes" to lure unsuspecting suckers in? It doesn't happen that way nor probably will it ever.

Now I'll reiterate again because I know some people don't read every post, IF a route builder packages DLS content INTO his CDP file. THAT'S WRONG and the individual should be hunted down and hung.

With that said, merely selling a list of kuids and coordinates is not being unethical, immoral, illegal, or being a freeloader or violating anyone's license on the DLS in any way shape or form.

It's just the way it is.

 

[mrscsi]

As it has been stated many times, putting an item on the DLS and your agreeing for N3V to use it how ever they like - even for them to use your item in any release of trains or sell it in anyway, shape or form.

Not happy with this,
then do not put it on the DLS
.... full stop end of story......

I'm with you cat

 

[Gandalf0444]

As it has been stated many times, putting an item on the DLS and your agreeing for N3V to use it how ever they like - even for them to use your item in any release of trains or sell it in anyway, shape or form.

Not happy with this,
then do not put it on the DLS
.... full stop end of story......

I agree with you but I am going by the argument John is trying to make which I guess I didn't make clear enough or just flew over your head, most likely a combination of both... . About people making a profit off of the textures from his creations which some of the textures are supposedly NOT allowed to be used for profit. However if they get put on the DLS then subsequently added to a version of trainz by shear chance isn't that essentially the same exact argument as someone selling a route CDP file that simply references the asset rather then including it?

Which in essence leaves him shooting himself in the foot by uploading them to the DLS.

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

I agree with you but I am going by the argument John is trying to make which I guess I didn't make clear enough or just flew over your head, most likely a combination of both... . About people making a profit off of the textures from his creations which some of the textures are supposedly NOT allowed to be used for profit. However if they get put on the DLS then subsequently added to a version of trainz by shear chance isn't that essentially the same exact argument as someone selling a route CDP file that simply references the asset rather then including it?

Which in essence leaves him shooting himself in the foot by uploading them to the DLS.

Total agree with you - I think John was under the impression that if he put in his content that it was never to used in paywhere that would protect it.
... this is now known not the case ...

It was also presented that maybe it would be moraly wrong for a person to use an item so tagged or any item off the item in a paywear route .
... not so....

Not so much as shooting himself in the foot but misinformed - now educated and not happy well the umpires ruling

 

[sniper297]

I'm guessing your argument here is hypothetical, you don't actually have a payware route that's causing problems? If you did I would assume by now that you would have removed the problem assets. I recently had a model maker start yelling about permission when he saw a screenshot of one of my WIP repaints - his license said absolutely nothing about requiring permission for freeware repaints, otherwise I never would have started painting it in the first place. I didn't argue with him about it tho, I just deleted all his stuff including my clones from my system, plenty of other trains to repaint.

"Claiming that someone buying a payware route for the assets it contains, is like saying I'm buying a house because of the kind of nails that were used to build it"

Same thought occurred to me when a payware route developer for another game got hysterical about a suggestion that he upload his asset pack for the route as freeware. Was he selling the time and artistic talent to create the route, or the 3Dmax building and scenery models? The impression is that if he gave away the scenery objects, any idiot could use them to create a route as good or better, so the route itself had no actual value as art. In fact he reinforced that when he started trying to find a way to restrict the use of his scenery objects in freeware routes. Which is nuts, because many people who weren't interested in his routes (beautifully detailed scenery with uninspired trackplans and boring repetitive activities IMO) were buying them anyway because the assets were required in several free routes, and the only way to get them was to buy his route. With that move he not only cost himself additional sales, he pretty much confirmed that his routes weren't really art, the buildings and trees were the art.

Personally if I were to make a payware route, it would have nothing but custom assets made for that route, no freeware assets whatsoever. Save a lot of arguing that way.

 

[Gandalf0444]

Total agree with you - I think John was under the impression that if he put in his content that it was never to used in paywhere that would protect it.... this is now known not the case....

It was also presented that may it would me moraly wrong for a person to use an item so tagged or any item off the item in a paywear route .... not so.

Not so much as shooting himself in the foot but misinformed - now educated and not happy well the umpires ruling

Agreed! Just defiantly depends how you interpret any sort of agreement. Each person can walk away with a completely different view of what it meant.

Which is why we hire lawyers to do the same exact thing that we do just on a professional level:hehe:

Then have a judge decide which way he happens to like more:hehe:

 

[dmdrake]

Way off topic, but it may be of interest

Without mentioning any names I can tell you that a few years ago I was threatened with legal action, by a payware builder, if I withdrew permission to use my content. Of course I don’t ‘keep a lawyer’ on retainer and decided that this ‘plaintiff’ and his pet shark were capable of anything. I said 'have all you want' and good luck with your new business plan. I put away gmax a couple of years ago and my life has gotten a lot less stressful but it is also a lot less rewarding.

Here ends the lesson!


Dave

 

[sniper297]

MY HERO!

Speak of the devil, I just checked and you have 8,791 assets. I've been trying to build Chicago for 10 years now in three different trainsims, your building splines are finally making it possible with decent framerates. Would be nice if you strapped the toolbelt on again, but I fully understand your reasoning. :'(