Then in that case, anyone who publishes a map/route containing assets by other people should obtain permission before the publish a new route!
reskin permission from people who left?
- Thread starter picture
- Start date
Then in that case, anyone who publishes a map/route containing assets by other people should obtain permission before the publish a new route!
I disagree. With a re-skin you are NOT uploading a new asset. You are only uploading new textures that people can choose to place on the original asset if they want to. That original asset remains the same - as supplied. You haven’t in fact touched it or copied it! At least not the main intellectual work, (the mesh).
It is perhaps unfortunate that DLS presents the re-skin as a separate ‘new’ asset. It might be more appropriate to just show the new ‘design’ as a drawing rather than a picture of the original asset.
(Again, I grant you a full clone may be different. )
Has any author actually complained about his meshes being re-skinned or is this just academic?
Boat (mike)
ianwoodmore
Active member
This thread leaves me confused and despondent. I have spent nearly six years repairing assets that were defective because authors didn't abide by the rules. Maybe that was because there was insufficient documentation. However whether the asset was originally developed in a specific Trainz version or not it can be made to work in later versions. My constant companion is CCG TRS2004. 90% of the repairs can be accomplished using the information in that manual without recourse to later documents unless new features are involved. The culmination of all this experience, learning from authors, being a beta tester, and experimentation is Project TARM. Are the Trainz Community at large, or authors and Auran for that matter, to be denied the pleasure of getting all your wonderful assets available to them defective free. And in what way does that deny the author any of his rights?
Here is an excerpt from a recent post I made elsewhere on the unfortunate demise of TARL, and hopefully it's replacement sometime this year. I would be interested in your views on how I could realistically contact 2,000 authors before uploading repaired config files (only config) before I kick the bucket. I'm currently 74.
Quote
I was leader of the TARL FIXIT Brigade consisting of Bob Weber, Pencil42 and Spruce and a few volunteers. We put a lot of work into Steve Forget's facility but alas most of it was lost due to a lightning strike.
TARL Mk 2 will rise from the ashes soon I hope based on TS2010 in order to help you transition to TS2010 compatability mode and hopefully even native mode. See the Trainz Community Newsletter at TRD.
In my investigations most SP3, UTC, TRS2004, TRS2006 and TC assets can be made to work in TS2010. I have 104,000 so far. We hope to enable you to transition your favourite routes/sessions/assets.
Project TARM (Trainz Asset Repair Management) is an ambitious project to provide a similar service to TARL Mk 1 with some new features. Briefly it consists of:
MADE - Missing Assets Directory and Exchange.
This will list some 10,000 supposedly missing assets as gleaned from TS2010 SP1 Content Manager. Note that some of the missing are due to a bug in CM/DLS that insists on rating some obsolete assets as missing. You will be able to contribute 'found' assets to this database. Virtually starting again on this as the original section of TARL was lost.
Target date - Jun 2010.
TARG - Trainz Asset Repair Guide.
A series of Repair Procedures to help you eliminate those pesky red and yellow flags that appear in Content Manager. The repair schemes use PEV's Tools extensively. About 40 schemes are in draft at the moment. About 100 should be available sometime this year. Tutorials are also envisaged.
TARL - Trainz Asset Repair Library.
The repository for repaired config files. TARL MK1 had about 8,000 and covered most of what CMP MK1 declared as defective. CM3.2 build 41615, part of TS2010 SP1, is much more powerful and discriminating. It has unearthed some 45,000+ defects from 2,000 authors, based on my TAD having the complete DLS bar 170 stuck assets. Currently I have about 20,000 repaired assets (config files only) ready to upload to TARL but I am doing further checking to ensure I caught all the errors. By the target date I expect I will have repaired all red flags that I can, but yellow flags are so numerous that these will be on an opportunity basis. About 1,000 red flags might be difficult and need assistance from more experienced Trainzers.
Target Date - Jun 2010 depending on successful completion of new database.
TOOLMAN - A set of convertors, editors and viewers that have been produced by PEV and are already available.
Currently includes:
Many defects in Trainz occur in the config file, but the errors are so varied that no one has come up with a viable automated Config Fixer as yet. This is where TARG and TARL will assist you until this tool is realised.
KEYCADDY - A set of keywords that can be used in config files that indicate the type of defect that is present in the asset. This is cross-linked to the repair scheme. TARL will be searchable using these keywords. Associated with this feature is that the keywords are useable in the Trainz Content Manager. An extensive set of custom search filters have been built and tested. How to build and use these filters will be subject of future articles in Trainz Community News.
I am also developing an extension of the KEYCADDY that will assist in managing the license aspects of assets, but licensing is a very convoluted topic. Perhaps I will contribute some articles on this in the Trainz Community News.
Target Date - Hopefully Mar 2010 for the CM capability. Jun 2010 for TARL features.
These five modules make up the TARDIS (Trainz Asset Repair Database and Information System).
All this will be available at a Trainz Community Website with a knowledgebase FAQ. We hope to then host additional information to help you such as:
The proposed Auran DLS Cleanup is necessary to prevent defective assets being available for download, but how many of us want to re-download gigabytes of sanatised assets over limited bandwidth and access (127GB in my case). TARM can provide that facility via repairs without jeopardising the obsoleting function.
Watch our progress at TRD in the monthly Trainz Community News.
Unquote
I have highlighted in blue aspects very relevant to your discussions. I look forward to some advice on how to resolve this dilemma, or am I to be the sole beneficiary.
Here is an excerpt from a recent post I made elsewhere on the unfortunate demise of TARL, and hopefully it's replacement sometime this year. I would be interested in your views on how I could realistically contact 2,000 authors before uploading repaired config files (only config) before I kick the bucket. I'm currently 74.
Quote
I was leader of the TARL FIXIT Brigade consisting of Bob Weber, Pencil42 and Spruce and a few volunteers. We put a lot of work into Steve Forget's facility but alas most of it was lost due to a lightning strike.
TARL Mk 2 will rise from the ashes soon I hope based on TS2010 in order to help you transition to TS2010 compatability mode and hopefully even native mode. See the Trainz Community Newsletter at TRD.
In my investigations most SP3, UTC, TRS2004, TRS2006 and TC assets can be made to work in TS2010. I have 104,000 so far. We hope to enable you to transition your favourite routes/sessions/assets.
Project TARM (Trainz Asset Repair Management) is an ambitious project to provide a similar service to TARL Mk 1 with some new features. Briefly it consists of:
MADE - Missing Assets Directory and Exchange.
This will list some 10,000 supposedly missing assets as gleaned from TS2010 SP1 Content Manager. Note that some of the missing are due to a bug in CM/DLS that insists on rating some obsolete assets as missing. You will be able to contribute 'found' assets to this database. Virtually starting again on this as the original section of TARL was lost.
Target date - Jun 2010.
TARG - Trainz Asset Repair Guide.
A series of Repair Procedures to help you eliminate those pesky red and yellow flags that appear in Content Manager. The repair schemes use PEV's Tools extensively. About 40 schemes are in draft at the moment. About 100 should be available sometime this year. Tutorials are also envisaged.
TARL - Trainz Asset Repair Library.
The repository for repaired config files. TARL MK1 had about 8,000 and covered most of what CMP MK1 declared as defective. CM3.2 build 41615, part of TS2010 SP1, is much more powerful and discriminating. It has unearthed some 45,000+ defects from 2,000 authors, based on my TAD having the complete DLS bar 170 stuck assets. Currently I have about 20,000 repaired assets (config files only) ready to upload to TARL but I am doing further checking to ensure I caught all the errors. By the target date I expect I will have repaired all red flags that I can, but yellow flags are so numerous that these will be on an opportunity basis. About 1,000 red flags might be difficult and need assistance from more experienced Trainzers.
Target Date - Jun 2010 depending on successful completion of new database.
TOOLMAN - A set of convertors, editors and viewers that have been produced by PEV and are already available.
Currently includes:
- PM2IM
- Texture2TGA
- Images2TGA
- Quickshadows
- Mesh Viewer2
- Mesh Text Viewer
Many defects in Trainz occur in the config file, but the errors are so varied that no one has come up with a viable automated Config Fixer as yet. This is where TARG and TARL will assist you until this tool is realised.
KEYCADDY - A set of keywords that can be used in config files that indicate the type of defect that is present in the asset. This is cross-linked to the repair scheme. TARL will be searchable using these keywords. Associated with this feature is that the keywords are useable in the Trainz Content Manager. An extensive set of custom search filters have been built and tested. How to build and use these filters will be subject of future articles in Trainz Community News.
I am also developing an extension of the KEYCADDY that will assist in managing the license aspects of assets, but licensing is a very convoluted topic. Perhaps I will contribute some articles on this in the Trainz Community News.
Target Date - Hopefully Mar 2010 for the CM capability. Jun 2010 for TARL features.
These five modules make up the TARDIS (Trainz Asset Repair Database and Information System).
All this will be available at a Trainz Community Website with a knowledgebase FAQ. We hope to then host additional information to help you such as:
- Tutorials and How to Guides.
- A Comprehensive Manual based on CCGTC and including TS2009/10 and wiki data.
- A Trainzwiki Navigator to find your way around the TrainzDevwiki.
The proposed Auran DLS Cleanup is necessary to prevent defective assets being available for download, but how many of us want to re-download gigabytes of sanatised assets over limited bandwidth and access (127GB in my case). TARM can provide that facility via repairs without jeopardising the obsoleting function.
Watch our progress at TRD in the monthly Trainz Community News.
Unquote
I have highlighted in blue aspects very relevant to your discussions. I look forward to some advice on how to resolve this dilemma, or am I to be the sole beneficiary.
Last edited:
This whole thread can be summed up rather easily:
The OP could have posted this: "Does the END justify the MEANS?" Various responses then would have included "yes" or "no", or "I don't know". I have no problem with users getting advice on how to "fix" an asset (for their own use), but I have a problem with users publishing config files with the intent for others to copy them and replace the authors original...mistakes or not. I also don't bristle at users changing ANYTHING in an item's folder ... FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL USE. Have at it.
The issue is whether or not these changes should be allowed to be repacked and published under a different kuid, (or even the same kuid, without permission from the original author). The original author should have the decision to republish his or her work or not, not some arbitrary third party user no matter how lofty the intentions are. Perhaps the author regrets having published their creation in the first place, perhaps they have a chip on their shoulder and just don't want to contribute to later versions of Trainz, perhaps for whatever reason they don't wish to see their work perpetuated either under their kuid or especially under someone else's kuid.
That being said as far as anything I've released (as flimsy as they may be), they are still my creations, and I better not find anyone else changing them and republishing them in whole or in part in any form without my expressed written permission.
Creating a library of config files, in so far as it constitutes the above, would not be something that I would pursue. Advising users how to fix them is another story because nothing gets published. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but it's a slippery slope when you start publishing PART of a piece of content. Pretty soon there will be other sites publishing texture maps for all sorts of freeware and then payware items, for all to use to replace the originals. How would that be received? I venture to guess not well, especially by payware groups that would effectively lose income. I could easily buy a locomotive from any payware group, then reskin and publish the texture maps for anyone to use, but if I were to do so you wouldn't be able to quench the fire here with all the water in the world! Config files are no different.
The OP could have posted this: "Does the END justify the MEANS?" Various responses then would have included "yes" or "no", or "I don't know". I have no problem with users getting advice on how to "fix" an asset (for their own use), but I have a problem with users publishing config files with the intent for others to copy them and replace the authors original...mistakes or not. I also don't bristle at users changing ANYTHING in an item's folder ... FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL USE. Have at it.
The issue is whether or not these changes should be allowed to be repacked and published under a different kuid, (or even the same kuid, without permission from the original author). The original author should have the decision to republish his or her work or not, not some arbitrary third party user no matter how lofty the intentions are. Perhaps the author regrets having published their creation in the first place, perhaps they have a chip on their shoulder and just don't want to contribute to later versions of Trainz, perhaps for whatever reason they don't wish to see their work perpetuated either under their kuid or especially under someone else's kuid.
That being said as far as anything I've released (as flimsy as they may be), they are still my creations, and I better not find anyone else changing them and republishing them in whole or in part in any form without my expressed written permission.
Creating a library of config files, in so far as it constitutes the above, would not be something that I would pursue. Advising users how to fix them is another story because nothing gets published. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but it's a slippery slope when you start publishing PART of a piece of content. Pretty soon there will be other sites publishing texture maps for all sorts of freeware and then payware items, for all to use to replace the originals. How would that be received? I venture to guess not well, especially by payware groups that would effectively lose income. I could easily buy a locomotive from any payware group, then reskin and publish the texture maps for anyone to use, but if I were to do so you wouldn't be able to quench the fire here with all the water in the world! Config files are no different.
I think that you're totally wrong about this. Textures are mapped to the mesh and then exported. I've never reskinned anything, but to do it, I believe that the new textures have to be the same size, type and name as the original texture, otherwise it won't work. If you are altering the texture mapped to the mesh which was exported, then you have in fact created a derivative work. You have changed the export of a piece of content by the original creator.
I'd have to agree with Ed, unless someone has my specific written permission to reskin any of my content, hands off unless its for your own personal use and not for distribution.
Mike
Buffalo_trains93
It's snowy here.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if someone re-skinned or re-did anything I have done, and personally, I would love to see it. I wouldn't require permission for it, and would love to see it from someone elses point of veiw, with there ideals and creativity implimented into it. I understand where Mike and Euphod are comming from and I fully agree. If it is CLEARLY stated that reskins are not allowed, the topic shouldn't even be discussed (Granted, that goes against my own opinion of that if a person releases a non-profit item, it should be allowed to be redistributed freely, hence why it was free in the first place. But, I will side with Mike and Euphod because there points are extremley vaild, and correct) BUT, if it is never CLEARLY stated that the content can not be re-skinned, then I think, barring no reply from the creator (Granted, this would be withen a reasonable amount of time, not like 2 hours, more like 2 weeks, due to personal lifes outside of trains) then I think it should fall on Auran to make the decision, or better judgement. If I remember correctly, Magicland said NO RESKINS were allowed. So done is done, no more discussion. But, if it was never clearly stated (Clearly defines into, withen the description, or in a thread withen the forums here, not some distant forums no-one knows about) then it should be allowed.
Just my 2 cents,
Take care,
Ryan:wave:
Btw, I'm fairly even on this subject but Mike and Euphod are correct in their statements pertaining to the subject, so no offence is ever meant to anyone.
Just my 2 cents,
Take care,
Ryan:wave:
Btw, I'm fairly even on this subject but Mike and Euphod are correct in their statements pertaining to the subject, so no offence is ever meant to anyone.
Last edited:
Ryan
thanks for the post. It's not that I don't want any of my items reskinned, but I don't want to lose control over the process. It should be up to me who I let reskin my creations for distribution and not up to the whims of the community. As far as Auran deciding the issue, it's not their decision to make. They have a license for the creations on the DLS, not ownership.
Mike
thanks for the post. It's not that I don't want any of my items reskinned, but I don't want to lose control over the process. It should be up to me who I let reskin my creations for distribution and not up to the whims of the community. As far as Auran deciding the issue, it's not their decision to make. They have a license for the creations on the DLS, not ownership.
Mike
Buffalo_trains93
It's snowy here.
Mike,
No, I completely understand, and I apologize for my vaguness. As far as the Auran policy I mentioned goes, I was vague aswell, and again, for that, I apologize. What I mean is, is that if a creator leaves the community, and never states that rekins are not allowed, then how do we make a decision? Granted, the common and easy answer would be, don't re-skin it. But I don't think that, that is rightly fair to the community. People may reskin it and the Author may have never cared. Yukonzoom is a perfect example. He could careless, as long as you cite him for the meshes. Belive me Mike and Ed, I understand where you come from, and I fully support you in your wishes. But when it comes down to a creator being gone, and never giving an opinion to wethier his/her content can be re-skinned or not, I think it falls to Auran to make the decision on it. If the creator does not want his/her creations to be re-skinned, then that must be CLEARLY stated in the Description (That is where Auran falls into place. It should be an implimented Rule or something to that affect) If it is not stated (This excludes Payware) then re-skinning should be allowed. It's freeware for a reason. Belive me though Mike, I really, really do understand where you're comming from, and support you in that. The time you've spent on your creations, and the enjoyment I've had with them is beyond explination.
Again, just my 2 cents,
Take care,
Ryan:wave:
No, I completely understand, and I apologize for my vaguness. As far as the Auran policy I mentioned goes, I was vague aswell, and again, for that, I apologize. What I mean is, is that if a creator leaves the community, and never states that rekins are not allowed, then how do we make a decision? Granted, the common and easy answer would be, don't re-skin it. But I don't think that, that is rightly fair to the community. People may reskin it and the Author may have never cared. Yukonzoom is a perfect example. He could careless, as long as you cite him for the meshes. Belive me Mike and Ed, I understand where you come from, and I fully support you in your wishes. But when it comes down to a creator being gone, and never giving an opinion to wethier his/her content can be re-skinned or not, I think it falls to Auran to make the decision on it. If the creator does not want his/her creations to be re-skinned, then that must be CLEARLY stated in the Description (That is where Auran falls into place. It should be an implimented Rule or something to that affect) If it is not stated (This excludes Payware) then re-skinning should be allowed. It's freeware for a reason. Belive me though Mike, I really, really do understand where you're comming from, and support you in that. The time you've spent on your creations, and the enjoyment I've had with them is beyond explination.
Again, just my 2 cents,
Take care,
Ryan:wave:
Assuming Trainz assets are covered by copyright, then the answer is legally clear - you cannot distribute any reskins. You must have explicit permission to distribute the content or derivative works.
If the creator is not able to be found, then it's considered an 'orphan work' in copyright terms. That doesn't change what you can do with it, however - it's still unavailable for redistribution.
I completely agree - however, just because we may disagree with the law doesn't mean it magically doesn't apply any more.
Unfortunately, the law states the opposite - if explicit permission is not given, then no permission is implied.
Yes, but being free doesn't remove any copyright protections; it just may limit the amount of damages you have to pay if you get taken to court.
Buffalo_trains93
It's snowy here.
Pencil42,
I know the Law and such, it was just an inquiry. Just playing Devils Advocate, and I apologize for any vaguness. Like I said. I am totally with Mike and Ed on the whole matter, and I understand how everything works, it was just me throwing idea's onto the table. AS pertaining to the 2nd quote from the bottom Pencil, it was an idea for a Rule, nothing more. I'm well aware of what the Law states, and belive it should be abided to, it was just a simple though for the furture. My apologies.
Again, my apologies,
Take care,
Ryan:wave:
I know the Law and such, it was just an inquiry. Just playing Devils Advocate, and I apologize for any vaguness. Like I said. I am totally with Mike and Ed on the whole matter, and I understand how everything works, it was just me throwing idea's onto the table. AS pertaining to the 2nd quote from the bottom Pencil, it was an idea for a Rule, nothing more. I'm well aware of what the Law states, and belive it should be abided to, it was just a simple though for the furture. My apologies.
Again, my apologies,
Take care,
Ryan:wave:
Last edited:
No problem - like I say, I think copyright as it stands today is a bit too strict and lasts way too long (and fair use could use some more definition), but it is currently the law...
Some of the legislation proposed in the US to deal with orphan works looks interesting, and would have direct implications on some of the issues we are talking about.
Curtis
Some of the legislation proposed in the US to deal with orphan works looks interesting, and would have direct implications on some of the issues we are talking about.
Curtis
Buffalo_trains93
It's snowy here.
Curtis,
This is indeed true. As far as this whole thread goes, I think the answer was solved awhile back and Curtis just plainly put it into perspective. The answer, to all forms of reskinning unless direct permission is given is NO. Maybe the future will tell us differently, but untill then, let's keep everything right were it is. No sense in arguing over something that has such a simple answer.
Have a good day,
Ryan:wave:
This is indeed true. As far as this whole thread goes, I think the answer was solved awhile back and Curtis just plainly put it into perspective. The answer, to all forms of reskinning unless direct permission is given is NO. Maybe the future will tell us differently, but untill then, let's keep everything right were it is. No sense in arguing over something that has such a simple answer.
Have a good day,
Ryan:wave:
...as has been stated by several users (myself included) throughout this thread. However the 'bandits' keep looking for that elusive loop-hole. There isn't one.
I wonder if it has occurred to the 'Supply An Altered Config' proponents that the config.txt file is itself a document protected by copyright. Assuming it contains the original kuid and creator details then issuing an altered config is in no way different from issuing an altered asset. The config changes themselves are a breach of copyright.
Not only that, but on a purely practical front it is almost unworkable. Imagine that I as a routebuilder download modified configs (which I wouldn't, but let's pretend) and built a route containing the 'fixed' assets. I don't think people who do not build routes can imagine the number of emails, PMs and forum posts that would result from something I had 'fixed' not showing up on their version. It would be chaotic.
Anyway - wandering off topic, so I shall sit back and wait for another half dozen attempts to circumvent the law, morality and plain common sense...
Andy
Red_Rattler
Since 09 May 2003
Other download sites such as Train-Sim make the README file in an item available to read before download. Perhaps Auran need to have a option on the Download Station where you click on a README file and/or licence agreement, and that these two must be included before uploading.
While re-skins may not be allowed unless stated, I believe that doesn't mean you can't re-skin an item for private use.
PS: What is the difference between re-skin, and re-paint in regards to transport similator items, as sometimes on the Download station, I see both terms?
While re-skins may not be allowed unless stated, I believe that doesn't mean you can't re-skin an item for private use.
PS: What is the difference between re-skin, and re-paint in regards to transport similator items, as sometimes on the Download station, I see both terms?
I see the debate continues to rage!
Consider the following….
We open the ‘Train’ tab in Surveyor and see only original assets of trains listed.
We place our choice of train on the map which is Author ‘A’s original version.
Then, another button allows us to “Add Textures by Author B”. This changes the colour of the train. But it’s still Author A’s train and creation.
If this were the way Trainz portrayed a Re-skin, would so many people object to ‘Copyright Infringement'? Because that is what a re-skin is. It’s not a viable asset in its own right. It needs the original to work. It only changes its colour.
I will reiterate, I understand you have the prerogative to say “Don’t change mine”. People may not want a re-skin to be distributed that fits their train. People may not want their ‘building’ to be used on anything but their map and not want it re-distributed on anyone else’s. Licences should always be respected, and permissions sought.
The concern is still those people who have left Trainz and have not indicated a preference, especially if a re-skin is NOT an infringement of Copyright but just over-caution.
Bear in mind though that by putting an asset onto the DLS you are already losing some control. Auran can sell it….. and (practically) there’s nothing to stop someone in some obscure part of the world outside International Law, from copying it and re-distributing it.
Anyway, nuff said. Minds will not be changed.
I’ll get back to building my assets.
No offence meant!
Boat
Consider the following….
We open the ‘Train’ tab in Surveyor and see only original assets of trains listed.
We place our choice of train on the map which is Author ‘A’s original version.
Then, another button allows us to “Add Textures by Author B”. This changes the colour of the train. But it’s still Author A’s train and creation.
If this were the way Trainz portrayed a Re-skin, would so many people object to ‘Copyright Infringement'? Because that is what a re-skin is. It’s not a viable asset in its own right. It needs the original to work. It only changes its colour.
I will reiterate, I understand you have the prerogative to say “Don’t change mine”. People may not want a re-skin to be distributed that fits their train. People may not want their ‘building’ to be used on anything but their map and not want it re-distributed on anyone else’s. Licences should always be respected, and permissions sought.
The concern is still those people who have left Trainz and have not indicated a preference, especially if a re-skin is NOT an infringement of Copyright but just over-caution.
Bear in mind though that by putting an asset onto the DLS you are already losing some control. Auran can sell it….. and (practically) there’s nothing to stop someone in some obscure part of the world outside International Law, from copying it and re-distributing it.
Anyway, nuff said. Minds will not be changed.
I’ll get back to building my assets.
No offence meant!
Boat
hi all,
might be off track here
can you send a CDP file to someone when there's no license agreement
e.g. someone wanted an asset i have checked CMP under view license
nothing comes up,viewed con fig file and ditto
so can i send it on without being hunted down by lawyers in the middle of the night
cheers,
patchy
might be off track here
can you send a CDP file to someone when there's no license agreement
e.g. someone wanted an asset i have checked CMP under view license
nothing comes up,viewed con fig file and ditto
so can i send it on without being hunted down by lawyers in the middle of the night
cheers,
patchy
As the 'debate' between good and evil has raged for eternity now...
That's NOT the way it is unless you are using a model with a texture library.
Do not try to separate the textures from the model, as the textures ARE part of the model. Try explaining your view to Marlboro or any other creator who spends hours and hours on their textures.
For the uninitiated; what Boat is trying to do here is "Divide and Conquer". He must work in politics
! Anyway, he feels if he can get you to believe that the textures are not part of the model then it's fine to go ahead and re-skin without permission. This is false. Cunning....but false.Nope, not a concern at, as the LAW was designed to anticipate that eventuality. If an author is not present to grant permission, then to infringe on the copyright of the author's work is illegal. Pretty simple, not ambiguous and completely rational.
What Boat is proposing here is a crime of opportunity, and it's immoral, creepy and downright sleazy. I liken it to stealing jewelry from the dead and buried; they're gone, and not going to use it anymore, so what could be the harm?
The agreement between Auran and authors is not in question here, let's not introduce a straw man into a fairly basic right or wrong discussion.
My neighbor COULD cut off my head with a hedge clipper too, does that mean I should abandon my morals, disregard existing laws and just do whatever the hell I want? By your logic, why should anyone buy 2010, when they could just download it?
Anyway, nuff said. Minds will not be changed.
I’ll get back to building my assets.
No offence meant!
Boat
None taken. For my part, I will respond to this thread every time someone posts their "what if this, so I can circumvent the law" opinion. If not, someone will be tempted to run with whatever justification they can find here.
Now, Boat, I believe earlier you stated you were playing the "devil's advocate". Having a bit of entertainment, that's fine. Trust me though, in case you haven't noticed the devil doesn't need your help, man is weak enough!
hi boat,
this is a strange one
by the license agreemnt by most creators you must ask perrmision to do anything with that assett
what i came across was someone asked me for a particular item that they saw and asked where did i get it from
i told them where
and he he said i haven't got that version
looked at the route it comes from and there is no license agreement
so is this fair game or should it be a gentlemans agreement
cheers,
patchy
this is a strange one
by the license agreemnt by most creators you must ask perrmision to do anything with that assett
what i came across was someone asked me for a particular item that they saw and asked where did i get it from
i told them where
and he he said i haven't got that version
looked at the route it comes from and there is no license agreement
so is this fair game or should it be a gentlemans agreement
cheers,
patchy