reskin permission from people who left?
- Thread starter picture
- Start date
I'm nor having a go at anyone here, but I'm hoping a few of the folks here who are defending their "copyright" may be able to explain a couple of things to me.
In the real world, the world outside Trainz, isn't skining a way of life? I see skins for Nokia phones, skins for facebook, and even skins for Windows. Some are free, some cost money, but I don't see any of the Original Equipment Manufacturers raising any alarm bells.
I also see replacement files like config files everywhere I look. Then there are third-party programs to repair the Windows registry, to repair damaged DLL's, and the list goes on.
I also see third-party replacement batteries for phones and cameras, memory cards, video cards, tyres and radiators for a myriad of manufactured goods. Does anyone complain? Does anyone listen? Does anyone other than the original manufacturer care?
Getting back to software, what about third-party enhancements like plug-ins and add-ons. There are literally thousands for Photoshop, Windows and other proprietary software.
Now let me ask you a question about the config files that seem to be one of the issues of contention here. Once again, this is a question form someone who has never built a model or written a config file.
Is the config file really your own work, or have you just assembled a list of Auran's key-words in a particular order? I ask this because from what I can see, a config file is necessary, it must be written in a certain way for the model to work properly, and it must use a specific syntax supplied by Auran. Therefore, if Sam and Sue build a similar F7, won't their Config files also be "similar?"
For a PHP programmer to gain access a MySQL database, he or she must use a certain syntax. That syntax will change depending on the fields within a table, and what the programmer wants to extract from those fields. As with a Trainz asset, getting the syntax wrong will stop the program or asset from working properly. In other words, there are rules, you must follow in order to get it right.
I've looked at several Config files and I'm damned if I can see how anyone can declare copyright to any of them. Many parts look similar, the syntax belongs to Auran, or maybe the developers of C+, so if anyone has copyright, surely it would be one of them?
If I were to take a Config File from any asset, be it Payware or Freeware, and offered an improved config that guaranteed the difference between working and not working, I don't think the owner of the asset itself would have a legal leg to stand on. I think the judge would rule that the Config file is NOT a component of the Asset, but rather a component of Trainz. Without the Config file, the asset won't work in Trainz, but the asset won't change in any way if the Config file is missing.
He would rule that by creating the config file, the owner has shown that he or she wanted the asset to work with Trainz. However, in writing the file, the person got the syntax wrong, making the Trainz connection unworkable. He would also most likely rule, that in fixing the damaged file, the repairer has done the designer a service, because the asset will now perform as the designer originally intended.
If I were to produce a skin and offer it as payware or freeware, and provided an asset was able to accept that skin, I believe I'm within the law to distribute it as an "enhancement alternative, or replacement" regardless of what the designer says in the config file. If he or she doesn't want the orginal skin replaced, I understand this can be done in the design process.
I would be breaking the law of the land and the law of Auran if I were to re-distribute the asset with a new skin or Config file without the original owner's written permission.
That would be plagratism rather than a breach of copyright, because the model designer does not own copyright to any prototype locomotive.
But that's not what I'm discussing here. I'm talking about offering alternative skins for existing assets if the asset will accept them, and repaired config files for broken assets. Both would be strictly for personal use only.
If you wish to disagree, please do so, but can you also offer an example based on law. I'm not too sure you'll be able to find one considering what the rest of the world is doing as we speak.
In the real world, the world outside Trainz, isn't skining a way of life? I see skins for Nokia phones, skins for facebook, and even skins for Windows. Some are free, some cost money, but I don't see any of the Original Equipment Manufacturers raising any alarm bells.
I also see replacement files like config files everywhere I look. Then there are third-party programs to repair the Windows registry, to repair damaged DLL's, and the list goes on.
I also see third-party replacement batteries for phones and cameras, memory cards, video cards, tyres and radiators for a myriad of manufactured goods. Does anyone complain? Does anyone listen? Does anyone other than the original manufacturer care?
Getting back to software, what about third-party enhancements like plug-ins and add-ons. There are literally thousands for Photoshop, Windows and other proprietary software.
Now let me ask you a question about the config files that seem to be one of the issues of contention here. Once again, this is a question form someone who has never built a model or written a config file.
Is the config file really your own work, or have you just assembled a list of Auran's key-words in a particular order? I ask this because from what I can see, a config file is necessary, it must be written in a certain way for the model to work properly, and it must use a specific syntax supplied by Auran. Therefore, if Sam and Sue build a similar F7, won't their Config files also be "similar?"
For a PHP programmer to gain access a MySQL database, he or she must use a certain syntax. That syntax will change depending on the fields within a table, and what the programmer wants to extract from those fields. As with a Trainz asset, getting the syntax wrong will stop the program or asset from working properly. In other words, there are rules, you must follow in order to get it right.
I've looked at several Config files and I'm damned if I can see how anyone can declare copyright to any of them. Many parts look similar, the syntax belongs to Auran, or maybe the developers of C+, so if anyone has copyright, surely it would be one of them?
If I were to take a Config File from any asset, be it Payware or Freeware, and offered an improved config that guaranteed the difference between working and not working, I don't think the owner of the asset itself would have a legal leg to stand on. I think the judge would rule that the Config file is NOT a component of the Asset, but rather a component of Trainz. Without the Config file, the asset won't work in Trainz, but the asset won't change in any way if the Config file is missing.
He would rule that by creating the config file, the owner has shown that he or she wanted the asset to work with Trainz. However, in writing the file, the person got the syntax wrong, making the Trainz connection unworkable. He would also most likely rule, that in fixing the damaged file, the repairer has done the designer a service, because the asset will now perform as the designer originally intended.
If I were to produce a skin and offer it as payware or freeware, and provided an asset was able to accept that skin, I believe I'm within the law to distribute it as an "enhancement alternative, or replacement" regardless of what the designer says in the config file. If he or she doesn't want the orginal skin replaced, I understand this can be done in the design process.
I would be breaking the law of the land and the law of Auran if I were to re-distribute the asset with a new skin or Config file without the original owner's written permission.
That would be plagratism rather than a breach of copyright, because the model designer does not own copyright to any prototype locomotive.
But that's not what I'm discussing here. I'm talking about offering alternative skins for existing assets if the asset will accept them, and repaired config files for broken assets. Both would be strictly for personal use only.
If you wish to disagree, please do so, but can you also offer an example based on law. I'm not too sure you'll be able to find one considering what the rest of the world is doing as we speak.
Last edited:
You don't think these companies have paid for licencing rights for their products?
The textures are part of the Model. A re-skinner has to get permission from the model's author to release a re-skin. Barring that ability the author's work is protected by copyright law.
I'm really beginning to question why this issue is so confusing to some of you.
The textures are part of the Model. A re-skinner has to get permission from the model's author to release a re-skin. Barring that ability the author's work is protected by copyright law.
I'm really beginning to question why this issue is so confusing to some of you.
The textures in a re-skin are NOT part of the model. That's the point. OK, they will have to be the same 'shape' and file type that the original creator used but they will be in a re-skin asset that is not part of the original model AND DOES NOT CONTAIN THE ORIGINAL MODEL.
A re-skin doesn’t diminish the hours the original creator spent on his asset. It's just providing an alternative
Quite likely.... IF you ARE infringing a copyright.
I did a 're-skin' (alias) of one asset some time ago, (within the licence agreement). My 'new' asset is nothing more than a completely re-written config file. You can't infringe copyright if you're not copying anything!
Train assets are more complicated but there's nothing in a re-skin asset that can't be original. Yes it has to conform to rules... but you can't copyright....
kind - traincar
or
a.pass54
All you're doing is getting the end user to attach your new design to a mesh that someone has put on the DLS for people to use. You're not copying it!
Errrr. I'm talking about a game, not murder... And TS 2010 is a commercial program. Downloading a pirate copy is totally different to supplying original material which will attach to an asset within a game
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!
I never said any such thing. I actually do have genuine feelings on the matter.
There are 3 issues here. Re-kins, Re-issues, (clones), and the general ethics of Copyright.
1) Re-skins - I don’t think this has anything to do with copyright if everything within a re-skin is original material, (not copied) which it can be. Certainly not when it relates to an asset put on the DLS for general use. (Courtesy requests aside). It may be different for Payware not on the DLS.
2) Re-Issues (clones) – These are copied material and so open for debate. I genuinely believe though that most people put their creations on the DLS so they can be shared and used by the Trainz Community. The process of updating, (not changing) work that an author put on the DLS to be used in the game, so it continues to work in the game, to my mind is not a heinous crime. (Not on par with stealing jewels from the dead anyway:hehe: ). Unless the author specifically forbids it, I would like to see an Auran backed process to do this…. But that just my view!
3) Copyright – I’m not ‘looking for loopholes’. ‘Ways to circumvent the law’. I’m not a lawyer. I’m just trying to get things into perspective. This is a game, not a multimillion dollar board room event. Let’s not get over dramatic. If you don’t want your assets touched at all, put it in the licence. The people who didn’t put anything in the licence obviously weren’t that bothered!
Now - enough. I'm getting back to creating my content.... which you'll be pleased to hear you can do what you like with, (except sell - in which case I want a cut!)
(Don't think you and I will agree on this will we Euphod?)
Enjoy,
Boat
If the item in question is on the DLS then I suggest you tell the guy to download it from there.
There's something fishy if he won't/can't.
And I agree with Euphod. You shouldn't re-distribute without permission outside the DLS. (My God, Euphod and I agree on something!
) Boat
Devils advocate mode on
The textures are a direct copy of a railroad herald/livery, did the models author get permission from them? let alone pay for licensing rights
Come to that the loco design copyright will be held by either the railroad or the manufacturer, did the models author get permission from them ??
By the way there is a big difference between a model (a 3d direct copy, permission to copy for distribution should be obtained) and a painting/photo (a 2d representation/facsimile, permission not needed)
Devils advocate mode off
With re-skins I fully believe that the creators permission is needed to distribute a re-skin, its the polite and moral thing to do
legality should not even enter into it 
For me the config file is Aurans, you only put the required data into the (hopefully) right places
Cheers David
Edit: I was writing this while Pommie made his post. I agree with everything he says and some of it is repeated here unintentionally.
Okay Euphod, I'll try to spell it out to you. As I've never seen any of your work as I can recall, not all of this may apply to you personally, but a lot of it may.
I don't know who will listen, but the way you're carrying on, you would think this is the biggest legal battle the world has ever faced.
It's all so petty!
Okay Euphod, I'll try to spell it out to you. As I've never seen any of your work as I can recall, not all of this may apply to you personally, but a lot of it may.
- Most models in Trainz are created from builders' plans or photographs of the original. In creating a model without the original designer's permission, it is a breach of copyright.
- You cannot claim copyright on something that you didn't originally design.
- Most skins are taken for photographs or renderings of an original item. Using these photos or drawings without the original owner's permission is also a breach of copyright.
- In the case of Locomotives, Rolling Stock and the local Burger King, using corporate logos for personal use may not be a breach of copyright, but it doesn't allow you to declare it as your own work, even if you took the photos yourself.
- Writing a Config file and putting your name in it is a requirement of Auran to be accepted on the DLS. It is also a requirement of Trainz to use specific code and syntax in the Config file in order for your model to run in Trainz. You cannot copyright or claim ownership to such config files. They are a component of the program and have no impact on your artwork.
- In the same way I can modify my copy of Windows any way I see fit, so too can any Trainz enthusiast change any model they have legally obtained, provided they don't try to re-distribute it.
I don't know who will listen, but the way you're carrying on, you would think this is the biggest legal battle the world has ever faced.
It's all so petty!
Last edited:
johnwhelan
Well-known member
I think the issue of skins is slightly different to reskins. If I have a layout in Trainz and decide to use another loco I made do so and I think that is the same as the skin.
The config.txt file is a written document and written documents are covered by copyright. This is why I prefer an approach that adds a second config.txt file and TS2010 or whatever has a setting to use this in preference to the original.
On syntax of config.txt file, any that have a description or license in contain information that is not of any interest to the Trainz program so it isn't just syntax. Also if I write a program and some one else copies or modifies it without permission I can use the copyright laws to protect my intellectual property. Ever notice the copyright notice when windows powers up?
If you create a new skin or texture from scratch then I would accept you have a case. However unless you do it by trial and error it is very difficult indeed to get the mapping correct unless you modify an existing texture file at which point you have modified an existing copyright file which is against copyright laws.
Cheerio John
To JohnWhelan
If I said skin instead of reskin, please accept my apologies. I meant reskin.
As far as the rest goes, you cannot claim copyright on something you do not have written permission to use. Even then, did you get exclusive permission? I doubt it.
The config file is a requirement of Trainz and Auran. You cannot claim copyright on a file that's required by another program. In so doing, you could be seen to be stopping others from sharing their models with the community. Auran is inviting us to create models for Trainz and the key to the door is the Config file. If you and I built identical locomotives, either of us could steal the other's config file and no court in the world would give a hoot. If you were stupid enough to sue me, I've probably come to court just to hear the Judge give you a dressing down.
If I said skin instead of reskin, please accept my apologies. I meant reskin.
As far as the rest goes, you cannot claim copyright on something you do not have written permission to use. Even then, did you get exclusive permission? I doubt it.
The config file is a requirement of Trainz and Auran. You cannot claim copyright on a file that's required by another program. In so doing, you could be seen to be stopping others from sharing their models with the community. Auran is inviting us to create models for Trainz and the key to the door is the Config file. If you and I built identical locomotives, either of us could steal the other's config file and no court in the world would give a hoot. If you were stupid enough to sue me, I've probably come to court just to hear the Judge give you a dressing down.
Okay JohnK, I'll try to put it in such a way as you can understand it.
It doesn't matter what laws an author breeches when creating content, not for the purposes of this discussion. It matters to other parties, certainly, such as a rail company or a person who posted a photograph on the internet, but we are not in that position, and to try to use that as an excuse for further breech of law is ridiculous. "They did it, so I should be able to do it also"
Textures are part of the model. When a creator makes a model he or she must map the textures and create the texture file. If another person uses that file, but changes it's appearance, it is still altering the model. If they do it for their own personal use and do not share it with others or redistribute it then fine. No one could possibly enforce a ban on personal use.
There are no gray areas here, as so many seem to imply, but if enough people believe there are, and start releasing unauthorized re-skins, then watch how fast creators stop creating models, except for their own personal use.
You want to vilify me for stridently objecting to this line of thinking? Go right ahead, but for every post I've made in this thread, others (such as yourself) have made as many supporting what is tantamount to thievery. You find this matter 'petty'; that's fine.
I don't.
It doesn't matter what laws an author breeches when creating content, not for the purposes of this discussion. It matters to other parties, certainly, such as a rail company or a person who posted a photograph on the internet, but we are not in that position, and to try to use that as an excuse for further breech of law is ridiculous. "They did it, so I should be able to do it also"
Textures are part of the model. When a creator makes a model he or she must map the textures and create the texture file. If another person uses that file, but changes it's appearance, it is still altering the model. If they do it for their own personal use and do not share it with others or redistribute it then fine. No one could possibly enforce a ban on personal use.
There are no gray areas here, as so many seem to imply, but if enough people believe there are, and start releasing unauthorized re-skins, then watch how fast creators stop creating models, except for their own personal use.
You want to vilify me for stridently objecting to this line of thinking? Go right ahead, but for every post I've made in this thread, others (such as yourself) have made as many supporting what is tantamount to thievery. You find this matter 'petty'; that's fine.
I don't.
No, I didn't understand a single word. You sound like some kid saying "But Daddy, he hit me first!"
Sorry.
I am really amazed to see so many copyright lawyers posting in this thread.
Perhaps N3V Games should start a new forum Tab called:
TRAINZ LAW:
Maybe even post a video of your legal argument on:
http://www.animoto.com
N3V could sponsor a NEW contest on ...animoto... and you could win a Trainz prize.
Have fun everyone
Perhaps N3V Games should start a new forum Tab called:
TRAINZ LAW:
Maybe even post a video of your legal argument on:
http://www.animoto.com
N3V could sponsor a NEW contest on ...animoto... and you could win a Trainz prize.
Have fun everyone
This is the point that we are in real disagreement on. The texture IS part of the model as it's mapped to the parts of the model and becomes part of the model before export. Not only does your reskin texture have to be the the same 'shape' and file type, but it also has to be the same 'name'. Why do you think this is? Because it's part of the model export.
Mike
Mike
Why do you continue to use some kind of distinction between content that's on the DLS and content that's not. I know of nothing in any agreement between you and Auran that gives you the right to reskin content on the DLS and redistribute. Uploading to the DLS doesn't void any copyrights.
Mike
Devils advocate mode on
The textures are a direct copy of a railroad herald/livery, did the models author get permission from them? let alone pay for licensing rights
Come to that the loco design copyright will be held by either the railroad or the manufacturer, did the models author get permission from them ??
By the way there is a big difference between a model (a 3d direct copy, permission to copy for distribution should be obtained) and a painting/photo (a 2d representation/facsimile, permission not needed)
Devils advocate mode off
With re-skins I fully believe that the creators permission is needed to distribute a re-skin, its the polite and moral thing to do
For me the config file is Aurans, you only put the required data into the (hopefully) right places
Cheers David
David
Only in certain cases are textures a copy of railroad herald/livery. There's lots of content out there without a railroad herald on them. I've got plenty of buildings on the DLS that don't have a herald on them. You're confusing trademark issues with copyright issues here.
As far as copyrights on the original locomotives, unless it can be shown otherwise, the copyrights were on the assembly drawings for the locomotives. I'm going to do a little research, but I don't believe that those copyrights exist in most cases anymore. I could be wrong about that one.
Mike
Possibly, you wasted your time. If that's supposed to impress me, sorry. Most colleges are not very good at dealing with real world situations.
Mike
Then you'll be familiar with the term "Moral Rights" as defined in the Australian Copyright Act .. and possibly with this gentleman > Charles Alexander , a partner in the firm that employs my sister as a senior counsel . Unlike many posting here , I live in Australia ... and so do you .
Consider this my last post on this matter in this forum , but not my last action .
Sci
I don't disagree that the original texture is part of the model and for that reason I wouldn't dream of taking the original texture and re-issuing it.
A re-skin is a new texture that isn't part of the model. Yes it has to be the same name, file type and even mapped the same way as the original because its designed to fit on the original... but it won't be a copy of the original.
Because if its on the DLS it won't BE redistributed. The original model is already on the DLS.
A re-skin is (or should be) completely new original material that just 'fits' into the existing asset.
The original model does not get re-distributed!
Now... lets all make our own minds up
Boat
First, it has to be the same name, size and type because of one reason. It is being loaded into the orginal model, thus changing the original model. The texture is as much a part of the original model as the mesh is. You are trying to separate the two. The mesh and the textures are only part of the model. Taken together collectively is the model.
Second, When you upload a reskin to the DLS, you don't just package the texture file and upload it, you upload the entire package to include the meshes of the original. You are in fact uploading a mesh which isn't your property. If your uploaded package includes ONLY a texture file (no meshes)that can then be downloaded by a member and then used by the member for their own personal use (not to be redistributed), then I'd agree with you.
Mike