Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
I'm really beginning to question why this issue is so confusing to some of you.
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.
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"
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......
....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.
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 dolegality 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
Well I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I did spend 13 years on the Copyright Committee of a very large tertiary education college in my home town. The stuff we dealt with makes this thread look like Play School.
Well I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I did spend 13 years on the Copyright Committee of a very large tertiary education college in my home town. The stuff we dealt with makes this thread look like Play School.
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
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
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