UltraScenery May Return - Read Post and Would Like Views
- Thread starter mcguirel
- Start date
johnwhelan
Well-known member
Personally I use a number of textures that are available for license in two ways, the first is for payware and you pay for the license, the second is freeware when you are free to use the textures without charge. Also a number of copyright holders of the textures have been kind enough to allow me to use them for freeware models.
Unfortunately copyright and the surrounding issues are not always as simple as you might hope.
Cheerio John
Because someone goes on to make money on the back of referencing something you built to share for free, with no obligation to pay you a royalty fee, as per a similar discussion going on in another thread about DEM. Then there is the issue you may have used textures or resources from a site with a no commercial policy (e.g. Mayang). The N3V reps consistently duck the issue but why *do* in this day and age they reserve the right to take content uploaded to the DLS and use it in a new version of the game, or permit its use in freelance payware? There are plenty of people who would readily accept a commission in return for royalties to do such work.
Maybe this is moving off McG's original topic but it is relevant for those of us who prefer to use 100% DLS material in our route building.
There does seem to be two issues involved:
- the matter of copyright and all the tangled legal stuff that goes with it;
- the ethical tensions involved that arise between the payware and the freeware supply models.
Embedded and jealously-guarded copyrights on textures or whatever seem to complicate how content that includes them can be further promulgated. I suppose creators are stuck with that one - although it's just the same ethical question in disguise.......
There are also the self-imposed limitations on delivery options that go with all those ethical complications to do with free versus pay. But doesn't the following, quoted from your post, express the inherent contradiction going on when it comes to this freeware-in-payware ethical issue:
".....someone goes on to make money on the back of referencing something you built to share for free, with no obligation to pay you a royalty fee....."
The contradiction is that, although a person makes something for free (and gives it to us all as such) they seem curiously desirous of NOTmaking it free if someone else is making money by using it in a larger construct. My question is simply: is it free or is it not? It can't be free but not free at the same time.
But then I have similar trouble understanding those who make a free Trainz item but then add a "not-free" aspect by insisting that it cannot be developed by another person into something else. What would be the problem, exactly? How does the original creator lose out?
In practice, all designed-things contain a huge percentage of micro-designs that are already extant. Any and all "new" design adds a little to the already-extant stuff. A truly original item is an absolute rarity. No one expects to pay a copyright fee for these embedded micro-designs - stuff got from the language and history describing endless concepts and configurations that someone else once designed in a long & shared historical past.
In such a rich conceptual environment, it makes sense to me that people like McGuirel are happy to evolve more design using all these free design tools & concepts that our culture makes available, then make their own creations free too. It's a mode of creation that I greatly admire and try to practice in my own life. I detest the hegemony of the accountant and the merchant (although they have their uses). In particular, I find monopolists most tiresome!
So, why the reluctance to allow some recipients of this free stuff the opportunity to employ a different (yet familiar) mode - payware - that happens to use freely-given designed things? I ask again: how does someone who freely-gives their creation lose out? They never expected to get paid, via royalties or otherwise. What have they lost if someone else makes money?
Perhaps such freeware providers feel "used"? But surely that was their whole intent? Is my pleasure from using their creation in a private Trainz session fundamentally different from the pleasure someone else gets by making & selling payware that uses this "free" stuff? From the point of view of the freeware creator, both users are grateful recipients making the best (as they see it) of the generously-supplied new item in the history of designed-things.
Lataxe
Last edited:
Mick of JointedRail, Far, Far, Far, from the truth. Why has this topic gone into debate on that of Freeware VS Payware with rejection to that of my licensing? Your involvement with JointedRail would suggest but does not mean you may be for the same as it is a Payware Site. Lataxe, I read your statements and I refrain from comment except that there is no reason why another person should profit from "Referencing" Freeware in a Payware Route. That is stealing from the person who invested their own time and skills for the benefit of only the Payware Creator. With this becoming the stronghold of the original post, maybe I should just forgo consideration of a project easily a year in the making to offer the original reason for this post. It has been hashed out time and time again with clear opinions of many. Doubt this "Financial Debate" is that of other SpeedTree Creators! I have really changed a lot whereas I could really communicate badly therefore: May I reference you to AJ_Fox's comment!!!!!!! My last statement on this: Any builtin content I created in TS12 I now have no ability for you not to utilize in Payware Routes for the simple fact is I did receive significant financial reward for the work and you as a consumer have paid for it. This does NOT apply to any PAYWARE ROUTE Distribution of DLS SpeedTree Freeware (plentiful and significantly larger than most other SpeedTree Creators at this time) as I do not and will not EVER ASK FOR LARGE ROYALTIES as received with TS12 Content. Sadly, the TS12 Content is no where near the quality I can provide today. Enough said on the financial debate as I find this a distraction.
Last edited:
I like what your saying Lataxe, and I also see why McGuriel is against the DLS. I wont say that what Im about to type is any thing new that hasn't been said all ready, or that it will changes every ones out looks. Just my thoughts on the matter. But as you said, you make furniture. I take it you do it as a hobby as you say you often give our your works. And as you said, this is that same with Trainz content creators.
Think of it this way, if Lataxe made a chair and gave it to Bob. Then Bob latter turned around and sold it to me. Lataxe never would see the money I paid for the chair, bu now some one else has seen his work and might be inclined to contact Lataxe for more furniture.
And this is trues with Trainz. As I see it, if I made a route and charged $5 for it on my web site and used just one of McGuriels trees that was on the DLS. Then when some one buys my route they have to download the freely available tree off the DLS. Now maybe they have never used any of McGuriels content in the past, and now suddenly they see one of her trees. They might be blown away by the quality and in turn search out more content by McGuriel. This then spreads the usage of her content even further.
Now the other side of the coin. I didn't spend hours over a hot keyboard making the tree I put in my route that I am now charging $5 for. I just plopped it down. Now this is where I think MC's mind is set. Why should I profit off of free stuff. And I find this as a grey area. Its mostly just personal preference. I mean, Ive even felt that way with my current project route. I though about not putting it on the DLS as others might do all sorts or things with it. Like re-upload it as theirs. Or even upload it else where. And I don't want to spend hours, days, weeks working on this route just so when its done some one else can do their own thing with it and call it theirs. While it might be a little different form a tree, I think the feeling is the same. "Why should some one else profit off some thing they didn't make."
But once again, just my $0.02.
Think of it this way, if Lataxe made a chair and gave it to Bob. Then Bob latter turned around and sold it to me. Lataxe never would see the money I paid for the chair, bu now some one else has seen his work and might be inclined to contact Lataxe for more furniture.
And this is trues with Trainz. As I see it, if I made a route and charged $5 for it on my web site and used just one of McGuriels trees that was on the DLS. Then when some one buys my route they have to download the freely available tree off the DLS. Now maybe they have never used any of McGuriels content in the past, and now suddenly they see one of her trees. They might be blown away by the quality and in turn search out more content by McGuriel. This then spreads the usage of her content even further.
Now the other side of the coin. I didn't spend hours over a hot keyboard making the tree I put in my route that I am now charging $5 for. I just plopped it down. Now this is where I think MC's mind is set. Why should I profit off of free stuff. And I find this as a grey area. Its mostly just personal preference. I mean, Ive even felt that way with my current project route. I though about not putting it on the DLS as others might do all sorts or things with it. Like re-upload it as theirs. Or even upload it else where. And I don't want to spend hours, days, weeks working on this route just so when its done some one else can do their own thing with it and call it theirs. While it might be a little different form a tree, I think the feeling is the same. "Why should some one else profit off some thing they didn't make."
But once again, just my $0.02.
johnwhelan
Well-known member
I think the choice is can we find a way to reward Brittany for making some new high quality trees in which case she'll do the work or do we live with the existing trees? I do know it would take me far longer to create new speed tree trees than to use Brittany's expertise.
I don't think there are any other choices.
Cheerio John
I don't think there are any other choices.
Cheerio John
Back to the subject at hand, how may I be of great benefit to the community regarding returning to the SpeedTree Creation for the community whereas I can meet the need of the mass community and the efforts placed not be abused or used in a manner against my views? Any constructive input is the sole purpose of this post and a final decision based on the commentary will be decided. AT this point, I can summarize three key points: FREE, FREE, FREE with an open end user agreement, foliage color variety, and DLS Placement.
Last edited:
johnwhelan
Well-known member
With involvement with a Payware Route, I have to discuss with that individual if it is within reason to change my policy of Commission Freeware whereas that item must be available for Payware Route Utilization. This would deter from marketing capabilities of this creator which could be significant to his reason for selecting me as a provider of such content. With my agreement to a dear friend, he has the ability to utilize and redistribute the content for use ONLY in his Payware Route which has been a year in progress to the best of my knowledge. I have to be honest John, I feel I may not be able to meet the needs of the community at this stage. The subject of Payware VS Freeware, DLS Rehashed, Creator's Right of Licensing Debate has really become a deterrent. Maybe others should just learn SpeedTree, find out the true time it will take to learn, create within with improved development above and beyond those who understand the CAD Program, and rely on JVC Trees for Payware SpeedTree with the limitations it creates along side of Pofig Content that many will stick with as their main SpeedTree Provider. Mick Of JointedRail who if I remember never had much positive input in the past made a comment regarding $, $, $ which is far from the reason I have been entertaining the thought of a return. Maybe I was wrong for asking for community input as well however I will Thank Those With Positive Growth Comments which is the main reason for this post............................................... Update Without Yet Another Post: My return does not seem to be able to have a model best suited for a successful return, based in whole of the topic of Creator End User Agreement which is the right of the creator to specify, and a person of JointedRail reflection unwarranted based on the business model this member is affiliated with. I am sad to inform you of this decision. This decision comes after carefully reviewing the posts of others again and the overall flow of the topic. This review has no disregard to the positive statements, positive suggestions, as well as a clear negative direction change on rehashed and rehashed subjects. Everything was considered.
Last edited:
jointedrail
Official N3V DLC Partners
1. Leave Jointed Rail out of this. This has nothing to do with JR, at all.
2. Why not either make content or don't, no need for all this drama about coming or going or plans or websites or agreements or whatever. It's scenery, just scenery. Every time you announce something it's some huge song and dance and tons of drama. Just make the content, or don't.
Mike
2. Why not either make content or don't, no need for all this drama about coming or going or plans or websites or agreements or whatever. It's scenery, just scenery. Every time you announce something it's some huge song and dance and tons of drama. Just make the content, or don't.
Mike
Dear Ms McGuirel,
I owe you an apology for raising the payware vs freeware issue and perhaps thereby distracting from your intent to garner support for making more Trainz content. It seems I've stepped on some sore toes; but my intent was actually to try to encourage you. Perhaps I have failed to understand the history of your previous provisions and the problems that arose.
In all events, however you decide to deliver any new content you may make, I will be a very appreciative user. The fact is that you loom large amongst the many excellent Trainz content providers as a person with high design standards; I hope you continue.
Best Regards,
Lataxe
What a tower of babble.
1. I want the improved trees and other vegetation. Vegetation lays the foundation for a reality that a few really appreciate.
2. I will pay a reasonable fee for the products. The market will judge the fee structure.
2. Support that is tainted by emotion is not professional. You sell a product and marginal people will come from their rocks to comment. They are on the forums and usually are shut-down by the community. Just takes time.
So, let's get some of the product to market and see what happens.
1. I want the improved trees and other vegetation. Vegetation lays the foundation for a reality that a few really appreciate.
2. I will pay a reasonable fee for the products. The market will judge the fee structure.
2. Support that is tainted by emotion is not professional. You sell a product and marginal people will come from their rocks to comment. They are on the forums and usually are shut-down by the community. Just takes time.
So, let's get some of the product to market and see what happens.
I just don't understand all of this drama over something that is actually a no-brainer. The OP wants maximum exposure for her work, doesn't want any money for it and won't maintain her own web site - put the stuff on the DLS. If she does want some recompense for the work then arrange with N3V to make payware packs available in game (in effect this means they are also on the DLS). She can even have freeware and payware versions of the same assets, a win-win situation for all.
Unfortunately as neither of these options are apparently acceptable then nothing will happen except that she will disappear again and take her toys with her. I wonder what the point was in asking for opinions if she didn't want to hear the answers. Let's have more assets on the DLS and less drama - or just forget it.
Paul
Unfortunately as neither of these options are apparently acceptable then nothing will happen except that she will disappear again and take her toys with her. I wonder what the point was in asking for opinions if she didn't want to hear the answers. Let's have more assets on the DLS and less drama - or just forget it.
Paul
Agreed.
I think the DLS is by far the best place to get maximum exposure to content. Most 3rd party sites its word of mouth that gets you to go to them. I think the only 2 that every one really knows are Jointed Rail and RRMods. So releasing content on a 3rd party site that many might not have heard of and/or know about might not be that good of an idea.
I think the issue here is that MC dose not want use or N3V to user her content in paywear and feels that many people view the DLS as a place where you can freely get things and redistibute them as you like. In other words, some one might go get a tree that says "Do not use in a payware route!" Then turn around and use it in a payware route and use the argument that they got it for free off the DLS so its theirs do do as they like with.
But this brings up a interesting question/argument. If I spend hours/days/weeks making a payware route, and use content off the DLS, am I profiting off my route, or the content that I used? While it would be wrong for me to use a tree that I got from the DLS and claim it as my own and make money off of just the tree. If the tree is on the DLS, and my route use's the tree, is that wrong?
But the real question is, why am I making payware? I only do free stuff, but that's besides the point.
But at then end of the argument its still MC's content. Shes the one willing to work hard to make beautiful content for us. If she wants to, good for here. If not, then that's her decision. She has content on the the DLS all ready, and I use it all. (I have a set of filters just for her trees and textures.)
The DLS in not an option due to violation of utilizing my content against my licensing without any sort of contact by the route/session creator. All I am willing to state and not naming the locations of the infraction. No Drama, Pure Fact and tired of the accusations thereof. I have learned many valuable lessons prior to and within this post. Thank You To All Who Have Taught Me These Lessons and showing me true colors outside of the forum. My past haunts me as shown with this discussion and I did not state all the reasons for why I can not find a good model to return based on unspoken knowledge and the summarized view of the asset location (DLS) to best serve the community. To anyone who feels this is a Popcorn Post, my sincere apology for the tone it displays to you as not intended to be as such. As we attempt to enjoy the first summer National Holiday Weekend, please remember the men and women of this country who protect and serve not only military but other professions that allow us to be safe. Everyday, these men and women put their life at risk for us, and we must as a society think of them on this National Holiday Weekend. Paul, N3V does not feel SpeedTree DLC is an attractive opportunity as approached in the past. JIB228, thank you for your apology but not necessary as the comments were as you viewed the subject and well written. As put by a very influential individual, "It is Just Scenery". Have A wonderful Weekend, and AGAIN I APOLOGIZE Past and Present for all my wrongs. I truly regret this post after the fact. 
Last edited:
Without knowing all the facts (which you don't seem disposed to tell us) it's hard to say if you are overreacting or have a legitimate problem with the DLS, but the way it's coming over it seems to me to be the first option. If that's your decision then that's fine by me, it would be better to find a solution to have the assets on the DLS but we'll all get along just fine without them.
Paul
Paul
amigacooke
Well-known member
I'll stick my oar in here. The first and last call on content distribution is always that of the creator. Therefore, content creators should do what they think is correct and the users have to like it or lump it.