Warning a warning of "Copycats"

[titanicchristo]

On youtube I've noticed the problem of copycats. What I mean by this is the copycat will take a photo from the forum basically of any skin they want and paste it over the side of a random locomotive they have. Often times they will go after personal reskins put it onto the side of the the engine and claim it as their own. Its easy to tell which ones are copied and which are not, often because of overlapping details. I understand there are people in the world who could care less about whats right and wrong and will do whatever the heck they like because they don't care, but I feel like others should know about this issue and such. From now on I will be smarter and use some type of watermark over pictures I post here. Thank you for your time.

 

[Vern]

It's been an issue in Trainz since Day 1 in late 2001. There are virtually no copy protection measures freeware authors can apply to models, routes or even re-paints which prevent other people passing it off as their own. (Compare that with the elaborate protection N3V now apply to their own payware DLC). Unfortunately unless it's been blatantly posted to the DLS or another reputable site where the operators will (usually grudgingly) take action, there is precious little you can do to prevent it. Just accept if you release anything into the world of Trainz content, it will quite likely be modified or plagiarised by some anarchist punk 13 year old who doesn't have an ounce of creativity in their own brain. Freeware in Trainz really does = free for all (sometimes)!

 

[titanicchristo]

Yea I understand what you mean and your absolutely right, now that I look back on it though I was asking for it considering that the post was a clear side shot of the train. Ugh....very idiotic on my part.

 

[HiBaller]

Everything I create (which isn't much) has at least one asset that has my name on it somewhere. If it is a single asset, then I usually put my initials down in a corner of a color swatch. You can do that without making it obvious by changing the R or G or B value by 15 or so and putting the text in a tiny font. If it is a route, then there might be a small station sign buried in the scenery, or some other Easter egg hidden away. Then, if whatever it is shows up under another name, you have some method of crying foul.

Bill

 

[titanicchristo]

I will probably end up doing doing what you mentioned. I don't mean to come off as a cry baby although rereading the original post I do come off as off as one so I apologize about overreacting to this whole thing very sorry about that.

 

[davesnow]

Who cares? I create something and put it out there for free then promptly forget about it because if someone wants to "steal" it there's absolutely nothing I can or want to do about it so who cares.

 

[RRSignal]

For the most part, Dave's correct. If you don't want to risk it being copied, don't release it - and certainly don't release it via the internet, plain and simple.

With that said, I find nothing wrong with calling out those who copy other's work.

 

[pware]

This is an issue that can get some members very angry.

I also agree, for the most part, with Dave that if you release something on the Internet, via the DLS or a third party site, there is a good chance it will get copied with or without your permission. Some of that "pirating" will be through ignorance - such as a recent example here where a young kid did not realise that what he was doing was wrong. Others will be with the full knowledge of what they are doing but with an "I don't care" attitude, ego, an over inflated opinion of their "rights", a false belief that "freeware" really means "free" - the list of reasons or excuses is long.

Those creators that put conditions on the release of their work (e.g. not to be posted anywhere else or altered without permission, no modifications allowed whatsoever, not to be used as a part of any payware, etc), while they are totally within their rights to do so, are really attempting the impossible. Once something is posted on the internet, it is out of your control. If you don't want your work to be modified or copied, then don't post it.

There have been many threads and arguments in these forums over the issue of copyright, and no doubt these will continue. N3V have a very clear, and I think very reasonable, policy. If an asset is posted on the DLS by another user that the original creator can show is theirs, then it will be removed but the complaint has to come from the original creator and not from another user who believes (no matter how strongly) that the work has been pirated.

Yes, it would be nice if, at the very least, a "thank you to ..." or "modified with permission from ..." was included in the description field of a copied assets config.txt file, but this is unfortunately the real world.

As to what can be done? The discussions here have been long, often full of justified anger and frustration, but with no real solutions. Vigilance by the community of what is posted on the DLS is often the only way as N3V do not have the staff to examine the microscopic detail of every .jpg, .tga, .im, etc file in every posted asset and automated software has far too many flaws to do the job. How can a software algorithm judge if one file is a "substantial copy" of another file if human juries cannot decide if one piece of music is a copy of another?

Then what about assets posted on third party sites?

HiBaller's solution is one possibility but then only the original creator will know what to look for.

The discussions will be endless.

 

[JCitron]

The solution with YouTube is to report the video as containing copyrighted materials used without permission, and Google will take the video down. This is especially true of music, which sometimes gets included in videos by mistake when videos are taken in outdoor environments.

 

[pware]

The solution with YouTube is to report the video as containing copyrighted materials used without permission, and Google will take the video down. This is especially true of music, which sometimes gets included in videos by mistake when videos are taken in outdoor environments.

Yes, but the better idea is to report the violation to the original creator (if he/she can be contacted). The original creator is the only person who can decide if a newly posted asset is an authorised or unauthorised copy.

There have been cases where a new asset has been wrongly accused by a third party of being a pirated work but the original creator had given permission. There have even been cases of malicious reporting where the 3rd party has falsely claimed that an original work had been pirated purely to cause problems for the original creator - there are such people. For these reasons, N3V will not remove a work simply because someone, who is not the original creator, claims that it has been pirated.

 

[JCitron]

Yes, but the better idea is to report the violation to the original creator (if he/she can be contacted). The original creator is the only person who can decide if a newly posted asset is an authorised or unauthorised copy.

There have been cases where a new asset has been wrongly accused by a third party of being a pirated work but the original creator had given permission. There have even been cases of malicious reporting where the 3rd party has falsely claimed that an original work had been pirated purely to cause problems for the original creator - there are such people. For these reasons, N3V will not remove a work simply because someone, who is not the original creator, claims that it has been pirated.

Yes, there are exceptions but if it's obviously a case of theft, then the video should be duly reported to Google. They will contact the uploader if reported. As usual there are the dinks that like to play the system in their favor even for nefarious reasons.


Your Sydney Channel 9 TV video guy Daniel Shaw ran into this a couple of years ago. He somehow picked up someone else's radio as he was parked outside a gas station. Google contacted him and had him kill his live feed until the music stopped. He live streams storm chases in the US during our spring and early summer when he's sent over here for his working holiday.

 

[pware]

He somehow picked up someone else's radio as he was parked outside a gas station. Google contacted him and had him kill his live feed until the music stopped. He live streams storm chases in the US during our spring and early summer when he's sent over here for his working holiday.

Now that is one area where local copyright laws can differ. I believe that under our laws, but I am prepared as usual to be proven wrong, any background music that is picked up as part of a live broadcast is exempt from copyright issues. This would give Google and other web media hosts the problem of which laws they should follow - the ones where the broadcast is being made or where the hosting servers are located

 

[Vern]

Dave is correct in the first part of his assertion but I don't necessarily concur with the second part! Yes it is a free for all, but that doesn't make it right. Taking someone else's work and passing it off as your own, with or without a couple of basic mods shows at best a complete lack of respect for the time and effort put in by the creator. These threads come up periodically and my stock answer is, so long as I'm around to give permission I have no objection to someone updating or improving one of my routes so long as they ask and provide credit to me as the original author. But as said, you do need to accept it's going to happen - no one at N3V cares (they've got your money for the Trainz versions you bought plus FCT's), half the "community" don't care so anything you create and do decide to share essentially becomes an exercise in philanthropy.

There may be something of a generational issue here, too. Now being in my mid 50's I was brought up in an era when respect for the property of other people was taught along with (leaving religion aside) the essential differences between right and wrong. Something that seems to be somewhat lacking in younger generations.

 

[JCitron]

Now that is one area where local copyright laws can differ. I believe that under our laws, but I am prepared as usual to be proven wrong, any background music that is picked up as part of a live broadcast is exempt from copyright issues. This would give Google and other web media hosts the problem of which laws they should follow - the ones where the broadcast is being made or where the hosting servers are located

Your law is much more logical. I think it's the music industry which causing the stink over stuff like this so rather than deal with the noise from them, Google just has the video stopped.

 

[RPearson]

It's always best to inform the original content creator if you think his work is being used inappropriately. Under most copyright laws he is the only one who can enforce his copyright.

As a practical matter he is also the only one who can say for sure that a license has or has not been granted to anyone to use his work and in what manner he has permitted it to be done. That's why the law(s) is written as it is.

Bob Pearson

 

[rgcx]

I don't get mad, but I send this guy to find your computer.

 

[rwk]

Is it possible for uploaders to "lock" the content like some official payware content is? That would prevent any modification or copying, as the locks disable the clone function and open for edit function. That would be the only way to stop them short of a legal threat, saying I'm going to talk to my lawyer, etc.

 

[cascaderailroad]

On the DLS you can by placing a line in the config file, like Dave Campbell's WOT SD70's ... then nobody can edit them ... and this is a PITA that comes back to bite you in the arse ... as you can not edit them ... so it is better to leave the assets alone, as they were ... and put up with the copy kats ... what harm are they doing to your assets by reskinning them ? Besides shameful reskins, and claiming the asset to be their work ... what harm does this really do ? ... Unless they are selling or making a monetary profit off of your hard works

No Big Deal ! Who really cares ?

 

[diecastgalore]

I spent a little time struggling to become a musician over the years. Musicians consider imitation the sincerest form of flattery, until it takes money out of their pocket. You won't find

many who have made it big in the music business who don't owe a debt of gratitude to multiple people who blazed the trail before them. Creating in 3d, whether it be for Trainz, MTS or

whatever, is no different. There are always going to be folks who were here first and came up with a model of something first. But you cannot copyright every conceivable notion that

someone else might have about your idea, only your own idea. So the next person who comes along bears some responsibility for either adding something or subtracting something to the

idea to make it uniquely their own. I would agree that sometimes credit is not given when it should be, but the reality is, none of this would be possible at all, without our ability to share

works, borrow ideas and concepts and evolve all of that into something slightly different. Without that, I suspect we would all be living in caves, and hunting with clubs.


I can certainly understand why someone would want to copyright their creations, and even charge for them. This stuff is not easy, and it takes quite a commitment as far as time, and

sometimes perseverance to complete these projects. I know firsthand, I've done a few, and I am full of ideas that went nowhere because the commitment is just too great sometimes to

complete them. But once I've hung it out there for all the world to see, if someone wants to expand on it, copy it, set it on fire, critique it, laugh at it, knock yourself out. I'll probably even

help you if you need it. But don't let me catch you selling it!

 

[davies_mike57]

Some Trainz members state in the licence of the uploaded KUID freeware if you are permitted to reskin or alter the work.
So it is best to check in the Trainz Content Manager the kuid licence (sometimes left blank) to what you can't or can do.