Most assets come with a license stating the terms of the copyright. However, there are some assets which appear to have no license - does this mean they are 'open' assets which can be reskinned and uploaded to the Download Station? Or is there an implicit copyright for all DLS items regardless of whether anything is explicitly stated in the config?
If the latter is true, I wonder if it's time to consider a subtle change to the N3V/DLS upload rules? At present when you upload an asset to the DLS, you give N3V implicit permission to redistribute it in their future payware. Should N3V add another condition that all registered Trainz users are permitted to reskin/revise assets uploaded to the DLS on condition that (a) such revisions are redistributed via the DLS and (b) unless the original creator explicitly prohibits this in their license?
That way, there would be an 'opt out' system for DLS assets - creators would have to expressly prohibit revision of their assets - rather than the current 'opt in' where permission has to be sought even if the creator has not set down any conditions.
The benefit of this approach is that assets with no or only a very minimal license, for which the creator subsequently leaves the community, would be available for revision rather than left orphaned on the Download Station.
I am currently chasing after several creators - one of whom appears to have no license on his asset - to obtain permissions for revised assets for my Lavenham route. It's got me tearing my hair out! :'(
Paul
If the latter is true, I wonder if it's time to consider a subtle change to the N3V/DLS upload rules? At present when you upload an asset to the DLS, you give N3V implicit permission to redistribute it in their future payware. Should N3V add another condition that all registered Trainz users are permitted to reskin/revise assets uploaded to the DLS on condition that (a) such revisions are redistributed via the DLS and (b) unless the original creator explicitly prohibits this in their license?
That way, there would be an 'opt out' system for DLS assets - creators would have to expressly prohibit revision of their assets - rather than the current 'opt in' where permission has to be sought even if the creator has not set down any conditions.
The benefit of this approach is that assets with no or only a very minimal license, for which the creator subsequently leaves the community, would be available for revision rather than left orphaned on the Download Station.
I am currently chasing after several creators - one of whom appears to have no license on his asset - to obtain permissions for revised assets for my Lavenham route. It's got me tearing my hair out! :'(
Paul