PDA

View Full Version : Regarding nowayjose's supposed "Fairford Branch". (Uncredited Content.)



magickmaker
January 9th, 2013, 08:36 PM
I've been putting off posting this since Saturday when I found this route, but as the user has made no attempt to contact me back or acknowledge the private message regarding it, I'm going to put this here. The post serves three purposes. First, it is another attempt to contact the user regarding the content. Secondly, it is an explanation to those who private messaged questions about the donation ware Fairford route I am working on. Thirdly, it is an explanation of WHY you should always ask for creator's permission before uploading something you have changed or updated.

History:

Back in 2006 I started work on a bare bones representation of the Fairford Branch of the GWR. This route always caught my attention, though for reasons I'm not sure to this day. Something about it just seemed neat, perhaps the history around it, or the location, or something else. Over the course of several weeks, I created a rather accurate representation of the trackwork as it looked shortly before abandonment in the 70's. I even tossed some ideas out there on the forums of creating three versions of the route, which (interestingly enough) are my current inspiration for my donation ware "What IF" series.

I don't recall the exact reason, but shortly after getting the trackwork lined and down, and completing the Fairford end of the line, I gave up working on the route. I think a dead computer had a large part to do with it, but in the end I uploaded what I had; with the condition that anyone that finished it should contact me regarding it before uploading any work they themselves did to it. I then forgot about it for a time, before starting a rebuild of the line using Trainz 09. The rebuild was to fix a number of problems, not the least of which the utter lack of gradients on the line, correct the orientation of some key locations, and most of all, complete the work I had started in 2006. Once again, I lost that content (though I believe I have a .cdp somewhere in my 09 folder or on disc) and ended up forgetting about the route until last Saturday.

On Saturday, while searching for some GWR content for my new donation route, I stumbled across nowayjose's "Fairford Branch." It struck me interesting, thinking that someone else built the route themselves, and I decided to download it. Like I said, I love the line the route is based on, and thought this would be a nice change. Once I entered surveyor though, I started noticing things that didn't sit right with me. It wasn't until I reached Bampton-Brize Norton, that I was certain that this route was simply my route, with replaced tracks, and a few added things.

How was I certain you ask? Simple. The airport was in the wrong location.

When I first started building the route, I made the mistake of misunderstanding where the Airport that the railroad served, was. Basing off a black and white photo, I assumed the airport was on the right side of the track (facing Fairford.) What I didn't know, or at least what I didn't notice, was later on the same page, details that listed the fact that the railroad was unique because its trackage actually CROSSED the active Taxi Ways in several locations on the airport. The airport itself was on the LEFT and RIGHT side of the tracks, with the runways on the left (facing Fairford.)

nowayjose's route has the exact same mistake that I made, with the exact positioning of the airport where I had it. Had, as his description says, he used the website about the route, he wouldn't have made this mistake. What's more, there were few if any hills, save one outside Fairford. Once again, I remembered that I didn't have the elevations when I started work, and so my trackwork was largely flat. In fact, the 1% grade from Yarnton junction was missing, both in my original, and in nowayjose's. This is in contradiction to prominent photos and trackwork elevation guides on the website he claimed to have used. In my case, I didn't place elevations in because I expected to do them later. I just wanted to get a general idea of the route first.

Apparently, when nowayjose took my original route and downloaded it to "finish" it, he made the assumption that I had left the proper elevations where they needed to be. He only had to repaint things, change the trackwork and maybe update a few stations, and then he could upload the route as his.

Thing is, it's not his. The EULA of the DLS does state that you have to contact users of content you modify, update, or source material, and seek their permission before uploading. Even while I was not on the DLS, I checked my private messages about once a week at the local library and wifi hotspot. I received no request for permission.

As things stand, (at the time of my writing this) I have tried a number of ways to contact him. I had hoped, at the very least, for him to remove the content and simply update the credits to include information of the original work done by myself. I didn't want the content totally removed, as it's a pretty fair route. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but fair. Having said that, I've also given him a week from last saturday to respond to my private messages, in the hopes I could get through to him about my request that I've just stated. However, if I do not hear from him by midnight Sunday the 13th of Januwary, 2013, I am going to request through the helpdesk that the route be taken down as having been uploaded without permission.

To the users of the forums, if you know nowayjose or can contact him, please have him check his private messages and get back with me. While the private message is very strongly worded (not cursing, just seriously worded) the fact is I'd like to see the route remain with proper credit; but as I have said, if I don't hear from him, I'm going to do my best to have the route taken down. How that will affect the scenarios he created I do not know. I had no input or work with them, so they could stay. Those, at the very least, are his own creation. The route, however, is not.

fran1
January 10th, 2013, 03:17 AM
If he/she can't be bothered to contact you fire a complaint off to the helpdesk. That's the only way they'll remove it.

magickmaker
January 10th, 2013, 11:24 AM
That's my plan. I have a complaint with them stating that I've given them (meaning nowayjose) a week to contact me and solve this between ourselves, but if I hear nothing I'm requesting the content removed.