Is "ak_ruined pump station1.1" an illicit reskin of "Sugar mill 01 gate house"?

P

Paulsw2

Ambling on the slow line
Is "ak_ruined pump station1.1" an illicit reskin of "Sugar mill 01 gate house"?

ak_ruined pump station1.1, kuid2:439411:1009:1, by ak_timur has appeared on the Download Station and is definitely a reskin of Sugar mill 01 gate house, kuid2:68213:27018:2 by dinorius_redundicus. However, there's no acknowledgement, so I wonder if Deane knows?

Just checking!

Paul
 
He did credit Deane.

author "Deane Tunaley, repaint ak_timur"
contact-email "ak_timur(at)mail.ru; dxt333(at)hotmail.com" (I edited the email addresses so the spam bots don't get them).

John
 
Thanks for the alert. I wasn't aware of it.

He may well have credited me, but didn't seek permission to reskin and wasn't given permission. What can I do about this sort of thing?
 
Dinorius_Redundicus said:
...What can I do about this sort of thing?...
Click to expand...

I suppose you could be super polite and contact the chap by PM, he could have made a genuine mistake - but then he would have to request N3V to remove the asset from the DLS.

The other route to take is to simply advise N3V (via the helpdesk) of the circumstances and request that they remove the asset (his version) from the DLS. They may well know if this user has done this before and take appropriate action

Chris
 
Goes to show - only reason I found out was because I checked the mesh in AssetX to see what the asset looked like and then recognised the name of the mesh. It would be very hard to tell otherwise as it's basically a cube!

Paul
 
Paulsw2 said:
as it's basically a cube!
Click to expand...
I don't know the object, so just making this call based on this quote:

Isn't there a rule or common point of view that if you change an asset drastically, you are allowed to claim it as your own?
If it indeed is just a basic cube (open Blender, resize the first thing you see and done), you could say he changed the majority of the asset so is allowed to re-upload it as his own (but in this case was nice enough to thank for the cube).
 
The mesh hasn't been altered in any way that I can see. The only thing that have been altered are the textures, but these carry the same filenames as Deane's originals.

Paul
 
oknotsen said:
I don't know the object, so just making this call based on this quote:

Isn't there a rule or common point of view that if you change an asset drastically, you are allowed to claim it as your own?
If it indeed is just a basic cube (open Blender, resize the first thing you see and done), you could say he changed the majority of the asset so is allowed to re-upload it as his own (but in this case was nice enough to thank for the cube).
Click to expand...

I think that rule was only in relation to assets made by Auran/N3V. I certainly don't accept that logic in relation to my own creations. By the way, this particular one does have simple geometry (a box with recessed roof) but to me the geometry is completely irrelevant to the principles involved here.

In any case, I am in touch with Timur now and I will try to work out a solution with him that keeps us both happy.

~ Deane
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top