Abandonned assets and updating issues

As Trainz gets older, so do the Trainzers. Sadly some have left, either to other hobbies or to the great depot beyond the horizon. In either case, for those that contributed objects to the community, there is the question - what do do about them, the objects that is? Unless they were thoughtful and included a clause in the config file with instructions on what to do if they were no longer here (which could run to several paragraphs and become rather unwieldy) we need to have some agreed upon processes and procedures.

I see several cases.
The creator has given explicit instructions. This seems the simplest case. If there are any interpretation issues, and the creator has only moved on to another hobby, it might be possible to contact him/her and get a clarification. If he is no longer with us and barring a seance, we'll never know.

The creator has left no explicit instructions. Does copyright expire? When?

The object works fine in its original build X. It should stay as is. If an updated version is needed for newer builds, anyone could build a new object.

The object has warnings or errors in its original build X. What happens next? Obsolete it and provide a replacement? Create a brand new object and search and replace as needed?

All this on the DLS. What about those on 3rd party sites. The rules could be laxer, who would know? And if the creator's own site goes dark? Are objects there lost forever?

Copyright duration per country:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_lengths

If stuff is on the DLS, the majority can be fixed.
If it is on 3rd party websites, it will in most cases be lost forever when the website stops to exist, unless the author has made specific arrangements.

martinvk said:

The creator has left no explicit instructions. Does copyright expire? When?

Click to expand...

The link Oknotson posted explains it all. I see in the USA its the lifetime of the author/authors/group + 70 years.

martinvk said:

...What about those on 3rd party sites. The rules could be laxer, who would know? And if the creator's own site goes dark? Are objects there lost forever?

Click to expand...

As N3V has no rights nor the copyright to any of the content from 3rd party sites its a moot point. Nothing can be done to them.

Even if the creator's site goes dark, some "Self Appointed White Knight" can not just decide to upload them to the DLS as this could lead to legal problems for N3V as the Original copyright/digital rights owner did not willingly upload them nor grant rights to N3V for them. The original Copyright owner can legally demand their removal from the DLS.

Even if a 3rd party site closes they can not be forced to upload their content to the DLS. Tony Hilliam stated that they won't force anything to be uploaded to the dls.

Tony_Hilliam said:

Let me start by stating categorically that there will never be "forced" contributions to the DLS. Our overall goal is to provide the best possible experience for the largest number of users.

Click to expand...

Honestly the furor over third party sites is wasted energy. N3V has no control over them and and their assets, that is never going to change. They are here to stay as part of the content creation scene.

Fortunately, we, as route creators, have the option not to use items that have a good risk of disappearing out from under us.

n8phu said:

The link Oknotson posted explains it all. I see in the USA its the lifetime of the author/authors/group + 70 years.

Click to expand...

One of the problems with long lasting games. Something those here today gone tomorrow games never have to contend with.

As N3V has no rights nor the copyright to any of the content from 3rd party sites its a moot point. Nothing can be done to them.

Click to expand...

If objects residing on 3rd party sites stayed there it would be a moot point but when they get incorporated into publicly available routes, whether by design or by accident, it becomes a concern when they cause warnings and errors. The question is and remains, what to do about them? Not advocating any copyright violation here.

If the route creator is still active, they could be asked to remove and replace such unfixable objects. Especially if they didn't realize the objects came from a non-DLS site that can't or wont repair them. Or that the originating site went dark.

If the object is on the DLS, the creator could be advised that there is an issue that needs repairing. Only if the original creator is unable to or is not around anymore will there be a larger issue that needs to be debated and resolved.

n8phu said:

As N3V has no rights nor the copyright to any of the content from 3rd party sites its a moot point. Nothing can be done to them.

Click to expand...

What can be done to them depends on what rights the original content creator has assigned to others. It could be the whole of the copyright, or any specific rights covered by copyright. In the case of the DLS the original content creator has assigned to N3V the right to distribute the asset and to arrange with the community to repair the asset if required. That right continues for the life of the copyright. The original content creator might have assigned other rights to other people, or the estate might assign other rights to other people. It's not very complicated, and it doesn't really change when the original content creator dies, other than the person who actually makes the decision.

The route builder has presumably downloaded the items from the third party site so should either be taking steps to exclude them or making it very clear where to go and get them. However... this is in some respects similar to the discussion regarding inadvertent use of payware assets in a route, quite possible after a few months or years to forget where an asset came from and accidentally put it in a route. Some sort of segregation or colour coding in the Surveyor pick list to identify items that are not built in or from the DLS could be an answer.

martinvk said:

... <snippage> ... The creator has left no explicit instructions. Does copyright expire? When? ... <snippage> ...

Click to expand...

Just for the record, in the US, the expiration of copyright, and the enforcement of copyright are two very different things. It is true, that in the US (and most of the rest of the world now, too), by statute, copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator, with certain exceptions. For example, copyright in a work made for hire lasts for 125 years from the date of creation. If N3V were to commission someone to create content for them, they could negotiate an arrangement where the person agrees to surrender the copyright to N3V in exchange for appropriate consideration. This would be a work for hier. Most of the other exceptions do not apply to content for Trainz. However, the official position of the US government, as stated in US Copyright circular number 1, page 7, in the US, before a suit may be filed in a US court to enforce an action against copyright infringement, the copyright must be registered.

The last time I searched the US copyright records, I found no trainz content with a registered copyright. I may not have looked correctly, and the situation may have changed since I did the search.

ns

This seems to be getting over complicated, it's nothing to do with where the item is or copyright, it's about the original creator appointing someone to take over responsibility for their assets in the event that the creator is no longer able or wants to do so, which negates any concerns over copyright. The creator can decide the level of responsibility, as to whether this is at source level or just compiled asset level, distribution or updating etc or if it is DLS only or another location or both and maybe keeping a record at a central point somewhere, such as the Wiki as to who is the nominated person.

I'm pretty sure that the better run independent sites, better description than third party IMO, where there are a group of creators are involved are pretty much covered anyway.

No one is suggesting this is made compulsory.

I would think that wouldn't simply asking the heirs (family of the deceased) if it isokay for someone within the community to maintain and store the content creators assets. I'm sure with the good-will intention here that would be granted gratefully. The simply conditions will be that the assets are not to be altered other than to update date them as necessary to work in future versions of Trainz. Outside of that, the assets remain as they are in their then present state.

Where they are stored, well that's another ball of string to discuss.

I posted this in the tread advising the forum of Vinnybarb's demise. it did not attract much attention. Perhaps it may be 'on-topic' here.

I suggested consideration of the followingnsider these points.

Creativity. I have long felt that Trainz has given the average person the means to be creative and we retain a possessive interest in our creation, no less than an artist or author. When we leave Trainz, some may feel that their work should not be lost or forgotten

Mesh files. Storing these was briefly considered but discarded because of storage volume and cost. ( there are points to consider that I will list later)

Copyright. That is what this is all about. Assuming that our content copyright is the same as a painting or book, it is a fair bet that Trainz will not exist when the copyright runs out. This is what this discussion should be about. Take my caretaking of Herbert's content, he gave me the goods but I legally have no right to do anything with them apart from perhaps replacing lost items, because he did not transfer his copyrights. It may have been his intent but nothing is on record. When someone leaves Trainz, their copyrights go with them, they leave us with their hard copy but we have no right to change it.

The mesh and textures are the nucleus of our content creations, the rest is just words and this is how we work. We think nothing about copying the words but copyright constrains us from copying the real content. All this is as it should be and I am not suggesting it should change. However when someone leaves Trainz their creations are in limbo, they can be used but not rebuilt to suit game code changes. Even worse, if the content is hosted on a non-DLS web site, if the owner departs, the web site dies, and so does all the stored content.

I propose that we have a frequently updated list stored in several areas that contains the users instructions for the transfer of copyright in the event of departure from Trainz It would be entirely voluntary. I suggest that it could contain the following:-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trainz User ID

Assignee:-
N 3V
or
Alternative Person
or
Free from copyright

Trigger:-
Departure from Trainz
or
Death
or
Either

Statement:-

If I cease to be active In Trainz I direct that any copyrights I may have for my created content should be assigned as selected.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I realise that this may have no legal standing but as we are not considering anything of significant monetary value, I don't think that legality is a problem.

Finally back to the subject of mesh files and storage. If content is on the DLS and N3V are assigned the copyright then they can re-generate the original max file and rework it. If the creator does not use the DLS then the storage of his content is his responsibility. If all the creator's files are lost, then it is still possible for users with copies of the original content to host it or distribute it person to person, and even modify the original meshes and textures, provided that the 'free from copyright' choice is selected.

I believe that the disposition of a members creation should be selected by the member personally, prior to the triggering event.


Peter

narrowgauge said:

I realise that this may have no legal standing but as we are not considering anything of significant monetary value, I don't think that legality is a problem.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the legality is everything. In every jurisdiction I am aware of, this sort of testamentary distribution will not override the process of probate. You can't have separate documentation doing something different than what the executor's instructions are - ie, the will. Any other attempt at assigning the copyright post demise will be ineffective, and the copyright will remain with the estate.

It might be effective in providing guidance to the estate as to what they might want to do with a something that probably has no other value. But that guidance would be as much as could be done. That said, encouraging content creators to consider how their copyright property should be dealt with is certainly worthwhile.

Huh? You mean if someone gives away or assigns their Trainz creation(s), including copyright, while they are alive, then when their will is executed, it becomes null and void?

Martin

The words that SailorDan used were 'Post Demise' when the will comes into effect, however we are discussing 'Pre Demise' disposition which could not be affected by any instructions in the Will. If it did, it would affect a multitude of decisions made during the persons life and be totally unworkable.

Peter

martinvk said:

Huh? You mean if someone gives away or assigns their Trainz creation(s), including copyright, while they are alive, then when their will is executed, it becomes null and void?

Click to expand...

Please read the post. The reference was to the uncertain legality. Selling or giving away the copyright while the owner is alive does not create any legal issues at all - it's just like any other piece of property. What subsequently happens to the previous owner is irrelevant. It's only when the owner has attempted to create instructions for something that hasn't happened yet that the law dictates how it must be done.

narrowgauge said:

...If content is on the DLS and N3V are assigned the copyright then they can re-generate the original max file and rework it.

Click to expand...

The DLS upload agreement you sign only grants certain rights to N3V, it does not grant them the Copyright.

I think the only copyrights that N3V has to content are those produced for N3V in house, IE. PRR Fleet of Modernism, CNJ Blue Comet, Aerotrain, Etc.

narrowgauge said:

If content is on the DLS and N3V are assigned the copyright then they can re-generate the original max file and rework it.

Click to expand...

There was some very heated "discussion" on this point last year. It was triggered by a conversation between members of the Pioneer Council over the possibility of re-engineering a mesh file (and there are programs around that will do that from an .im file) so that LOD meshes could be created and added to an asset to upgrade it to T:ANE standard. For some reason the original creator was not contactable or was unable to do the necessary work. The consensus of the discussion was that the original mesh would not be altered in any way and that the creation and addition of the LOD meshes was within the N3V license for repairing/upgrading content uploaded to the DLS.

pware said:

The consensus of the discussion was that the original mesh would not be altered in any way and that the creation and addition of the LOD meshes was within the N3V license for repairing/upgrading content uploaded to the DLS.

Click to expand...

This sounds like a slippery slope.

I wonder whom decides and what is the criteria for needing to break meshes to fix them?

Breaking the mesh of an older asset just to add LOD? Even if the asset passes all error checking and isn't broken?

Hmmmm I think I will be watching my assets very closely.

n8phu said:

...
I wonder whom decides and what is the criteria for needing to break meshes to fix them?

Breaking the mesh of an older asset just to add LOD? Even if the asset passes all error checking and isn't broken?

Hmmmm I think I will be watching my assets very closely.

Click to expand...

It would be the CRG and only after the original author didn't respond to a request to update or declined to update.

Reverse engineering is a legitimate engineering tool. It's the purpose of the reverse engineering that can be questionable. Not adding LOD while fixing an asset just delays the problem.

n8phu said:

I wonder whom decides and what is the criteria for needing to break meshes to fix them?

Click to expand...

In the case discussed last year, no mesh was "broken" or altered in any way. The original mesh was recreated and then copied to create the LOD meshes that were required. The original asset, as created by the original author, would have been left untouched on the DLS. The updated asset would have been released as a new "repaired/updated" asset, with a new kuid, under the DLS repair scheme.