Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Abandonned assets and updating issues
- Thread starter martinvk
- Start date
NSWGR_46Class
Just call my Captain Rude
Oh yes they sure have
Hi All --
Very interesting discussion ....
However, I am thinking here ... with all of this copyright issue emerging out of folks brains', have anyone of you ever known anyone in these forums that actually in the real world went to an attorney, dropped a couple of thousand dollars just to ask in a formal letter request to N3V to release all of their works from the DLS, or action will be taken? ... Has anyone ever registered their work with the copyright office in their perspective countries?
I am just curious! :wave:
Ish
... have anyone of you ... [gone] ... to an attorney, dropped a couple of thousand dollars just to ask in a formal letter request to N3V to release all of their works from the DLS, or action will be taken?
That is the crux of the issue. I know of a person in business, who earned their income from their creative work, who had to abandon even that simple step because of the costs involved. The only people who profit from taking that path are the lawyers. I personally, have forked out a fair bit to be advised by a Barrister (a very expensive lawyer) that legal action in a matter against a relative would be a very expensive and only a short term solution to my problem - I decided against the action.
I have not heard of any Trainz content creator (outside of N3V) who makes their living from creating Trainz assets and putting them on the DLS. I doubt many (any??) creators are getting anything more than "beer money" (which is useful in itself) from Trainz payware, probably not even enough to rate as fair compensation for their work. Perhaps those who create content for the DLC may do the best because of the larger market. Personally, I don't know any Trainz payware sites - I know they must exist but I have never visited them.
This is a hobby. We rely on the honesty, integrity and ethical behaviour of Trainz users. There will always be a minority who act purely in their own self interest, or at best out of ignorance, and violate that trust. In all the cases that I have heard of, the "pirated" work is not for profit - so going the legal route will serve no-one but the lawyers.
If the pirates have used the DLS to post their work, then the original creator should follow the procedure outlined by N3V numerous times in these forums to have the work removed. For 3rd party sites who may be less concerned about ethics, the only practical approach we really have is to inform them (both the site and the "pirate") of their transgression and, if it persists, boycott them.
... Has anyone ever registered their work with the copyright office in their perspective countries?
I am just curious! :wave:
Ish
In the US you do not need to ....
It is not necessary to register a work with the U.S. Copyright Office in order for a work to be protected under copyright law.
From here: http://forums.auran.com/trainz/show...ets-and-updating-issues&p=1533575#post1533575
I really hope that people on this forum aren't suggesting to N3V that Content Creators Copyrights and rights be ignored just for their own interests. That would go very badly for N3V... I do not understand why N3V management hasn't spoken out and made their policy clear that they will not violate copyrights and digital rights and inform these individuals that they are in violation of the COC for advocating to N3V that they perpetrate such illegal acts and start handing out bans to those who do...
All that is happening by advocating such illegal acts is that you are demotivating people to create. 90% of Trainz Content is made by 3rd party content creators.
Im sure that such legal issues have been kept private as they should have been. There is always a first time. Do you want to be the one? I wouldn't.I second that with Ish, because I've been around here since 2004 and never seen that happen or ever came close to happening.
So what say you N3V? Are we going to have to put up with continued calls and hints by community members on the forum for N3V to perform such illegal acts, or will you show support for the content creation community and respect for the law as you have in the past?
Last edited:
That is the crux of the issue. I know of a person in business, who earned their income from their creative work, who had to abandon even that simple step because of the costs involved. The only people who profit from taking that path are the lawyers. I personally, have forked out a fair bit to be advised by a Barrister (a very expensive lawyer) that legal action in a matter against a relative would be a very expensive and only a short term solution to my problem - I decided against the action.
I have not heard of any Trainz content creator (outside of N3V) who makes their living from creating Trainz assets and putting them on the DLS. I doubt many (any??) creators are getting anything more than "beer money" (which is useful in itself) from Trainz payware, probably not even enough to rate as fair compensation for their work. Perhaps those who create content for the DLC may do the best because of the larger market. Personally, I don't know any Trainz payware sites - I know they must exist but I have never visited them.
This is a hobby. We rely on the honesty, integrity and ethical behaviour of Trainz users. There will always be a minority who act purely in their own self interest, or at best out of ignorance, and violate that trust. In all the cases that I have heard of, the "pirated" work is not for profit - so going the legal route will serve no-one but the lawyers.
If the pirates have used the DLS to post their work, then the original creator should follow the procedure outlined by N3V numerous times in these forums to have the work removed. For 3rd party sites who may be less concerned about ethics, the only practical approach we really have is to inform them (both the site and the "pirate") of their transgression and, if it persists, boycott them.
Hello, sir
Wonderfully said -- :wave:
And may I add ... In my opinion, this quote below from you, sir, should be printed on stone as an example of this discussion, because it's so true to the fundamental of this entire thread:
quote: pware
This is a hobby. We rely on the honesty, integrity and ethical behaviour of Trainz users. There will always be a minority who act purely in their own self interest, or at best out of ignorance, and violate that trust.
Ish
narrowgauge
92 year oldTrainz veteran
This thread seems to have strayed off-topic. This is what Martin posted:-
Copyright need not come into the matter, he was asking, as I did in a later post, how can we prevent content becoming lost or unusable when someone departs the game. How can we provide a process that allows the creator to record his wishes concerning the fate of the content he leaves behind? As the creator himself would be determining the conditions/distribution rights/subsequent ownership, copyright does not enter the equation.
Peter
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 need not come into the matter, he was asking, as I did in a later post, how can we prevent content becoming lost or unusable when someone departs the game. How can we provide a process that allows the creator to record his wishes concerning the fate of the content he leaves behind? As the creator himself would be determining the conditions/distribution rights/subsequent ownership, copyright does not enter the equation.
Peter
This thread seems to have strayed off-topic.
Copyright need not come into the matter.... How can we provide a process that allows the creator to record his wishes concerning the fate of the content he leaves behind? As the creator himself would be determining the conditions/distribution rights/subsequent ownership, copyright does not enter the equation.
Yes, and I must apologise for some (a large part?) of that wandering "off topic".
The issue is a difficult one because none of the assets on the DLS have an "inheritance" tag as suggested by at least one poster, so any decision or consensus we reach will not apply to them unless the creator is still active in the community or can be contacted without using a seance. I am not certain that such a tag, if ever implemented, will resolve the issue and I doubt, from some fairly recent and somewhat unpleasant legal experiences in the matter of family inheritance, that such a measure would have any legal standing. Courts can, and often do, ignore the last wishes expressed by a deceased.
narrowgauge
92 year oldTrainz veteran
I think we are overthinking this.
When a creator dies, do we really think that 'Dad's computer trains' will be of any interest? Our work that we are so possessive about has no real monetary or sentimental value. If 'Dad' leaves his creations to Joe Bloggs and 'Dad's' family want to possess them in memory of the dear departed, they contact JB and ask him to cease and desist and all JB has to do is to say 'OK' and forget the whole deal. Bear in mind, Joe Bloggs is acting in good faith, he has the creator's permission to assume responsibility for distribution of the content. With that in mind,, if Joe Bloggs starts to distribute the copyrighted content for no charge, what damages can the family claim that would make court action financially worthwhile. They, the family, have not been deprived of money in any way.
We are obsessing about copyright to an un-necessary extent.
Perhaps we should consider that we may be violating the copyright of the original designers of the prototype we are copying. Now that could be an expensive experience if that goes to court.
Please, let's work out a system first and then start to explore the implications.
Peter
When a creator dies, do we really think that 'Dad's computer trains' will be of any interest? Our work that we are so possessive about has no real monetary or sentimental value. If 'Dad' leaves his creations to Joe Bloggs and 'Dad's' family want to possess them in memory of the dear departed, they contact JB and ask him to cease and desist and all JB has to do is to say 'OK' and forget the whole deal. Bear in mind, Joe Bloggs is acting in good faith, he has the creator's permission to assume responsibility for distribution of the content. With that in mind,, if Joe Bloggs starts to distribute the copyrighted content for no charge, what damages can the family claim that would make court action financially worthwhile. They, the family, have not been deprived of money in any way.
We are obsessing about copyright to an un-necessary extent.
Perhaps we should consider that we may be violating the copyright of the original designers of the prototype we are copying. Now that could be an expensive experience if that goes to court.
Please, let's work out a system first and then start to explore the implications.
Peter
Copyright need not come into the matter, he was asking, as I did in a later post, how can we prevent content becoming lost or unusable when someone departs the game. How can we provide a process that allows the creator to record his wishes concerning the fate of the content he leaves behind? As the creator himself would be determining the conditions/distribution rights/subsequent ownership, copyright does not enter the equation.
No. Copyright is what it's all about. If the community is going to rely on 'the honesty, integrity and ethical behaviour of Trainz users' then it is critical that what constitutes honest and ethical behaviour can be clearly understood. That is why copyright is the issue - what can and can't be done within the rules of copyright is not only the standard that should be applied, it is a standard that is relatively consistent throughout the world. Whether or not it would ever be legally tested is not the issue - the issue is the standard that trainzers should be held to.
Ownership of the copyright continues regardless of whether or not the original creator is part of the community, and regardless of whether or not they are still alive or can be contacted. There is no way that trying to redefine those rights based on some idea of the content creator's current involvement can ever be regarded as honest or ethical.
No-one acting honestly or ethically can prevent that content from becoming lost or unusable if that's what the copyright owner chooses.
narrowgauge
92 year oldTrainz veteran
No-one acting honestly or ethically can prevent that content from becoming lost or unusable if that's what the copyright owner chooses
Agreed, no argument.
Now, how do we cater for continued availability and updating of a deceased creator's content IF HE CHOOSES (and his family concurs) to leave directions for it's disposal.
However, this thread was also about content orphaned when a creator ceases to have an interest in or connection to Trainz for any reason apart from dying. How can this be handled? What method can we provide that allows the creator to choose and record his wishes. Families and copyright do not seem to be pertinent to this case.
People new to Trainz like some of the posters here, will have no concept of the earlier creations that just disappeared when the creator ceased to be involved, something that I would hope we could prevent in the future.
Another thought, sites like Trainzone and others, hold and offer for download, content provided for them to distribute, mine included. Is it implied that when I die, my content on those sites has to be removed.
Peter
davies_mike57
Train Simulator Hobbyist
Trainz members:
The idea was to have older KUID's backward compatible with later versions of the Trainz product.
If any KUID asset is causing problems when running in the main Trainz program then would of thought that the N3V company must have some right on any modifications needed to enhance the product (wherever the asset is 3rd party, freeware or from any other source).
Sometimes have noticed kuid scripts files with missing colons, and commas and errors in the config.txt files when scanned with the PEV tools.
So if it listed on the DLS for freeware download there should be an option for members to modify and repair as long as N3V approve.
Just have to remember the big change from PM to IM graphics, and Bitmap images to TGA's ! in the product.
There are a lot of KUID assets and routes already listed for modifications or repair:
MY Trainz website:
Download Station Cleanup
By participating in the Download Station Cleanup process you are agreeing to the terms of the Download Station License Agreement:
Please note you are granted permission to repair and upload other users FAULTY content but you must obey the rules in which to do so listed under the "Faulty content" section of the Download Station License Agreement.
More assets should be added to the list.
The idea was to have older KUID's backward compatible with later versions of the Trainz product.
If any KUID asset is causing problems when running in the main Trainz program then would of thought that the N3V company must have some right on any modifications needed to enhance the product (wherever the asset is 3rd party, freeware or from any other source).
Sometimes have noticed kuid scripts files with missing colons, and commas and errors in the config.txt files when scanned with the PEV tools.
So if it listed on the DLS for freeware download there should be an option for members to modify and repair as long as N3V approve.
Just have to remember the big change from PM to IM graphics, and Bitmap images to TGA's ! in the product.
There are a lot of KUID assets and routes already listed for modifications or repair:
MY Trainz website:
Download Station Cleanup
| Due to the constantly evolving nature of Trainz, asset validation methods occasionally change. This can result in once valid assets becoming faulty in newer versions. As part of out continual effort to improve the Trainz user experience we perform error checking parses over assets on the Download Station and allow members of the community to repair those assets. This page serves as a portal to the current faulty asset listings and allows content creators to claim assets for repair. Your Repairs - display a list content you have claimed for repair. Public Listing - display the full list of content available for public repair. Upload Repair - upload a repaired version of a faulty asset. |
By participating in the Download Station Cleanup process you are agreeing to the terms of the Download Station License Agreement:
Please note you are granted permission to repair and upload other users FAULTY content but you must obey the rules in which to do so listed under the "Faulty content" section of the Download Station License Agreement.
More assets should be added to the list.
By participating in the Download Station Cleanup process you are agreeing to the terms of the Download Station License Agreement:
Thankyou for that Mike, I knew it was somewhere but, obviously, you are better at searching than I.
There are a couple of things of interest in that License Agreement that some of the posters in these forums seem to be unaware (although I recollect that they have been pointed out on numerous occasions in the past). The following sections are pertinent to the many parallel and circular discussions that have been going on in this thread. Some of these items are not strictly "on topic" but they do provide some useful background.
Grant of license
With regard to all your New Works uploaded to the Download Station, you grant to N3V a personal, transferable but non-exclusive license to those New Works in order that N3V can redistribute the New Works to third parties:
(a) by making the New Works available for download from the Download Station for free or for payment;
(b) by including the New Works on a CDROM or DVDROM (or other storage medium) that is made publicly available for sale or that is given away; or
(c) both (a) and (b).
Note the "for sale" and "redistribute" clauses in the above.
No conveyance
The grant of the license in clause 2.1 ("Grant of license") is not and cannot be deemed to be a sale, transfer or any other conveyance of your intellectual property rights held in the New Works.
Uploading to the DLS does not alter the creators copyright or intellectual rights.
Rights to remove
N3V retains the right to remove any or all of your New Works from the Download Station at any time and for any reason.
You can contact N3V and request that N3V remove all or any of your New Works from the Download Station but N3V is under no obligation to do so.
You can write all the letters you want demanding that your work be removed from the DLS, or pay a lawyer to write them for you (and you will quickly discover how much they charge just for the postage alone) but N3V are under no obligation to remove your works. N3V have repeatedly stated that they will remove works that are violations of copyright but only if contacted by the copyright holder - for reasons that should be obvious.
Faulty content
We grant any MyTrainz account permission to download any item of faulty content, create a new KUID2 version using the original UserID and ContentID, repair it in situ, and re-upload it.
You are not permitted to fundamentally change the content beyond what is necessary to make it compatible with the latest versions of Trainz.
This is the one that is probably the most important to this discussion. From my reading of this (and I do not have a law degree but I realise that common sense is no guide to the law), it does not matter if the original creator has or has not included an "inheritance tag" (or whatever) in the asset granting rights to the asset in perpetuity, if it is faulty or incompatible with the latest version(s) of Trainz, then it can be repaired or updated. As for continuing the development (e.g. adding new features) of assets whose creators are deceased, the second paragraph above would rule that out.
Last edited:
As mentioned above, it is not possible to assign property rights (and copyright is a property right) at death otherwise then through the legal process of a will. If someone included license terms like "When I die, this goes to ... (or becomes public domain, or whatever)" the executor of an estate can, in theory, pursue anyone who tries to claim the property. What CAN be done is for the Trainzer to direct the executor to distribute the property in a particular way. But only the executor can actually do it. So the answer to the question is "Encourage them to ensure that whoever looks after their estate distributes their intellectual property according to instructions, the same as they will do for the physical property".Now, how do we cater for continued availability and updating of a deceased creator's content IF HE CHOOSES (and his family concurs) to leave directions for it's disposal.
Unless the content creator themselves asserts that the property is now assigned, or released to public domain, or something else, there is nothing the community can do. The community cannot claim the property rights simply by deciding that some event has occurred, regardless of what the original content creator has said. However, an individual can. That is, the property can be assigned to another person, the assignment to become effective on the occurrence of some event. The assignee then becomes responsible for deciding that the event has occurred and for taking possession. Once they have done that, they can dispose of the property how they want (eg, according to the original creator's wishes).However, this thread was also about content orphaned when a creator ceases to have an interest in or connection to Trainz for any reason apart from dying. How can this be handled? What method can we provide that allows the creator to choose and record his wishes. Families and copyright do not seem to be pertinent to this case.
Finding someone who would be prepared to step up and say "I am prepared to be the nominee for anyone proposing to assign their property based on a defined future event, and to deal with it according to instructions" then becomes the difficulty. But that would have to be the mechanism.
That would depend on the terms on which is was original provided for hosting, but generally, No.Another thought, sites like Trainzone and others, hold and offer for download, content provided for them to distribute, mine included. Is it implied that when I die, my content on those sites has to be removed.
narrowgauge
92 year oldTrainz veteran
We seem to be focussing too much on what happens after death which is not really the greatest problem. The problem we should be considering is what happens when a creator leaves Trainz, having lost interest or changes job or many other quite normal reasons, and allows his web site to disappear and leaves behind an untouchable legacy of content that has become out-dated. I would confidently hazard a guess that there are many more live 'leavers' than there are dead ones. Death can come without warning but leaving is a planned choice, and that is what we should be discussing.
Obviously, whatever is proposed has to be voluntary. Perhaps something could be fitted in to the registration process.
Reading back through the thread, it seems to be filled with dire warnings about what can't be done for legalistic reasons but nothing is being proposed that we can work on.
Peter
Obviously, whatever is proposed has to be voluntary. Perhaps something could be fitted in to the registration process.
Reading back through the thread, it seems to be filled with dire warnings about what can't be done for legalistic reasons but nothing is being proposed that we can work on.
Peter
... what happens when a creator leaves Trainz, having lost interest or changes job or many other quite normal reasons, and allows his web site to disappear and leaves behind an untouchable legacy of content that has become out-dated.
This can quickly become a hornets nest. There are creators who have "left" the community only to return several years later, so what time period would be required before someone decides that the orphaned content is now "fair game"? This is an issue that clearly does involve copyright and, I would argue that however inconvenient it may be, the creator's copyright is not invalidated by her or his absence from the community, no matter what the reason.
If the orphaned content is on the DLS and becomes outdated then the current N3V licence agreement allows that content to be updated to be compatible with the latest version of Trainz. So no problem there.
Reading back through the thread, it seems to be filled with dire warnings about what can't be done for legalistic reasons but nothing is being proposed that we can work on.
Unfortunately, those legalistic roadblocks are factors that have to be considered in any proposal and will very much decide what "we can work with".
Everyone is getting the wrong end of the stick here!
It's nothing to do with claiming absent creators stuff without permission, it's about those of us who may wish to appoint someone else to look after our assets if we pack Trainz in for whatever reason and possibly creating a list somewhere.
So for example if I give up Creating and Trainz it will say who is looking after my stuff. Or put simply Creator A, nominates Creator Z to maintain and update their stuff on the DLS, no one has died! and Copyright is irrelevant as it is the creator who is still breathing and nominating someone.
It's nothing to do with claiming absent creators stuff without permission, it's about those of us who may wish to appoint someone else to look after our assets if we pack Trainz in for whatever reason and possibly creating a list somewhere.
So for example if I give up Creating and Trainz it will say who is looking after my stuff. Or put simply Creator A, nominates Creator Z to maintain and update their stuff on the DLS, no one has died! and Copyright is irrelevant as it is the creator who is still breathing and nominating someone.
Well yes and no. I agree that Creator A can, and should be able to, give Creator Z the right to maintain, improve upon and update their work in future. Of course, N3V or the web site where the work is hosted, will need to be satisfied and indemnified that this is actually the case. Although, going back to the original post ...
That was just one possibility. The OP raised other issues as well.
A large part of the [on topic] discussion in this thread has been about cases where no transfer of copyright exists (or can be found).
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.
That was just one possibility. The OP raised other issues as well.
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?
A large part of the [on topic] discussion in this thread has been about cases where no transfer of copyright exists (or can be found).
narrowgauge
92 year oldTrainz veteran
Everyone is getting the wrong end of the stick here!
It's nothing to do with claiming absent creators stuff without permission, it's about those of us who may wish to appoint someone else to look after our assets if we pack Trainz in for whatever reason and possibly creating a list somewhere.
So for example if I give up Creating and Trainz it will say who is looking after my stuff. Or put simply Creator A, nominates Creator Z to maintain and update their stuff on the DLS, no one has died! and Copyright is irrelevant as it is the creator who is still breathing and nominating someone.Malc
Exactly!!!!
If we can get this started we will have solved part of the problem. With this out of the way, we can then discuss the other aspects.
Peter
It has not been discussed as it's not an issue. If A, as copyright owner, gives certain rights in respect of the copyrighted property to Z, then that's between A and Z. It might be nice to have that publicly documented, but it seems to me in the past that it has been sufficient for Z to say that it has happened, if the question is ever asked. If Z ever needs to prove that more formally (eg, to N3V) they can provide the documentation. Copyright is relevant because that's what gives A the right to say what Z can and can't do. In particular, it means that giving Z those rights does not mean that copyright is somehow abandoned.Or put simply Creator A, nominates Creator Z to maintain and update their stuff on the DLS, no one has died! and Copyright is irrelevant as it is the creator who is still breathing and nominating someone.
It's the case where someone appears to have abandoned the copyright, and hasn't made any determination as to what the copyright status now is, that creates potential for problems. A common instance would be that they died and the executor overlooked the fact that they had useful copyrighted property that should be 'disposed of' properly, such as formally placing it in the public domain.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 298
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 306
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 488
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 876