permission from creator

G

goomermatt

Member
Hi all
Is it ok to use the superadaptor to make a drivable ship and then put it on DLS.
So if I put my route on DLS it will be in the assets.
Without permision from the maker of the ship.
If I need permission how do I get it.
Don't want to get in trouble:(
Thanks for any help

Keep safe
Matt
 
Are there any EULA terms or a License listed in the ship's Config.txt file? What does it say?

Typical community thoughts are: You can not distribute someone elses work, without their explicit permission. (making someone else's scenery asset into a "drivable" assets, is NOT creating a new original, all your own asset.)

You can release the route you create without worry, as when you upload the Route, it does NOT automatically upload all of the dependancies, only the Route itself. What will happen is that those that download the route will just have a missing/unknown dependancy.
 
goomermatt;1812854Is it ok to use the superadaptor to make a drivable ship and then put it on DLS.[/QUOTE said:
I presume the ship is your asset.

Whether or not you require permission to use the superadapter depends on how it is used in your asset.

If it is included as part of the asset, as an item such as a mesh or script in the asset folder, then you must have permission from the content creator in order to include it with your asset. This permission might be part of a comment in the downloaded files, or it might be a comment in a forum post from the content creator, or it might be a comment provided to you by the content creator on request.

If the superadapter is used by referencing it from your asset, so the user still has to download it separately from the DLS (or somewhere else) and the only thing needed for your asset is the correct config.txt tag entries, then no permission is required.
Click to expand...
 
hi
thanks for your help
No the ship asset is not my asset
Just there are not many drivable ships on DLS
and have made a few with superadator.
And thought I may be able to pass them on.
Thanks Matt
 
The superadapter is free to use under the licence of the asset. The ship is an attachment referenced in the superadapter asset so should be able to get uploaded in the same way as a route because they are not uploading the ship only the supersdapter.
 
In the spirit of the thread, I have been making a few basic assets and uploaded to the DLS.
As far as I am concerned users can do what they like with the assets (improve maybe) :)
Do I have to add something to show this?
 
To post a model that is not yours, you must ask the author for permission, check the config to see if there is an e-mail address or send a PM if the author participates in this forum.
 
Ghost42 said:
As far as I am concerned users can do what they like with the assets (improve maybe) :)
Do I have to add something to show this?
Click to expand...

Yes. If there is no comment in the model (or elsewhere) about how the asset may be used then the assumption should be that the original content creator has retained all the rights, and the asset cannot be re-distributed. You can renounce any copyright rights over the asset (it becomes public domain) or you can retain copyright but provide permission to re-distribute. Permissions can have conditions like requiring that you be acknowledged as the original creator or that it only be re-distributed on the DLS, or similar. Whatever you choose, it should be clearly spelt out in the asset description, or in the license tag in the config.txt.
 
SailorDan said:
Yes. If there is no comment in the model (or elsewhere) about how the asset may be used then the assumption should be that the original content creator has retained all the rights, and the asset cannot be re-distributed. You can renounce any copyright rights over the asset (it becomes public domain) or you can retain copyright but provide permission to re-distribute. Permissions can have conditions like requiring that you be acknowledged as the original creator or that it only be re-distributed on the DLS, or similar. Whatever you choose, it should be clearly spelt out in the asset description, or in the license tag in the config.txt.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification, I shall add a comment in the the configs.
 
kuid <kuid:274806:100278>
username "Drivable Superadaptor Base"
category-class "AC"
interior <kuid:-10:172>
fonts 1
engine 1
mass 20000
kind "traincar"
enginespec <kuid:-1:42004203>
enginesound <kuid:-1:42003002>
hornsound <kuid:523:100433>
description "This is the vehincle adaptor base for any drivable Objects (such as cars, boats and planes, even people. For any of the help and set up, please refer to the DOC on the ArtTrain - Trainz site (at trainz-art-train.sixserve.net). Credit to Terry <cyberstorm> for the adaption"
author "Michael Harris <mikey186>
organisation "
contact-email "arttrain.com@gmail.com"
contact-website "trainz.art-train.sixserve.net"
category-region "00"
category-era "1990s;2000s;2010s"
trainz-build 2.9
license "This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. Please see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 for more information. Credit to <cyberstom> for the works."
 
SailorDan said:
...... Whether or not you require permission to use the superadapter depends on how it is used in your asset.

If it is included as part of the asset, as an item such as a mesh or script in the asset folder, then you must have permission from the content creator in order to include it with your asset. This permission might be part of a comment in the downloaded files, or it might be a comment in a forum post from the content creator, or it might be a comment provided to you by the content creator on request.

If the superadapter is used by referencing it from your asset, so the user still has to download it separately from the DLS (or somewhere else) and the only thing needed for your asset is the correct config.txt tag entries, then no permission is required.
Click to expand...

Now you know why a lot of us do not publish or upload. The lack of a common license and the myriad of intellectual property rules present a gauntlet of potentially legal complications that just aren't worth the risk. I author a LOT of content, changes in inherited scripts, config files and often add attached meshes or change mesh textures. (A recent example would be an attached mesh for some of Slugsmashers type 2 log skeletons and Bendorsey's YVRR log cars to add six additional load points to accommodate MLOG 2 x 16 foot log stacks and 6 x 16 foot logsets.)

I never publish or upload them. I do make the attempt to offer the changed (upgraded?) asset to the original author via a CDP file so that they can publish, and then waive my own rights. Sadly, many original authors are no longer active, or do not have the time to deal with older assets uploaded some time back, so few actually get published.
 
Last edited:
At least you are doing the right thing.

I don't know if we need a common licence as all a creator has to do is include in their description tag a simple statement such as "Free to modify and distribute" - they may even add "with acknowledgement to the original creator" if they wish.
 
Robert704 said:
The lack of a common license and the myriad of intellectual property rules present a gauntlet of potentially legal complications that just aren't worth the risk.
Click to expand...

It's not practical to force content creators into a common license. The 'myriad of intellectual property rules' is what provides the content creator with the ability to precisely control how their assets are used. But it doesn't need to be complex, and most content creators choose to keep it simple. Just read the comments included with the asset. Either it says nothing, in which case you can't distribute it, or it says what you can do. There are no 'legal complications' - it's just a matter of complying with what the content creator requested.
 
In the original thread the superadapter is the asset being uploaded and the ship just an attachment. They are not uploading the ship.
 
pware said:
At least you are doing the right thing.

I don't know if we need a common license as all a creator has to do is include in their description tag a simple statement such as "Free to modify and distribute" - they may even add "with acknowledgement to the original creator" if they wish.
Click to expand...

I am not so much talking about basic freeware licenses here. What about freeware that later becomes payware, or freeware that uses payware assets? What about content that is still on the download station, but the original creator has dropped support or left the Trainz scene entirely? I have a lot of early assets from TRS2004,6 days that I have kept up to date and brought up to current software revisions as trainz has matured. I cannot even get in contact with the creator in a lot of these cases. It would be very nice to have some sort of license waiver clause for assets on the DLC if support for them declined over time.

I am not so concerned with payware either because in most cases it is too content specific to be of use to me without the ability to modify it. But some of them (not all) are the ones that will come after you if you make a mistake and use an asset or part of an asset unintentionally without permission. I have suffered this before, and although that particular enterprise is no longer around, you only need to go through this once to get very gun shy.
 
Last edited:
Robert704 said:
What about freeware that later becomes payware, or freeware that uses payware assets? What about content that is still on the download station, but the original creator has dropped support or left the Trainz scene entirely?
Click to expand...

The rules can be applied consistently - there is no need to complicate things. If an asset is issued as public domain and also as payware they are two different items. You can distribute the public domain one but not the payware one: that they might contain similar or identical parts doesn't matter. Whether or not the original creator is still supporting the asset, is still participating in the forum, is contactable, is still using Trainz or is even still alive doesn't matter: the original conditions apply.

Any additional conditions applied to DLS content would simply discourage contributions. If a content creator wants to include a waiver in their permissions they can. That's the sort of flexibility in licensing that needs to be maintained.
 
Last edited:
It all sounds complicated, but in reality it isn't. There have been a few creators (plagiarists would be a better description) that have made the assumption that if they cannot contact the original creator, or he/she is no longer in the community (death or no longer active) then it is all right to use their work regardless of what is or is not in the config.txt file.

This obviously leads to disappointments and lost opportunities, as pointed out by Robert in the assets that he has updated from other creators, but unfortunately that is how it is. Even if we somehow introduced a new right to update condition that we all agreed to, it cannot be retrospectively applied to existing assets where the original creators cannot be contacted.

My opinions only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
How does one get permission from another?
Replies
7
Views
335
truguard
T
N
Help..Junction.SetDirection
Replies
5
Views
220
pware
P
H
Owner's permission no longer possible
Replies
6
Views
293
hkoster1
H
G
DMT TRC Crossing Self Build Traffic not restarting
Replies
12
Views
391
goomermatt
G
J
Clam1952 reskin permission
Replies
6
Views
778
Paulsw2
P
Back
Top