Gramma's reskins of the RRMods GP40 still on The DLS

KJOAF

Member
I'm not sure if anybody else noticed this. But gramma's reskins of the RRMods GP40 models are still up on The DLS.

Here are the kuids:

<kuid2:542976:100200:1>
<kuid:542976:100898>
<kuid2:542976:100199:1>
<kuid2:542976:100203:1>
<kuid2:542976:100201:1>

Can N3V Please do something about this??
 
If you are the creator of those assets then you can ask N3V to do something about it.

If not then are you certain that the original creator has not given Gramma or anyone else a free licence to reskin and repost the assets to the DLS? Even if the asset contains the instruction "no reskinning, redistributions, etc" then are you certain that Gramma has not had a personal ok from the creator?

If you are convinced that plagiarism is occuring here then send a PM to the original creator to inform them of the situation.

N3V will not act on a claim from a 3rd party that an asset has been copied. The claim must come from the original creator.
 
Are you sure they're RRMods GP40s? :eek:

Amazing a loco with as many features and detail as theirs only has 25k polys...

Screenshot_2021-12-18_205541.png
 
Last edited:
Are you sure they're RRMods GP40s? :eek:

Amazing a loco with as many features and detail as theirs only has 25k polys...

This is why the original creator is the only person qualified to make the claim of copyright violation and N3V will not remove assets simply because someone else believes that they have been copied. Even if your suspicion is correct, the original creator makes the final decision.

While it is true that the particular user named has a "track record" in the past of copying the works of others without their permission, there was at least one case where he/she had legally, as per the creator's "open source" licence, made and uploaded reskins. But other users in the forum were calling for the removal of those legal copies purely because of the name of the uploader.
 
Last edited:
First thing to check before throwing accusations around is the config.txt, original author in config is MSGSapper

I would imagine the reskin is using this <kuid2:439337:100718:1> GP40 undecorated - read the description, as the original was a public domain version by prjindigo.
 
Being "100% sure" that a mesh "looks like it came from" someone else's mesh it not proof that it did.

If two mesh models of the same (identical) loco are built by different creators from the same plans or engineering specifications, then would they not "look like" they were the same?

Once again, only the original creator of the asset or mesh can confirm that.

Then consider Malc's post above.

I would imagine the reskin is using this <kuid2:439337:100718:1> GP40 undecorated - read the description, as the original was a public domain version by prjindigo.

If this is correct, then case closed.
 
The Prjindigo mesh was not used in this reskin. The mesh came from Joram24. As you guys can see, the dynamic brakes were apart of the textures and not the mesh.
 
Here's where the confusion comes from. This is from the config file for <kuid2:542976:100199:1> CR GP40-2 #3304, by gramma:
description "CR GP40-2 #3304"
author "MSGSapper"
contact-email "Removed to prevent spamming"
license "May not be used in or referenced from any commerical content.
All logos and registered trademarks are property of their copyright holders.

Author of this content takes no responsibility for any damage that this content may cause from it's use.
Content is provided as is.

Joe Ramos all rights reserved."
category-region "CA;US"
category-era "1960s;1970s;1980s;1990s;2000s;2010s"
trainz-build 3.7
category-keyword "gp40;ccle;locomotive;diesel;engine;msgsapper"

So, it's a reskin of MSGSapper CCLE GP40-2, which uses Joram24's mesh. And on the description for the CCLE GP40-2's on the DLS: This is a reskin of the GP40 EMD #182 made by Joram24. Dependencies for this locomotive are on the DLS. Models and Textures used in this locomotive were originally authored by Joe Ramos - Copyright 2004, 2005. My thanks to Joe Ramos for his outstanding and highly detailed locomotives which are available from http://www.rrmods.com.
 
Last edited:
I am surprised that Gramma's reskins of the RRMods GP40 were not taken down from the DLS.

Are you also surprised that MSGSapper's reskins of Joram24's GP40 were not taken down from the DLS?

We seem to be going around in circles here.

If you are so convinced that Gramma (and now, by extension, MSGSapper) have violated Joe Ramos' copyright then PM Joram24 to ask him. Complaining about it on the forums will do nothing unless the original creator can verify that the copies are unauthorised and makes a complaint to N3V.
 
Are you sure they're RRMods GP40s? :eek:

Amazing a loco with as many features and detail as theirs only has 25k polys...

[I]image removed[/I][/QUOTE]

that's the GP40 from the [I]old[/I] RRMods site, not the new one or prjindigo's one. the original model is freeware (though still probably in violation of a EULA regardless)
 
Are you also surprised that MSGSapper's reskins of Joram24's GP40 were not taken down from the DLS?

We seem to be going around in circles here.

If you are so convinced that Gramma (and now, by extension, MSGSapper) have violated Joe Ramos' copyright then PM Joram24 to ask him. Complaining about it on the forums will do nothing unless the original creator can verify that the copies are unauthorised and makes a complaint to N3V.

First off, I did not say that MSGSapper was stealing content. I was talking about gramma's illegal reskins of Conrail GP40s
 
As pointed out by Jordon412 in his post, both Gramma and MSGSapper may have made their reskins from the same original source, joram24. If this is correct then either both sets of reskins are unauthorised or they are not. Only joram24, if he is the original creator, can confirm or deny this.

I know of Gramma's past history in making unauthorised copies but I am getting the impression that he/she is being "tarred and feathered" based purely on a (deserved) reputation. Of course I could be wrong, but "looks like" and "probably", as described by 3rd parties, is not evidence of wrong doing.
 
As pointed out by Jordon412 in his post, both Gramma and MSGSapper may have made their reskins from the same original source, joram24. If this is correct then either both sets of reskins are unauthorised or they are not. Only joram24, if he is the original creator, can confirm or deny this.

I know of Gramma's past history in making unauthorised copies but I am getting the impression that he/she is being "tarred and feathered" based purely on a (deserved) reputation. Of course I could be wrong, but "looks like" and "probably", as described by 3rd parties, is not evidence of wrong doing.

I hear what you are saying. The difference is MSGSapper gets permission to reskin assets from different creators while Gramma does not.
 
There is a possibility that Gramma could have permission. If I remember rightly the original reason for him gaining the reputation he has (and rightly so) was that he to quote from someone on the original thread that was made about him: “This was a young user who didn’t realize he was doing wrong.” Or something like that. Since he began uploading again I am under the impression that he is now gaining permissions since he should definitely have learned that by now after what happened originally.
 
I hear what you are saying. The difference is MSGSapper gets permission to reskin assets from different creators while Gramma does not.
How do you know this is a fact? Gramma may very well have learnt their lesson regarding piracy and asked permission. It is also possible that YOU are in breach of the COC, by making accusations without proof. Maybe an email or PM to Joram24 to alert them to the issue would be more appropriate than a forum lynching.
 
On the rare occasion where I have come across a possible copyright violation on the DLS, my first action has always been to send a PM or email to the creator of the original asset alerting them to the possible problem. On one occasion they replied that they did not mind if anyone modified, reskinned or otherwise altered their work and uploaded it to the DLS for others to use. An acknowledgment to the original creator would be nice but was not compulsory.

This is the best course of action rather than posting in the forums that "so-and-so" has uploaded pirated work to the DLS, regardless of the past history of the uploader.

I strongly suggest that you send an email to rrmods or to joram24 to inform them of the possible breach of their copyright.
 
Back
Top