permission to use scenery in routes.

boeing126 · Post by **boeing126** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 8:36 am

If i download any scenery articles from uktrainsim do i still need the uploaders permission before including the scenery in a route?

johny · Post by **johny** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 10:25 am

Alan,

The scenery items etc that you download from the library are for you to use in whatever route you are building for your own use and generally do not require permission of the author/creator, there is no point in uploading them in the first place.

Problems can occur where a route you have constructed is offered for use by everyone, via download or cd-rom ordered from UKTrainsim. Here the convention is to obtain the author's/creator's permission and to list such authors/creators in the readme documention which should accompany the route.

If you are creating a route for commercial release you will find that most of the authors/creators stipulate in their documention that the item/s are for use in freeware routes only.

Hope this helps.

John

boeing126 · Post by **boeing126** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:25 pm

Many thanks John thats made things a lot clearer.

bigvern · Post by **bigvern** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:33 pm

I always made a point of sending a "free" CD to anyone who contributed too as I felt it was the least I could do to say "thanks" for their modelling efforts which mine couldn't even come close to.

The only time problems may arise, is if you can't get hold of the particular author, the only time that happened with me I'd already had permission to use the objects in a CD route previously so (rightly or wrongly) assumed the same would apply.

boeing126 · Post by **boeing126** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 5:11 pm

The question came up Vern because i added some scenery to the Carlisle-Glasgow route and used only msts default scenery for the patch but on my personal copy i added some platform buildings and some other stuff from the download library and being a learner wondered what the situation would be if i had included the platform buildings e.t.c. to the original patch without the uploaders permission.In a nutshell would it be out of order to include scenery in a route just because its in the download library?without first contacting the uploader?

bigvern · Post by **bigvern** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 6:02 pm

If it's in the download library and the route is solely distributed via this site, I guess you wouldn't have a problem. After all, not much point in making scenery and uploading it for route builders, if they can't then distribute the route (on here). It does get more complex where an "at cost" CD service is being considered, though many 3D modellers do clarify their view on this in their EULA's.

boeing126 · Post by **boeing126** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 7:36 am

Well i am being very careful Vern dont want to get into any bother from scenery uploaders.

Baily9531 · Post by **Baily9531** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 8:14 am

Think the thing to do is cover your back, if in doubt ask permission

JohnKendrick · Post by **JohnKendrick** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:52 pm

Most (but not all) people who upload models include a readme which says what the conditions for using the model are and whether permission is required.

Unfortunately however, some authors do not come back the the info one way or the other when asked! Now what do you do then?

John

mikesimpson · Post by **mikesimpson** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:53 pm

I have been downloading scenery items for the past three years, most of these items were put into a development route's Shapes folder so now there are no readmes left.

In many cases I can not remember who uploaded them in the first place, so when I released the Blue-Mountains route, I added thanks to those I knew about, and added a note of thank you to all those whoes shapes I had used but not named.

No one complained so I assume everyone was happy

In my personal opinion, if someone uploaded a model and did not intend it to be used, then why on earth did they upload it in the first place?

JohnKendrick · Post by **JohnKendrick** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 9:19 pm

I've just downloaded a model (not from UKTS) and the readme states:

This model has all copyrights reserved. No part of this model may be used for any purpose without written consent of the author.

What do you make of that? Without the read-me's you may need to be careful, but I agree, why upload a model if it "may not be used for any purpose." To me it sounds illogical, captain (read with a Spock like voice.)

It actually sounds like a waste of time uploading a model with those terms, and a cheek storing it on a Train-Sim server. If you're not to use it, why upload it?

John

boeing126 · Post by **boeing126** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:54 am

So what the uploader is saying "contact me for permission to use"even if you only want the file installed on your own computer.Seems to be an odd one that John? Like you say whats the point of him\her uploading it to a site?Taking it a step further whats the point of producing it in the first place?

bravedan · Post by **bravedan** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 7:02 am

As one who has Uploaded a few items, this is my reasoning.

Brian and I upload models to widen the availability for others of the "pool" of available items.

We often burn many hours over producing a model. While the impetus to choose a particular item is usually purely personal, we often widen uploaded output with variations which are not particularly "our scene", but which are not otherwise available to people. Sometimes this takes us longer than to produce the original livery, and just occasionally becomes a chore.

For example, I'd be quite happy running MSTS at home without ANY BR items, yet we usually bother to produce BR livery variants where valid. Look at our output, and bear in mind that I rarely use ANY of the BR period stuff we have produced.

We don't always put exactly the same copyright restrictions on our issued models, but the main reason we do is :-

1. To prevent uploading of the model to other sites.

2. To prevent their sale for profit.

and sometimes :-

3. To prevent unrealistic (using our personal definition!) clones appearing.

I think however there is a difference between scenery and rolling stock items. A scenery item, no matter how good, is nothing unless it's placed into a route with skill and is complementary to and supports all the other scenery times around it.

The "Value" of a scenery item is therefore in my opinion as much due to the route builder as the scenery creator.

I take my hat off to ALL Route Builders, I don't have the patience to fight RE that long, but only some have a real talent for placing scenery such that it produces a believeably "real" environment. It IS an art!!

We have not issued much scenery, but have passed out stuff behind the scenes. (Oops, Sorry!!). As far as I'm concerned, as long as no gain is made from it, any scenery I have been involved with is free for freeware use including upload in freeware routes.

If you spend six months or more producing a freeware route using thousands of scenery items, I think it's unreasonable to expect the Route Builder to make an individual credit for EVERY scenery item used in it.

Brian and I support Freeware Route Builders wherever possible, and have usually offered to produce "unique" or "local livery" stock variants for Route CD's.

Personally, I don't have ANY payware routes...........the available freeware being perfectly satisfactory for my uses. I have watched the drift within Flight Sim from Freeware to Payware, and I'd much rather it didn't happen here.

boeing126 · Post by **boeing126** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 9:03 am

Well thats clear enough Dave and reasonable too.

thenudehamster · Post by **thenudehamster** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:38 pm

I have to thank Dave and everyone else who gives time and effort to bring pleasure to the less competent of us. I'm the opposite of Dave in that I can lay track and fight the RE without too much grief, but I can't produce acceptable models of anything on screen by my own efforts.

The copyright, credits, and acknowledgements issue is complicated enough without having to find and credit everyone individually; if writers would accept a 'blanket' credit on the order of "I'd like to acknowledge, too, the creativity and generosity of all those authors who made their creations available for use in this route", would that satisfy the conventions?

I'd hate to see us get too tightly embroiled in legalities, and even worse, heading towards a majority of payware. This is one of the few purely altruistic endeavours left, where many of us spend a lot of time and effort just so that others get pleasure from it; I'd hate to see that philosophy die on the sacrificial altar of commercialism.