Atomic Systems

Open Question to the Moderators.

I have been monitoring another thread on the site that is currently gaining momentum. To date I have refrained from contributing to this thread as I have an issue with the original author concerning the passing off of other people's work as his own and, in fact, even attempting to copywrite this work to himself.

Before getting involved in an exchange with this person I thought I would seek clarification of the situation and invite comment. The subject up for discussion is to do with the production of Activities. Now I appreciate that activities may prove problematic to police as they are essentially a collection of files put together in a certain way to produce a scenario for the sim. This differs from, say, a locomotive that is an obviously identifiable model.

In the case of Activity Creation it has always been accepted that paths, services and consists will be used by other activity creators to make additional activities. I have absolutely no problem with this.

What I am seeking clarification on is when the Traffic File and Player path in a newly created activity are basically straight copies of something already released. In my opinion it is these files that give an Activity it's unique structure and individuality. To see these "templated", given a minor change and then passed off as someone else's work is, to me, unacceptable and no different to someone changing the number on a locomotive and then uploading the whole thing in their name.

At this instance I am not naming names (that may come later) but merely would be pleased to see what the UKTS stance on this is. I would expected the work of Activity Creators to be given the same "protection" as that of any other MSTS Content Creator. However that is a ruling for UKTS to make I suppose.

In the meantime I look forward to reading your reply.

Thank you. David

HI,

I second Davids motion and agree with him on all points.
I know, that this is not easily enforced - possibly impossible. But if enough pressure is excorted by the MSTS and/or UKTS community, cases like the one mentioned by Dave could be considerably reduced or possibly stamped out altogether.
Having said that, a strong willingness by the community is essential and people, who retord to such unpleasant measures, must be identified and measures, of whatever nature, should be taken.
Before I get to excited...

Greetings

Roland

*NeutronIC - Moderator note: Removed unnecessary comment*

Bear in mind that this is not an 'official' comment, but an observation or two from an interested, but largely uninvolved, user.

David, you say in your post that you have no problem with .pat, .trf, .srv and similar files from a published activity being reused by anyone else in another activity, but then you go on to make that reuse the core of your argument. I'm just confiused as to what it is you are seeking.

Do you want to prevent A.N. Other from writing an activity using 'templates' for want of a better word, already created by your or other writers?
Do you simply want proper accreditation for the files that have been reused?
(these two are not mutually exclusive, by the way)
Do you want a legal opinion? (Wrong place, I'm afraid, unless one of our users is a full scale legal eagle)
Or do you want an 'official position' to be taken by ukts so as to create a specific set of rules and in doing so, possibly find ukts in breach of copyright law? (bearing in mind the prevoious comment)

Copyright, as we are all well aware, is a sticky and thorny subject strewn with pitfalls for the unwary and a real minefield to negotiate. Just so we know what we're talking about, 'Copyright' is exactly what it sounds like - the right to copy (and by extension, publish and reproduce) a piece of non-tangible work. Nothing to stop you making a book, for instance; the copyright exists in what is IN the book, and the same rules apply to songs, music, paintings, photopraphs, and computer software.
As far as I am aware (and this is NOT a legal opinion) copyright automatically subsists in any intellectual work from the moment it is created, and that right remains with the original author, unless assigned to another legal entity by contract. However, copyright also exists in performance of a work, even whn licensed or the work itself is out of copyright, so I hold the copyright to MY rendition of Eva Vestov's Stripper's Lament, and YOU cannot reproduce it - but you can make your own version. Clear? I thought not; it keeps lawyers in business.

When it comes to the likes of activities, my gut feeling is that they should be treated in exactly the same fashion as any other trainsim property, be that a model, a route, whatever, though with a major reservation. The services, traffic patterns and similar should be seen as copyright of the original author and not reusable without permission; it is, after all, the interaction of these things that give the activioty its character. Paths, per se are a slightly different matter; after all, it's not possible to even play the game without a Path in existence, and for instance, to path a train from Lower Snodly to Bogfield may only be possible in one way. That, therefore, cannot be a unique creation. It's a little akin to saying that in creating a book, I've used words in a specific combination of circumstances; I cannot copyright the words as they are 'common property' but I can copyright the combination of circumstances. In similar fashion, the fact that I've made an activity which uses Picasso's model of the Slowe and Canardly 0-4-6T going from Lower Snodly to Bogfield is irrelevant to the copyright in that loco - but my copyright exists in the use of it.

So for what it's worth, I think Activites in full should be considered to be copyright, subject to permissions and licensing. The intellectual content of the activity should be similarly treated, but the simple Paths are effectively Public Domain.

Just my four penn'orth - and I'm quite willing to be shot down for it.


BarryH - thenudehamster

A difficult area i think and maybe one which could do with some clarification. Like Barry i got a bit confused by SpikeYorks post.

Im afraid im guilty of using other peoples paths and services in my activities. When it comes down to AI traffic it is way quicker to use a ready made example than make a new version (which may well be identical) of your own. Generally speaking I use it as provided originally and make no changes, not even to the name, but I confess I never get permission to do so. Should I have been? If I do make changes then I rename them, usually by adding my initials to the beginning of the name but keeping the remainder of the original. But again I never seek permission to do this in my activity. I thought that was the idea of the "Use as a template" function.

For the player service I almost always write my own service and path since, as SpikeyYork says, this is what really gives the activity its essential "difference". Once or twice someone elses idea has given me a similar idea and I have written my own version and given the original author credit for the idea. I say almost though, since there may well have been occasions where i have used someone elses service as the starting point for a variation for mine.

In the past a few people have come to me to ask for permission to upload a version of my activity, changed in some way, with either different stock or objectives. generally I've been happy to allow that subject to the normal accreditation.

So .... the straight plageurism of someones work - which i see as the taking of an existing activity, making (or not) a few insignificant changes, and uploading it as your own, is the misuse of copyright material. But i dont see that using the components of someone elses activity (AI traffic patterns/paths/services etc) in a new activity of yours is misuse of copyright. If I should have been getting permissions for doing that then I apologise here. If I'm the culprit (or one of them) please PM me immediately and i'll withdraw any affected work.

Hmmm...let's clarify a few things.

1) Laurie it is definitely not you. (I have a lot of respect for Laurie's work which is why I have named him now. However I will not be commenting on any other "Is it me ?" requests as that was not the point of the question).

2) Barry I did NOT say that I agreed with .trf files being reused as these can sometimes take days to create. However I agree that, in general, individual paths & services are issued to be shared. You could argue that the player path or service of an activity is a different matter but that might be taking things a little bit too far on my part. Your book analogy is appropriate in this case....I'm not asking for the words to be protected just the order that I have put them in.

3) Barry no I do NOT want a legal position. In fact the last thing I want to see in this thread is 47 different opinions on copyright law. At the moment I am just seeking a community and UKTS view on this matter.

4) To clarify my position let me list a number of scenarios. People can then comment on where they think a line should be drawn, if one should be drawn at all.

A - I upload an activity to UKTS. Later on another person uploads exactly the same activity with no changes and passes the whole body of work off as their own. Is this acceptable ?

B - I upload an activity to UKTS. Later on another person uploads the same activity with just the weather changed and passes the whole body of work off as their own. Is this acceptable ?

C - I upload an activity to UKTS. Later on another person uploads the same activity with the weather and the start time changed and passes the whole body of work off as their own. Is this acceptable ?

D - I upload an activity to UKTS. Later on another person uploads the same activity with the weather, the start time and the player loco changed and passes the whole body of work off as their own. Is this acceptable ?

E - I upload an activity to UKTS. Later on another person uploads the same activity with the weather, the start time and the player loco changed and has also added some loose consists and passes the whole body of work off as their own. Is this acceptable ?

I could go on by including minor timetabling changes (one stop added, one taken away etc) but has resisted at this point as I'm sure now that you're starting to get my drift.

In all 5 of the above examples A-E both the player path and the traffic file have remained unchanged from the original activity. It is my argument that it is these two files that are the heart and soul of an activity and to use these without either prior permission or accreditation is a "no no".

I do remember some time in the past an activity creator asking for permission to reproduce someone's modern day activities in the steam age. In this case permission was asked, the matter was debated, permission was given and, as a result, some great new activities were released with acknowledgements provided in the readmes. This is what I would have expected to have happened in this case.

In fact, far from acknowledging the work of myself and others, in this case the new "author" has actually gone one step further and written on both the download screens and readmes that the whole body of work is "copyright" to him. That is the straw that in my opinion has broken the camels back, particularly as the "author" hasn't been smart enough to remove my name from the files he has used.

Hopefully that clarifys matters a bit better.

No moderators up yet ?

David

Sunday, still all at Church !



I got back early from my sitting.

Definition of plagiarize from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Ninth Edition:

"plagiarize take and use (the thoughts, writings, inventions, etc. of another person) as one's own."

If we did this at University, the punishment is to be removed from the degree course and generally that means being shunned by the academic community for life. I have heard hundreds of excuses for why this happened, ranging from 'I was ill and needed to do it in a hurry' to 'didn't know it was wrong', but in every case the punishment is the same.

Slightly different in this case, but I'm just underlining the point about how seriously this is taken in modern society.

Regards,

Dan

Unless the work contains original material, created by the author, there is an infringement of copyright.
Using a template is making a copy.
This practice unfortunately has gone on far too long without a challenge, as mentioned previously models are easily identified for infringement.
Paths and services to the general user are seen as hidden and unnoticeable but to an Activity Creator any infringement will stick out like a sore thumb.

Kindest regards
Ray

Yes some of us are awake, but have real live things to deal with.
This whole mess is under discussion.
Please keep further posts to a minimum, as it only makes the situation worse.

Thanks

Glyn

This whole mess is under discussion.

I'm not sure that that description is accurate or helpful. I have simply asked a question and sought advice. I have no idea why you feel it is appropriate to call it "a mess".

Could you elaborate

Regards David

spikeyorks wrote:

This whole mess is under discussion.

I'm not sure that that description is accurate or helpful. I have simply asked a question and sought advice. I have no idea why you feel it is appropriate to call it "a mess".

Could you elaborate

Regards David

Hi David
I had assumed Glyn was referring to the 'strange' UKTS rules........rather than your specific problem.
The problem with rules and laws is there's always some smart . who will find the gaps.
Hell lawyers and politicians make a living at it.......and make us pay for the pleasure.
Cheers
Jon

I think that it is inevitable that many "new" activities will contain elements of existing activities, be it consists, traffic paths etc, the MSTS acitivy editor is designed to facilitate this. While I agree that it would be wrong to make only a minor modifacation and then pass off an activity as your own, what would be the point in re-writing a path from scratch if a suitable one already exists in your MSTS installation. If for example I decide to write an activity for a commercially produced route and use an existing traffic path am I infringing copyright if I then upload that activity to UKTS. I think not as long as overall the activity is recognisably different. Also uploading to UKTS does not involve any gain, it is essentially a group of enthusiasts sharing their files and expertise - it would be a shame if that spirit of co-operation was lost.

cambrian06 wrote: Also uploading to UKTS does not involve any gain, it is essentially a group of enthusiasts sharing their files and expertise - it would be a shame if that spirit of co-operation was lost.

Hi Brian
That has always been my stance...........unfortunately UKTS rules are different....but its true the loosers in the end, are the members.

David
I should add that you need to complain to Matt directly (unfortunately away ATM)....the offending files will then be pulled and investigated.
If you are correct and permission has not been granted then they will remain pulled.
Or untill an agreement is made, if possible.
Cheers
Jon

The moderators are looking into this at the moment and continued speculation is not helpful. If necessary this thread will be locked to allow us time to establish the facts.

Kindest regards

John

The main fact that david is trying to put across, that fellow activity writers know that other will use there individual paths from other writers, which seems fair enough, its seem a logical thing to do as not to fill up a paths folder with aload of identical paths with just different names to it, which in my eye's is seems fair enough.

David has mentioned that when it comes down to people that have just taken the complete traffic file, with x numbers of paths in it, which the person have spent x hours creating and setting up to appear at x time, to create there activity to run how they would like it to. Just to find that someone else has taken there own work and changed something simple like the player service and passed it off as there own blood and sweat. Without even contacting to the original creator to either ask permission or even give the original author credit for the work.

This to me is totally wrong. How would some of the skinners / builders like it if someone took there time and effort that they put into a build / skin to find that some has just changed the number on the loco or something then released it as there own work. Without any credit or permission given to do so.

There's got to be a line drawn somewhere.

I'm behind you 100% David