Free to Distribute Asset Library

[Acorncomputer]

I did raise this topic before but as I start on a new route with a major project planned for later in the year, I am keen to try and establish an asset library (particularly for RailWorks) where authors can place all kinds of content that they allow to be distributed freely with freeware routes.

This is probably one for Matt and the UKTS team to consider as other than one provided by RS.com themselves, UKTS is the obvious location for such a library.

This problem that a route builder has does affect everyone. It can take a long time searching through worldwide libraries for assets used in a route and if a route builder wants to minimise this searching, the choice of scenery and models he can use is very limited unless he can make some of them himself.

The whole process would be much better for everyone if the route builder could use assets from a library where the authors have given permission for these items to be distributed with the route. RailWorks does have this great facility of being able to package up everything into one file so that when the user installs it, everything is already there and ready to go. There is already some distinction as to what are protected assets, in particular the default items, but a library of free to distribute items would take away any doubt.

There were a few good points raised in the other thread on this topic but starting from scratch again, can we get some positive consideration from UKTS on hosting such a library?

[Neptune50006]

Maybe this sounds a bit draconian, but I think it should be made a condition of uploading items to this site that they are free to use in a freeware route without further permission. I also think the creator should not be allowed to remove the item/items unless a good reason is given to the moderation team.

[mikesimpson]

At last, sanity appears - I suggested this for MSTS many years ago, but the egos of model builders got in the way.

A separate section of the library to which freeware authors could post items which did not need any further permissions for use is a great idea. I hope this, at last, gets implemented.

Mike

[Trainguy76]

I hope this will happen, so there's no more need of searching for files on many different sites.

[Ryosuke]

i would certainly upload all the models i do for my route in such a library.

[wacampbell]

I think there could be a rule that if you use free-to-distribute assets on a route, then you must make the route free-to-distribute as well. ie people can take the route , add on to it and re- upload .. that way we would get a continuous improvement and expansion of the routes

[Trainguy76]

I think there could be a rule that if you use free-to-distribute assets on a route, then you must make the route free-to-distribute as well. ie people can take the route , add on to it and re- upload .. that way we would get a continuous improvement and expansion of the routes

Heres where it gets interesting,

A route is free to download and re-upload. Multiple people download it and reupload to different websites. Then people take that route and make changes and then say its theirs, or, people say it's "updated" but updated by them and not the original author.

Or another scenario is multiple people upload to the same site what they downloaded with changes being removing or adding a scenery item here there.

Bad news for the author.

[wacampbell]

Thats the point. If route builders expect to be able to take a model someone else created, use it without condition, redistribute at will etc, then they should be willing to distribute their routes under the same terms. Why should model builders have to give up all rights, without route builders doing the same.

[Trainguy76]

Im fine with people making changes, but not when they take credit for the whole route.

[dipper6]

Heres where it gets interesting,
A route is free to download and re-upload. Multiple people download it and reupload to different websites. Then people take that route and make changes and then say its theirs, or, people say it's "updated" but updated by them and not the original author.
Or another scenario is multiple people upload to the same site what they downloaded with changes being removing or adding a scenery item here there.
Bad news for the author.

But surely, they can do that now, that is, they get a route and do just that, the only difference id that they have to get the extras.
ASAIC, the topic of this thread is one of the best ideas to have been made anywhere, the hassle of trying to get some or all addons to routes puts people off
using them.
The people in UKTS have a golden opportunity to get that sorted once and for all so that routes come complete, just as commercal routes do, its anything but fun trawling the net for items.

[longbow]

You can't reasonably expect route builders to surrender all rights just because they use someone else's free to distribute assets.

Why not just have uploaders check a box on the upload window to say whether free distribution is permitted. I think you would need to define some sensible parameters for what this means though - for example, accreditation must be given and consent required for reskins or use in payware. These would expand the number of authors willing to release consent, without constraining most route builders.

[Bullet399]

this is what i'm using:

Copyright and Distribution
===========================

This Archive is released as Freeware. Copyright Michael Huebner.
As freeware you are permitted to distribute this archive subject to the following conditions:

- The archive must be distributed without modification to the
contents of the archive. Redistributing this archive with any files
added, removed or modified is prohibited.

- The inclusion of any individual file from this archive in another
archive without the prior permission of the author is prohibited.
This means, for example, that you may not upload an archive that uses
my visuals or models with your own or include it in a
package containing other items without first obtaining the author's permission.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exceptions are Freeware Route packages or Freeware Scenarios in a rpk/rpw package
For usage in Freeware Routes and/or Freeware Scenarios no further permission is needed.
It would be nice if the Author (me) is mentioned in the Readme of those packages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- No charge may be made for this archive other than that to cover the
cost of its distribution. If a fee is charged it must be made clear
to the purchaser that the archive is freeware and that the fee is to
cover the distributor's costs of providing the archive.

- The authors' rights and wishes concerning this archive must be respected.

[Acorncomputer]

The Free to Distribute Asset Library would have to have a set of conditions that everyone agreed to when placing assets into it. There could be no individual exceptions so if any author did not want to agree with the standard conditions then that is OK and their assets can be uploaded to a more conventional library.

To make this work properly, the conditions have to quite straightforward and easily understood by all.

From my point of view, the only condition I would place on my assets/routes is that none of them were included in commercial products.

[Ryosuke]

From my point of view, the only condition I would place on my assets/routes is that none of them were included in commercial products.

dito!