General Discussion

ninthnotch · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:36 am

Interesting reading.

As someone who is contemplating whether to change the policy on releasing and granting access to two major archival collections on the partial basis of assisting MSTS (and Trainz) modelers, this is of a serious concern.

I also plan to, in the future, purchase the MSTS product for my children and maybe even start to design some 3D models in the long-term of the more obscure wagons and carriages of the VR (if people haven't already done that).

As well as learning to fix the signals to look remotely like somersaults!

Anyway...

Part of the policy I want to set is allow (for a small fee, as these collections are expensive to manage) people like the members of Team-Alco or big_ed et al to use the images (and the copyright on those images) to build routes or rollingstock using these resources, so long as they credit the society or group who have maintained the archival collections when they sell their work.

My concern is that the people such as squeekazoid etc would not only be ripping off the original designer (who may well have obtained permission from Clyde Industries in the case of the CL/F - which gets interesting if the locomotive is less than 50 years old and has gone bust...) but ripping the group off. People who are stealing and demanding things also would make me reluctant to release such information.

That's an attention-getter!

Alltrains · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:14 pm

Ninthnotch in the likes of the CL/F the copyright owner is EMD it is not a Clyde Industries design but they were built out here by Clyde Industies under licence. If a company has gone bust then the copyright is still valid as someone could have purchased it when the company was wound up or someone has acquired it by some other legal means so therefore it is still a legal copyright and it does make it a bit more difficult to trace, but if a company is taken over by another company then the copyright transfers to the new company. Unfortunately you will always get people like squeekaziod who think that they can do what they like and get away with it but fortunately we eventually catch up with them and proceed with successful court action.
What I am trying to do here is advise those that are involved in the design of routes and the design of locos and rollingstock that if someone is trying to steal the design that they have worked on is do not threaten the offender with legal action unless they have all the documentation to prove that they can legally claim the rights to the design.
I do not want to see any of the designers leave this great hobby but if a complaint is lodged then I will probably be one of the investigators involved and we would have to ask the plaintiff for the written approval from the original copyright owner and if they could not provide it then we would be left with no option but to charge them as well as the person that they are complaining against.
I only hope that these comments are of help to those involved in the design of routes and the other objects involved in train simming and gives them a better understanding of the copyright laws.

gallop3 · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:57 pm

Interesting read there ninethnotch.
You will find that all organisations whom have helped us have either got credit or we have given donations and help towards their cause.
I agree with you that not too many do this.
We are here mainly because we love the hobby, or in my case what was a job I loved doing I cannot longer do due to permanent injury so this has become a hobby.
What little that is eventually made by the products goes back into exhibition fees, travelling expenses.
Somehow I think some think we waved the magic wand and we all ended up at Hurstville with half a ton of gear.
And yes we might be interested , though we do have quite a library ourselves.
Cheers
Ian.
ps If you are wanting a copy of MSTS we do have some , but we are having difficulties obtaining more, seemingly because of outside forces.
For this reason I wouldn't muck around .
Rest assured we will still be producing for MSTS for as long as there is interest which with the bin 1.6 addition will be for some time yet.

gallop3

superheatedsteam · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:37 pm

Alltrains,

Just from reading the G010 Introduction to copyright documentation the copyright in Australia is the life of the creator plus 70 years.

In that document under the section ‘What does copyright protect’ I could not find where a locomotive manufacturer would fit as a holder of copyright on their final product.

It will take me a few days to read through all the other documents. As this is your stock and trade could you please provide a direct link to documentation that supports your claim that a 3D modeller needs to obtain permission from the original builder of the ‘real world’ object.

If I understand your claim correctly any artist (including 3D artists) who paints, sketches or takes a photo of a locomotive, building, bridge, etc, and then releases it to the public as a photo, painting or 3D model has to seek permission from the original creator or the ‘real world’ object or they are in breach of copyright.

As a 3D model builder I am not copying the original material. For that I need 200 tons of steel and a workshop to die for. I am creating an artist representation of a real world object not copying it.

In FlightSimX for instance Microsoft would have had to approach the all the ‘copyright’ holders of all the real world buildings, bridges, towers in all 24,000 airports and surrounding scenery.

As a 3D modeller creating an artistic representation of a real world locomotive I have used a number of different sources. I contacted these sources and asked for and received their permission to use their copyrighted material which in my case are portions of their photos. I have contacted the PR and management of the railway I am ‘simulating’ and have advised them of my intentions and they have provided me with reference material.

Admittedly I have not asked the representatives of this company specifically for permission to use their company logos on my 3D models. I shall follow that up as I have not specifically asked for permission to do so.

Unlike yourself I have only a ‘working mans’ knowledge of copyright law. Once again could you please direct me specifically to the area in copyright law that obliges me to obtain permission from the real world builder/owner/creator/copyright holder if I wish to make an artistic 3D representation of their real world object. I do not wish to break the law or have legal action taken against me.

With thanks in advance,

Marek.

Alltrains · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:31 pm

Marek it is not the builder that has the copyright but the designer or the employer of the designer of the product who owns the copyright. In the case of the CL class EMD's own design dept of a designer that they commissioned and paid for have draw up the original plans for the loco. these plans come under Artistic.
I think that you will find everything that you want if you check the following G033, G086, G027, G075, G017, G073, G056, G028, G027, G051 and G058.
Don't be afraid of any of this I just hope that everyone will protect themselves from the likes of some of the smeggs that have been around and some of the things that have been said laterly that is threatening the good will of some of the people that do routes and models for others. I will admit that I am reasonably new to train simming and I am in the process of doing a route myself but I must rely on those with more experience than me to "supply" the models for me to use.

Alltrains · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:49 pm

Just to add a little bit more a person who designs a route automaticaly has a copyright for that route under the artistic section and therefore no one can copy any part of that route without the permission of the original "designer" but if a route "builder" uses items designed by someone else without their permission then they are in breach of the copyright law. There is a difference between a designer and a builder, the designer is actually the person that sits a designs an item and the builder is the person the builds the item from the other persons design. I hope that this clears up some of the things especially the young ones.

BuddyALX · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:37 pm

big_ed · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:44 pm

Thank you buddyALX for your apologies, you proved that you had the cohones to apologise and all is forgiven.
I will lay this to rest now.
Cheers Ed

superheatedsteam · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:03 pm

Alltrains,

Thanks for narrowing the list down. I will have a read and mull it over.

Trust me I’m not worried but I’m not convinced by your statements either.

The point I make again, which you did not address, is how do artists who paint or photograph an image of the Sydney city skyline for instance and then sell or give their work away get around this copyright issue?

What about the enormous number of 3D models of real world objects in Microsoft’s latest flight simulator?

In the two cases above I suspect it is highly unlikely that the artists and Microsoft even tried to get permission from all the designers or the employers of the designers of the real world objects they 'copied'.

I have downloaded and will read through the documents you listed and post back if I have anything more to contribute. Please note I’m a slow reader.

Once again thanks.

Regards,

Marek.

steam4me · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:09 pm

steam4me · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:13 pm

steam4me · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:17 pm

BuddyALX · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:48 pm

squeekazoid · ( Last Updated 18/11/2008 )

Alltrains · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:16 pm

sqeekazoid go and read a previous post of mine and read all the documents that are referred to as they are the things that are going to bring you before the courts and give you a hefty fine or imprisonment or both. Now go and read them.