Ethics question regarding uploading scenery containing objects "made by others"

[old_wombat]

I have built a number of sceneries in areas on Earth where searches through the various downloads suggest are currently vacant. Various islands in the South Pacific, other places I am not yet ready to mention. So, I figure, maybe I could upload wot I have done, maybe other people might be interested in them???

 

The problem is, that I have used various scenery objects, that with the various MCX conversions, texture redrawing and subsequent renaming, extraction of single objects from multi-object libraries, installing, ADE-compiling, testing, etc, etc; that in many cases I have lost track of the original authors and their various readmes/lisezmoi files, so I am no longer cognisant of what I am "entitled" to do with them.

 

If I were to uplaod these sceneries, I would quite happily acknowledge (by item) the various objects in them as "not mine, done by others", with acknowledgements and apologies to the original authors, but of course not by their names. I have in fact downloaded quite a few things by various "authors" that have said this.

 

So, how acceptable is this practice? Can I consider uploading my sceneries with the above provisos?

 

Steve from Mudgee

[tvieno]

See if you can find again the original scenery objects you downloaded or try to contact the original author. But if I couldn't find it, I suppose I would have to omit the objects.

 

Slightly unrelated, I downloaded a piece of software that really helps out with creating AI flight plans, I mean, it REALLY helps out. Gold! I tell you. I have no idea where I got it. I have searched using the file name, etc, and I can't find it. Because I am not the author or see anything in the documentations that I am allowed to share it, I don't.

 

But if you do find your scenery objects and the original author of the objects has stated that you are free to upload, upload it and give credit. If the author doesn't say that you are free to upload, provide a link for the end user to get the scenery objects on his own and do not upload.

[Clutch Cargo]

The practice is not acceptable. Take the time to retrace your steps. Contact original authors. You may be pleasantly surprised how many may say yes for what you have in mind. Don't assume that because it was free in the first place and you can't take the time to trace who they were it must be "ok".

 

The fact that you posted this thread says a lot of good things about your intentions - just follow through.

 

Happy simming!

[old_wombat]

I HAVE sent out emails. A small number (very small) replied, said - yes, go ahead. No-one actually said no. But for others, not only does the email address not exist anymore (automated reply from the ISP mail admin), sometimes the ISP (eg, geocities) doesn't even exist anymore!

 

Doing a search for author (if I've still got the readme) reveals that some of them haven't uploaded anything, or posted on a forum, for 5 - 6 years. You'd really have to question whether they are still interested in any acknowledgement of their work. Or even if they are still alive, for that matter; and no, I don't think that's at all funny.

 

Steve from Mudgee.

[tvieno]

Doing a search for author (if I've still got the readme) reveals that some of them haven't uploaded anything, or posted on a forum, for 5 - 6 years. You'd really have to question whether they are still interested in any acknowledgement of their work. Or even if they are still alive, for that matter; and no, I don't think that's at all funny.

 

Steve from Mudgee.

 

That brings up a good issue and for some the jury is still out. Lacking a better term but what about Abandonware? What if the author has become deceased, to whom does the 'ware belong, their estate? Certainly not the community at large?

 

Then there is what do you do about it. You made an honest effort to try and contact the authors but were unable to contact them, so now what? Do you share and give credit?

 

What I would do is provide a link to the original download of the objects. If I am unable to find where I got the original software, I would do without uploading and look for alternate sources for the objects, or try to create them myself.

[old_wombat]

What if the author has become deceased, to whom does the 'ware belong, their estate? Certainly not the community at large?

.

 

This is a private forum, owned by Nels. When we joined, we ALL agreed to abide by its rules. I would imagine that should a member die with work uploaded here, then Nels would probably have the "right" to determine how to dispose of that property.

 

Steve from Mudgee.

[tvieno]

I was more referring to stuff you have on your PC.

[old_wombat]

Well, you may have seen, I asked the question on shoutbox and >24 hours later have received nothing but a deafening silence. Unlike say Google, who treat the matter of "ongoing rights of the deceased" very very seriously.

 

I'm going to go ahead on the basis of what is normally interpreted as "freedom". That is, anything that is not explicilty prohibited, is implicitly allowed. I do believe that in this context, that is the correct interpretation; alternatives to that are very difficult to believe indeed.

 

So I'm going to work to releasing what I think people might like to use. I will most certainly attribute where I can, and apologize and add/correct afterwards for where I haven't if someone picks me up on something. Like most of us, I'm not in it for the money, it will all be freeware, and my intentions are only to return a little of the goodwill that I have received over the years. I really really can't see that there's a great deal "wrong" with that. Ultimately, if the moderators don't like it, they can always delete it.

 

Steve from Mudgee.

[old_wombat]

Well, you may have seen, I asked the question on shoutbox and >24 hours later have received nothing but a deafening silence. Unlike say Google, who treat the matter of "ongoing rights of the deceased" very very seriously.

 

I'm going to go ahead on the basis of what is normally interpreted as "freedom". That is, anything that is not explicilty prohibited, is implicitly allowed. I do believe that in this context, that is the correct interpretation; alternatives to that are very difficult to believe indeed.

 

So I'm going to work to releasing what I think people might like to use. Where people have specifically asked to be contacted before modification, and I have not been able to do that, I won't use. Fortunately there's very few of those, and in any case that's all Airport-for-Windows vintage stuff, so all of that has been replaceable anyway:D

 

I will most certainly attribute where I can, and apologize and add/correct afterwards for where I haven't if someone picks me up on something. Like most of us, I'm not in it for the money, it will all be freeware, and my intentions are only to return a little of the goodwill that I have received over the years. I really really can't see that there's a great deal "wrong" with that. Ultimately, if the moderators don't like it, they can always delete it.

 

Steve from Mudgee.

[meshman2]

If the original designer has claimed a copyright, you may not reuse those objects without permission. If for some reason the original designer became deceased, the copyright would flow down the succession line for family and the likes. The copyright would not become "magically" transferred to whatever web site the original work had been uploaded to.

 

It seems you are trying to justify taking someone else's work and use it without proper permission. It's really quite simple, unless the work states that it is placed into the public domain and people are free to do with it as they like, then you must have permission to reuse and/or redistribute the work. No coulda, shoulda, woulda involved.

 

In the long run, you are free to do what you want. Whether you do the right thing, is the final question.

[loki]

In many, if not most, countries you do not need to claim copyright, it is automatically granted to the creator the instant they create their work (story, picture, software etc.). After that it is under the creator's control until they explicitly release it into the public domain, or the copyright term expires. One would need to look into the copyright laws for their own country for more details.

[tvieno]

But whose country is the internet? I might be mistaken, Steve from Mudgee is from Australia, does his country's law take precedence? What if the scenery objects author is from the US or the EU?

[old_wombat]

If for some reason the original designer became deceased, the copyright would flow down the succession line for family and the likes.

 

Well, you'd think, wouldn't you? As I said before, Google - one of the largest organisations in the world - thinks thats there's more to it than that. And acts on that thought. Apparently, getting access to a relative's email and other info on Google after that relative passes away is a legal and logistics jungle.

 

This is my whole point. The question of flow of copyright of software is a very murky one. There are conflicting legal precedents. Different laws in different countries.

 

From my point of view, the worst thing is that "common sense does not seem to apply". And some of the discussion here has been very anti-common sense. I mean, let's get real here. You upload something on this forum, what the hell do you think other people are going to do with it?????

 

I am, as always, going to do the right thing. I need a clear conscience to get my seven hours of sleep a night.

 

Steve from Mudgee.

[StringBean]

You upload something on this forum, what the #@$% do you think other people are going to do with it?????

 

Use it on their own computer, not modify it, customize it, then redistribute it.

 

Permission to redistribute cannot be implied. It must be expressed.

 

In this country I believe copyright continues to 75 years past the author's death, so if you can find some objects that old, go for it.

 

Regardless of local laws, the moral law should be "if you did not create it from scratch, you cannot distribute it without expressed permission".

 

peace,

the Bean

[tvieno]

^^^ yup (this is where a thumbs up would work)

 

Many a time I have downloaded an airport and fine tuned the original author's work. A couple of times I thought of uploading a 'fix' but decided against it for that very reason. But then I sat back and wondered how much work would I have to do to another's airport before I could take ownership of it. Mind you, I am talking of just a simple airport that was downloaded with modifications like aprons, taxiways, parking spots, and runways.

[old_wombat]

Know what? I'm not going to bother. Had you read what I actually wrote instead of getting on your high horses, I wasn't going to claim ownership of anything. I was going to explicitly disclaim that. But you've made it easy for me. I'm not going to upload anything. Like most people on a forum of this kind, I'm simply going to take, take, take. With a clear conscience. Because YOU are telling me that what I intend is "wrong". And anyone who ever searched for a scenery in an area where there currently is none, and could have had "mine", such as it might have been, will remain disappointed. But that's not going to be my problem, is it?

 

In the meantime, any of you who record a program off the TV coz it's on at inconvenient hour or you want to watch something else at the time, or buy a second hand copy of FS9 coz it's cheaper, or get a non-windows copy made of your FS9 disk four, or cut anything out of a newspaper or magazine for use in your childrens' projects, or download from youtube one of your favourite retro pieces of music because that's the only way you can now get it, or installed your one copy of FS on two computers, or didn't buy another copy of FS when you upgraded your computer... I won't go on. You are committing a copyright crime. And you know it. But that's not my problem, either.

 

 

Steve from Mudgee

[loki]

Copyright is about controlling the distribution of one's creations, not just ownership.

 

In the meantime, any of you who record a program off the TV coz it's on at inconvenient hour or you want to watch something else at the time, or buy a second hand copy of FS9 coz it's cheaper, or get a non-windows copy made of your FS9 disk four, or cut anything out of a newspaper or magazine for use in your childrens' projects, or download from youtube one of your favourite retro pieces of music because that's the only way you can now get it, or installed your one copy of FS on two computers, or didn't buy another copy of FS when you upgraded your computer... I won't go on. You are committing a copyright crime. And you know it. But that's not my problem, either.

 

 

Steve from Mudgee

 

Actually, most of what you bring up is either explicitly allowed under most copyright laws through fair use clauses (ie. time shifting or recording TV shows ), or is permitted through a licence agreement (installing FSX on two computers). Downloading music through YouTube certainly could be considered piracy, depending on the artist and country. People really should read up on their country's copyright laws. And if they don't like them, have a chat with their elected representative about changing the laws.

[Jim Robinson]

Know what? I'm not going to bother.

 

That's the exact conclusion I've come to in the last month or two with all this development BS. It's just not worth the trouble. I'm a simmer again and it feels good to just fly a damn airplane when I have some PC time instead of stressing about getting something done that's just gonna garner complaints and criticism anyway.

[tvieno]

You asked for advice in a public forum and got answers from six ways to Sunday. In the end, you can include other people's work but it boils down to respecting the original author's work. People can be pseudo-copyright lawyers and cite case law about this or that, but what is the actual likelyhood some freeware creator is going to hire a lawyer to drum up a Cease and Desist letter for you to read?

 

I see it this way, unless the work is payware or if the author explicitly says not to upload, bundle, or whatever, there is no implied request to "not share". It is just about respect and giving credit, when due. Fyi, when I used to upload sceneries, the objects were from known public object libraries.

 

If you don't want to upload your sceneries, that is your prerogative. Since wherever these sceneries are for there is no scenery, nothing gained, nothing lost. But know this, should you choose to upload them, you will find your sceneries on websites you have never been to despite having statements in the ReadMe not permitting that. So, even though you may respect another's work, someone else won't respect yours. Which is a large part why I rarely, if ever, upload my works anymore.

[scruffyduck]

It is not often that I feel the need to intervene in a thread here but I think the time has come. Discussions of legal issues have a tendency to become fractious. In the end as far as I know none of us are copyright lawyers and the only way to get a definitive answer is to ask one. Also the law changes from country to country. I think this is probably done.