Copyright Interpretation

[mmann]

The Alphasim F-101 Voodoo has been released as freeware. I was wondering if I could legally convert it to a static model, for use in a freeware scenery, based on the following copyright that this model contains.

+++++++++++++++++++++

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

These files are freeware. Please amend/distribute as you see fit.

The MDL files must not be back-compiled. This is forbidden under the MicroSoft EULA.

They are unsupported, so please do not e-mail us if you have problems.

Under no circumstances may these files be sold or uploaded to a payware site or any kind of illegal warez site.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Regards, Mike Mann

 

[arno]

Hi,

From their statement I would say no, since making it a static would involve compiling the MDL again. But I am not sure. Best advice is probably just to ask them. If it is for a freeware scenery it is quite likely they will allow you to use it.

 

[mmann]

Thanks for your view on this Arno; my take on this was the same as yours.

The confusing part is that the back-compiled reference is forbidden under the MicroSoft EULA (as opposed to Alphasim copyright). If this is so, then no one would be able to make use of a static model for any freeware/payware scenery unless the model was compiled as a static model from the outset.

Regards, Mike Mann

 

[Heretic]

Plan B: Do it anyways, but credit them.

And while you're at it, make a flyable FSX native version.
(Just kidding.)

 

[mmann]

Plan B would be okay if you weren't dealing with Microsoft, which employs enough lawyers to populate a small country.

Regards, Mike Mann

 

[=Hollywood=]

Best to just ask Alphasim

 

[FlyingMasterChef]

I have said this before... MS is NOT this big monster.... well, while they do suck beyond belief.... if you honestly think they care one fleas crap about you or what you do with one airplane that they did NOT create in the first place... seriously...

Think about the MILLIONS of people that steal MS Office, Windows, etc..... And MS doesn't actively go after those people.. And for them to sue you, would cost them more in legal fees (even just to send you a nasty letter would cost them 1000's of $ as they have to research you, what you did, what you did wrong, did you really do it wrong, did you not have the legal right to do it or not do it..and then pay the lawyer and the lawyers secretary to write and send you the letter....) than they would EVER recoup..

And yeah, trust me....this is ONE TOPIC I know very well what I talk about.. I am not saying anything is right or anything is wrong... What I am saying is that if you are worried about MS....then you probably don't want to look in your closet at night....or under your bed..


- Greg

 

[Heretic]

Plan B would be okay if you weren't dealing with Microsoft, which employs enough lawyers to populate a small country.

Well, to be nitpicking, there are already thousands of MS EULA infringements in the add-on libraries of the major flightsim sites.

So why would one more minor one matter?

And we're not even talking about an ACES/MS made model here!

 

[hcornea]

I have another point of view.

The writing suggests that they don't want this reverse compiled and repurposed.

How would you feel if someone did this with your work? (whether it is Microsoft or not is irrelevant)

If everyone does things simply becasue they can, or because no-one can or will pursue them for an infringment, then where does this leave us?

Lots of work went into this model ... it is not a fair call to simply nab it and use it without the express permission of the author.

Personally I would be extremely pissed off if anyone did this with anything I had made.

 

[rhumbaflappy]

Adding more fuel to the fire:

Why would any "back-compiling" of someone's model have anything to do with Microsoft? That would only be true if it were Microsoft's model.

But... Alphasim has forbidden the MDL de-recompilation, and that's that... unless you get specific permission from them to make a static model.

Regarding making static models from flying aircraft: it's usually best not to do it. You don't need all those polys for a scenery object. Better to make a new model from scratch with a low poly count. Alphasim should let you use their texture sheets as they are not MDLs.

Dick

 

[Heretic]

How would you feel if someone did this with your work? (whether it is Microsoft or not is irrelevant)

I would be honored that someone takes this kind of interest in my work - as long as I get credited for my contribution, of course.

Shooting the original author an email prior to release and showing him/her what you've done doesn't hurt, of course, but if you don't get a reply, it should be considered fair game.
Should you get an angry email from him/her afterwards, things can still be settled between both parties.

Even better if you ask for the source files in the first place as they provide an even shorter shortcut to any new uses and/or updates.


- Edit:

Payware is off-limits though. Except when you can strike a deal with the developer and publisher or something.

 

[hairyspin]

Shooting the original author an email prior to release and showing him/her what you've done doesn't hurt, of course, but if you don't get a reply, it should be considered fair game

No, it shouldn't be considered fair game. How long are you going to wait for an author to reply - a week, a month, six months? If the guy who did all that work is off on a tour of the Far East to celebrate an important anniversary and I haven't the patience to wait two months for an answer, that doesn't give me carte blanche in any shape or form. This is a recipe for antagonising other developers.

I recently asked another freeware developer for permission to include his sound set when I release my current project. I heard nothing and decided to give a link to the set with my model and continue to set up the model for that sound set. Not the tidiest solution, but it would do.

After a month I got a reply: the guy had been offline a while but would be delighted to have his sound set associated with my model. A much better result than antagonising him and spoiling a promising partnership before it could start.


Courtesy costs nothing but is still highly prized.
rant over

 

[FlyingMasterChef]

I have another point of view.

The writing suggests that they don't want this reverse compiled and repurposed.

How would you feel if someone did this with your work? (whether it is Microsoft or not is irrelevant)

If everyone does things simply becasue they can, or because no-one can or will pursue them for an infringment, then where does this leave us?

Lots of work went into this model ... it is not a fair call to simply nab it and use it without the express permission of the author.

Personally I would be extremely pissed off if anyone did this with anything I had made.

Guess it depends on how or why you create things.. EVERYTHING I ever create is open for whomever is using it to do whatever they want with it.. I don't care if they take my work and make money on it.. I ask one simple thing...IF they feel like, please give me credit.. But if they don't, my life won't end..and it won't make me NOT create more and give it away... It's simply not that big a deal to whine cry and get pissed about.

- Greg

 

[hcornea]

It is great to see so many free minded people here.

But re-purposing without permission, when the EULA clearly asks you not to ....

Clearly you guys wouldn't have worded things this way, but the original author did.

I think you would want your wishes (whatever they were) respected.

That is the point. Not the EULA itself.

 

[Francois]

I think the title of the thread says it all, already: copyright INTERPRETATION.

Simple.. there ISN'T.

Copyright is copyright and it means you cannot use/alter/distribute a creation according to your own rules... EVER.... unless:

ONLY when you get a clear and written permission of the copyright owner can there ever be a change in that.

 

[Heretic]

This is a recipe for antagonising other developers.

And if you never get a reply?

I don't get why you have to reinvent the wheel each and every single time if you could take a shotcut with a "May I...?" e-mail.

If the original developer's e-mail address doesn't exist anmore or my inquiry ends up in his spam folder for whatever reason and thus never gets read is frankly the other side's problem and not mine.

In case you throw out whatever you've made and the dev finds out and e-mails you, you can still clarify everything or, in the worst case, pull the files from the public sites.
But then again, why would one want to miss out on a bit of e-fame?

I don't care if they take my work and make money on it..

Actually, that's where I draw the line.

If I can do it for free, someone else using my stuff in their projects has to do it for free as well. Or pay me if he/she wants to make money with it.

 

[hcornea]

Silence is not consent. Certainly not in these cases, and rarely in any other non-emergency life scenarios either.

If you can't obtain an exception to the EULA, then the EULA stands. No matter how inconvenient that is.

 

[FlyingMasterChef]

Actually, read the copyright laws in the USA... There IS a limit to how long they last... and unless it is renewed and kept current, they DO run out... When you read or hear about copyright infringement cases that are dealing with something very old (ie..50 years, 100 years, etc...) it is because those rights have been designated to an estate...and that estate keeps them current... (music, literature, etc...) Technically, everytime you create a project that is NOT fake....meaning, you do a real airport, a real airplane, a real paint scheme, you are infringing on a legal copyright.. If you create a building in FS that looks like a real building, you have violated a copyright belonging to the architect of that building.. So please, don't play like you are all innocent of ever doing this....because unless every project you make for FS is totally fiction...then you are guilty..

Oh, and as I was pointing out at the start of this... The US copyright laws have just been modified... So most Eula's are pretty much garbage as of right now...

All that said, I am not going out of my way to break anyone's envisioned right to ownership on anything... Just pointing out the simple truths of the matter.. And yes, the creator/owner of something DOES have the responsibility to accept or decline someone using their stuff. And FYI, the courts don't care if you were offline for a year... If someone tries to contact you, and you refuse to reply, don't reply, can't reply...then permission can be assumed by that.. IF you wish to maintain your copyrights, you MUST keep a current method of contact for yourself or your legal representative.. This is all spelled out in the US copyright act. Any item appearing on any US server abides by the US copyright act.. Doesn't matter what country it originates in....so, if you want to play the game, know the rules...

- Greg

 

[hcornea]

I am not an expert in US law.

There is however a very large conceptual difference between a statute of limitations (and expiry of copyright for that matter) and assuming that a "non-response" is a tacit acceptance to infringe an existing copyright / intellectual property.

They are in fact completely different things Greg, and you would be very wise not to confuse them, lest you make a costly legal error.

I doubt that any FS creation has exceeded the amount of time that a copyright / patent lasts, so that particular argument probably has no currency here.

With regard to making buildings etc ... you are probably correct if you copied a blueprint of them, and possibly correct if anyone felt afronted at you making a likeness ... this has NOTHING to do with decompiling a model and using it against the original authors wishes, however. Totally different issue.

You could also make a reasonable case that a building in a public area is in "the public domain" ... and hence your likeness is no more or less illegal than a photograph or painting ... or a sculpture for that matter.

The other thing that is worth remembering is that there are "other" statutes and laws enforced in places other than the U.S.

The world does extend west past Hawaii and a long way east of New York!

 

[hairyspin]

...But then again, why would one want to miss out on a bit of e-fame?

Another anecdote then:-

One of our best CFS3 modellers (it was a while ago...) built a very fine VC for a freeware Hawker Hurricane. Looking at someone else's Hurricane VC some time later he thought it looked familiar .... and his textures fitted this model perfectly ... and the wireframe mesh was identical (we can check this in CFS3).

How the other guy got the mesh I don't know, but there followed an ill-tempered exchange on the forum: the other guy denied it could possibly be a rip-off, but the evidence was damning.

The original modeller went on to do payware for FSX - you'll have seen his work on the forums even if you haven't bought any, it's exquisite! The rip-off merchant? Nobody's heard from him in years and I've never seen any requests as to where his work can be found. If I don't have permission I still have to reinvent my own wheel.

There's e-fame and then there's notoriety; freeware developers have memories and courtesy still costs nothing.



And thinking about the EULA matter - I think what was meant was "no back-compiling as described in the MS EULA", it just wasn't very clearly phrased.