- Messages
- 454
- Country
Also the texturing should always be different but I guess the complain didn't mention that.
-
Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:
- Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
- Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
- Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
- Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
- Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
- Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.
Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.
By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.
Scenery Claimed
- Thread starter Zurib
- Start date
- Status
jtanabodee
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 3,924
- Country
If I were the thief, it is easy to modify that. I just drag some vertex far more than original model just a bit here and there.
But texture is another story, it is almost imposible the two teams will place the area of texture at the same place. Such one building is impossible to have texture at the same place in the texture sheet.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 454
- Country
Actually the best way to compare these models would be to ckeck the UVs. Very unlikely they get unwrapped the same way. I think Simmarket could have solved this issue very easily without too much drama.
- Messages
- 1,025
- Country
Coming from over 30 years background in film and entertainment law, means I’m well versed in copyright, patent and trademark law, it’s been a daily part of my work over decades.
When it comes to this issue there’s also the aspect of derivative work. Copyright involves the direct copying of an item, in other words an atom for atom reproduction if you will.
Say a developer makes a crate 1x1x1m in 3D software, they unwrap and texture it using industry standard techniques, someone else is completely free to develop their own 1x1x1m crate utilizing the same techniques. It’s not a violation of copyright, as it does not involve touching that author’s work. Legally it would fall under an artistic license and in the USA free speech laws have also been used as a defense (which is a little bit of overuse of free speech laws IMHO).
Now here’s where we need to define the difference between ethics and law. By law you are allowed to create a derivative work based off another work as long as it is substantially different. Playing devils advocate here for a moment. Say someone came along and ripped the crate model and texture, decompiled it and moved the vertexes and faces around, created their own texture (not using any bits from the original, or even if they did, the changed colors and made significant changes to the texture) it would, under law, be considered a derivative work. Companies understand this and don’t go after such cases as they know they don’t have a legal leg to stand on in derivative works.
I well remember numerous conversations with Digital Globe and other satellite and aerial imagery companies and each stated very clearly as long as you obtained imagery from them legally (usually involving purchase of data) and had the rights to use that data, users absolutely had the right to create derivative works for commercial and/or private use and they had no interest in what people did once they sold the data to them. The only time it’s not okay is if it is specifically stated in a contract that derivative works are not allowed (royalty free film, video, photo and graphics sites outline these very clearly, what is permitted and what is not). They go into detail about derivative works etc.
Getting back to the crate model. If someone came along and ripped a 3D model and used that as a guide to build their own model, and changing over a certain percentage of it or even creating something new and dumping the source reference data, it would under law fall into the derivative work category, legal yes, ethical, not necessarily. Being ethical is more important than being lawful. I have found in life, by study and experience, that walking in integrity matters and brings rewards. I have also seen that those who don’t walk in integrity, don’t reap rewards, but rather suffer harm and it ends up costing them more in the end. The old adage sums it up, you reap what you sow.
So getting back to the OP, I fully believe the original post author created his own airport, I would happily look at both datasets and compare and go talk with Miguel B about the issue to try and straighten it out. But even if the OP or anyone took an original design and reworked it significantly, it is by law classified as a derivative work, copyright infringement cannot be claimed, ideas can’t be copyrighted, concepts can’t be copyrighted. Techniques can be protected, but they fall under patent law. Trademarks can be protected but they fall under trademark law. Copyright law specifically is for copying things, without changing anything, be it video, lyrics, a riff, a line of text etc. Yet at the end of the day what is legal may not be ethical and people will know.
So if these Lebanese guys claim copyright, the onus is on them to prove a significant number of vertexes align perfectly with their models or the textures are copied (and it’s not a case of using the same publicly available data or images such as a logo etc), they’d need to prove they were first to build, and it would have to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it was copied. My mind goes back to patent lawsuits between Apple and Samsung when the smartphone revolution happened. Both sides filed against each other on various patents. If memory serves me correctly, a lot of cases were dismissed and those that weren’t spent years in litigation.
Unfortunately in the FS world (and life) there are bad apples who think they can control and manipulate others, they have no integrity and will copy your work and claim it as their own. I’ve witnessed flight sim companies stealing ideas and even down to copying business operations, tools, intellectual property etc, it happened to me. I couldn’t do anything about it but just get mad, feel injustice and figure out how not to trust people and learn to do it bigger, better and faster than the unscrupulous ones and stay out in front 10 steps ahead and be better than them.
Ultimately, we know in our hearts the difference between right and wrong, our conscience tells us in our innermost being what is right and what is wrong. We need to listen to that inner voice and walk in integrity, to be beyond reproach. Integrity means doing the right thing at all times, even when we think no one is watching.
At the end of the day it stinks for the original poster and I’m hoping Miguel will work with the OP and see his innocence. Unfortunately there are avenues also at play on an international level that I can’t and won’t get into.
When it comes to this issue there’s also the aspect of derivative work. Copyright involves the direct copying of an item, in other words an atom for atom reproduction if you will.
Say a developer makes a crate 1x1x1m in 3D software, they unwrap and texture it using industry standard techniques, someone else is completely free to develop their own 1x1x1m crate utilizing the same techniques. It’s not a violation of copyright, as it does not involve touching that author’s work. Legally it would fall under an artistic license and in the USA free speech laws have also been used as a defense (which is a little bit of overuse of free speech laws IMHO).
Now here’s where we need to define the difference between ethics and law. By law you are allowed to create a derivative work based off another work as long as it is substantially different. Playing devils advocate here for a moment. Say someone came along and ripped the crate model and texture, decompiled it and moved the vertexes and faces around, created their own texture (not using any bits from the original, or even if they did, the changed colors and made significant changes to the texture) it would, under law, be considered a derivative work. Companies understand this and don’t go after such cases as they know they don’t have a legal leg to stand on in derivative works.
I well remember numerous conversations with Digital Globe and other satellite and aerial imagery companies and each stated very clearly as long as you obtained imagery from them legally (usually involving purchase of data) and had the rights to use that data, users absolutely had the right to create derivative works for commercial and/or private use and they had no interest in what people did once they sold the data to them. The only time it’s not okay is if it is specifically stated in a contract that derivative works are not allowed (royalty free film, video, photo and graphics sites outline these very clearly, what is permitted and what is not). They go into detail about derivative works etc.
Getting back to the crate model. If someone came along and ripped a 3D model and used that as a guide to build their own model, and changing over a certain percentage of it or even creating something new and dumping the source reference data, it would under law fall into the derivative work category, legal yes, ethical, not necessarily. Being ethical is more important than being lawful. I have found in life, by study and experience, that walking in integrity matters and brings rewards. I have also seen that those who don’t walk in integrity, don’t reap rewards, but rather suffer harm and it ends up costing them more in the end. The old adage sums it up, you reap what you sow.
So getting back to the OP, I fully believe the original post author created his own airport, I would happily look at both datasets and compare and go talk with Miguel B about the issue to try and straighten it out. But even if the OP or anyone took an original design and reworked it significantly, it is by law classified as a derivative work, copyright infringement cannot be claimed, ideas can’t be copyrighted, concepts can’t be copyrighted. Techniques can be protected, but they fall under patent law. Trademarks can be protected but they fall under trademark law. Copyright law specifically is for copying things, without changing anything, be it video, lyrics, a riff, a line of text etc. Yet at the end of the day what is legal may not be ethical and people will know.
So if these Lebanese guys claim copyright, the onus is on them to prove a significant number of vertexes align perfectly with their models or the textures are copied (and it’s not a case of using the same publicly available data or images such as a logo etc), they’d need to prove they were first to build, and it would have to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it was copied. My mind goes back to patent lawsuits between Apple and Samsung when the smartphone revolution happened. Both sides filed against each other on various patents. If memory serves me correctly, a lot of cases were dismissed and those that weren’t spent years in litigation.
Unfortunately in the FS world (and life) there are bad apples who think they can control and manipulate others, they have no integrity and will copy your work and claim it as their own. I’ve witnessed flight sim companies stealing ideas and even down to copying business operations, tools, intellectual property etc, it happened to me. I couldn’t do anything about it but just get mad, feel injustice and figure out how not to trust people and learn to do it bigger, better and faster than the unscrupulous ones and stay out in front 10 steps ahead and be better than them.
Ultimately, we know in our hearts the difference between right and wrong, our conscience tells us in our innermost being what is right and what is wrong. We need to listen to that inner voice and walk in integrity, to be beyond reproach. Integrity means doing the right thing at all times, even when we think no one is watching.
At the end of the day it stinks for the original poster and I’m hoping Miguel will work with the OP and see his innocence. Unfortunately there are avenues also at play on an international level that I can’t and won’t get into.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 454
- Country
Well said,
I was also wondering if I might get in trouble for using logos of shops and other advertisement present at the airport I make? I did use gimp and photos I took to make them myself though but I still don't understand if they could come back and claim copyright on it for instance. My aim as any other developers is just to represent reality as much as possible. But you never know.
Regards,
I was also wondering if I might get in trouble for using logos of shops and other advertisement present at the airport I make? I did use gimp and photos I took to make them myself though but I still don't understand if they could come back and claim copyright on it for instance. My aim as any other developers is just to represent reality as much as possible. But you never know.
Regards,
- Messages
- 85
- Country
There's a clause in copyright law called 'Fair Use' that allows logos etc to be reproduced in certain circumstances without needing the permission of the copyright holder. This covers things such as logos appearing in the background of videos, and would cover the use of a logo in a scenery project. An exception might be if your entire project was purely one building owned by the copyright holder - Disney might have reasonable grounds to prevent you creating and selling a Disneyland scenery for example, but it wouldn't apply to the Mickey-logo shaped lakes if you created a terrain image of the general area that happened to include Disneyland. The same applies to logos found around an airport if you're recreating that airport.
- Messages
- 1,025
- Country
Thanks for that note on the 'Fair Use' clause about logos. I was wondering about that for Brisbane City that I'm working on. Australia it's not so much of an issue as the laws are clearly defined, and there's not a bunch of recently graduated lawyers trying to make a name for themselves with overzealous lawsuits unlike here in the USA.
That's the strange thing in the USA, in Las Vegas security guards claimed videoing the hotel exteriors wasn't permitted because they were copyright, but my understanding of copyright in the USA is that you can't copyright a building only the architectural plans. A quick research trip proves they can't prevent you from representing a building in photographs, video, or even recreating it for a simulator...
From Nolo (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-architectural-photos.html)
Basically in the USA (and Australia) you are free to model the airport or city or anything seen from a publicly viewable area. Example, you can film a building from the public street, but you can't step onto private property and film the building without permission.
Devinci, the guys you're dealing with seem to not understand the law. I don't know how things are in their country but if you didn't use any of their resources they're way out of line.
That's the strange thing in the USA, in Las Vegas security guards claimed videoing the hotel exteriors wasn't permitted because they were copyright, but my understanding of copyright in the USA is that you can't copyright a building only the architectural plans. A quick research trip proves they can't prevent you from representing a building in photographs, video, or even recreating it for a simulator...
From Nolo (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-architectural-photos.html)
Basically in the USA (and Australia) you are free to model the airport or city or anything seen from a publicly viewable area. Example, you can film a building from the public street, but you can't step onto private property and film the building without permission.
Devinci, the guys you're dealing with seem to not understand the law. I don't know how things are in their country but if you didn't use any of their resources they're way out of line.
- Messages
- 454
- Country
I didn't really get in trouble yet but I was just wondering about it. If anything I think that's free advertisement for them! lol!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 207
- Country
Not sure what is going on with MFSG but since this post has started, 10 of the previously available titles are now in limbo just like OLBA became at the beginning of its' release. I remember 33 titles were available and now just 23.
I don't have all the title names, but for example here is the Halifax page https://secure.simmarket.com/mfsg-halifax-stanfield-intl-airport-cyhz-2020-fsx-p3d-fs2004.phtml
CYYT, CYQB, CYTZ, and WMSA also are the same status.
Greg
I don't have all the title names, but for example here is the Halifax page https://secure.simmarket.com/mfsg-halifax-stanfield-intl-airport-cyhz-2020-fsx-p3d-fs2004.phtml
CYYT, CYQB, CYTZ, and WMSA also are the same status.
Greg
- Messages
- 35
Hello all,
I hope that you are doing fine, my name is Jad Abizeid, I find myself obliged to interfere in this forum and this thread in particular after a long absence from the design platform due to my real life challenges. I am still part of Lebor Simulations, more into beta testing than designing these days. I speak because I did the OLBA models for FSX and it took a lot of hard work and devotion vis a vis acquiring data, (can't imagine the negotiations and convincing it could take) modeling, and a lot of failed attempts to recreate the sloping runways to defy the MSFS engine not to mention creating textures. The work started in 2008 and was published in 2013, the finalization and fine tuning were performed by our lead designer.
I would just like to make it clear that we have no monopoly over our nation's airport being designed and released to the public, you might get into trouble taking pictures without permission but if you get away with it then good for you, that is about all. We do have an airbase at the airport and this is where things might get a bit sensitive security wise. Other than that anybody is free and welcome to create our airport. The conquering jargon does not exist in our books.
I would also like to point out that neither I nor Lebor Simulations suspended MFSG's product from SimMarket nor have we asked for this to happen, we sent a message that we suspect that our models and textures have been used, the suspension was their choice and their doing.
Mr. Syamsani was kind enough to provide his gmax files to compare with mine, he answered many of my questions and I give him a lot of credit for what he did, I still believe though that somehow a big part of his models is based on mine even if on a macro level things are not in place. It is really hard to understand how both of us came up with same bezels that don't exist in real and a couple if identical mistakes where he possesses a photo with a good angle showing the actual shape. (If you are wondering how come I did not have access to this place to take a snapshot my answer would be that the fire-station is considered military and we won't get clearance for that) similar minds we have don't we. His answer to one of them is that it was time consuming, creating a box and five simple pillars is time consuming. The project also took him three months to do from scratch, hats off for that, it took us more than three years while being physically present in the area on top we did it for free.
You are all developers here, I don't need to explain how things are done to understand that reverse engineering is possible, give me a model and I will send it back in 15 minutes where nothing is in place yet the shape as a whole is retained. I use rounded up measurements in my models, 5.25 meters for example, not 5.3734 meters, occasionally vertices would me moved a bit but not in every building height...
I will stop here because I have a lot of real life responsibilities and obligations and (for those who read the news) every Lebanese now is struggling to get a loaf of bread, and this issue here is really tertiary to me. When you create a model, you know it's yours. No, he did not convince me but I want to put this behind. I will send SimMarket a message today and hopefully they will release the product soon.
Stay safe and regards to all,
Jad
P.S. if someone is interested to read the whole conversation between myself and Mr. Syamsani (vs some extracts you see in this thread) I would be happy to share it, I don't come here often so it might take a while to answer back.
I hope that you are doing fine, my name is Jad Abizeid, I find myself obliged to interfere in this forum and this thread in particular after a long absence from the design platform due to my real life challenges. I am still part of Lebor Simulations, more into beta testing than designing these days. I speak because I did the OLBA models for FSX and it took a lot of hard work and devotion vis a vis acquiring data, (can't imagine the negotiations and convincing it could take) modeling, and a lot of failed attempts to recreate the sloping runways to defy the MSFS engine not to mention creating textures. The work started in 2008 and was published in 2013, the finalization and fine tuning were performed by our lead designer.
I would just like to make it clear that we have no monopoly over our nation's airport being designed and released to the public, you might get into trouble taking pictures without permission but if you get away with it then good for you, that is about all. We do have an airbase at the airport and this is where things might get a bit sensitive security wise. Other than that anybody is free and welcome to create our airport. The conquering jargon does not exist in our books.
I would also like to point out that neither I nor Lebor Simulations suspended MFSG's product from SimMarket nor have we asked for this to happen, we sent a message that we suspect that our models and textures have been used, the suspension was their choice and their doing.
Mr. Syamsani was kind enough to provide his gmax files to compare with mine, he answered many of my questions and I give him a lot of credit for what he did, I still believe though that somehow a big part of his models is based on mine even if on a macro level things are not in place. It is really hard to understand how both of us came up with same bezels that don't exist in real and a couple if identical mistakes where he possesses a photo with a good angle showing the actual shape. (If you are wondering how come I did not have access to this place to take a snapshot my answer would be that the fire-station is considered military and we won't get clearance for that) similar minds we have don't we. His answer to one of them is that it was time consuming, creating a box and five simple pillars is time consuming. The project also took him three months to do from scratch, hats off for that, it took us more than three years while being physically present in the area on top we did it for free.
You are all developers here, I don't need to explain how things are done to understand that reverse engineering is possible, give me a model and I will send it back in 15 minutes where nothing is in place yet the shape as a whole is retained. I use rounded up measurements in my models, 5.25 meters for example, not 5.3734 meters, occasionally vertices would me moved a bit but not in every building height...
I will stop here because I have a lot of real life responsibilities and obligations and (for those who read the news) every Lebanese now is struggling to get a loaf of bread, and this issue here is really tertiary to me. When you create a model, you know it's yours. No, he did not convince me but I want to put this behind. I will send SimMarket a message today and hopefully they will release the product soon.
Stay safe and regards to all,
Jad
P.S. if someone is interested to read the whole conversation between myself and Mr. Syamsani (vs some extracts you see in this thread) I would be happy to share it, I don't come here often so it might take a while to answer back.
- Messages
- 6,532
- Country
Now that we've heard from both sides. I'm closing this thread. This forum is not a place to conduct this type of accusation or defense. Take the issue up with SimMarket.
- Status